Suchergebnisse

"The times," wrote Bob Dylan in 1963, "they are a-changin'." One hundred years after formal emancipation, blacks in 1963 were beginning to see the end of laws that prevented their full participation in American society. The United States Supreme Court had struck down the separate but equal doctrine, Congress had passed the first civil rights legislation in seventy-five years, and the executive branch was enforcing the law. Anthony Lewis wrote in the mid-1960s that "[n]o one could doubt that the conscience of America has been seized by the injustice of unequal treatment because of a man's skin." A women's liberation movement also grew with publication in 1963 of Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique. A year' later, blacks and women gained new legal rights with passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The times were changing, and marginalized groups began to feel the winds of social progress at their backs. This Symposium addresses the state of civil rights progress in America as a new Presidential Administration takes office. During the twenty-five years since passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, including eight years of the conservative Reagan Administration, the civil rights agenda has undergone a profound re-evaluation. In the articles that follow, this Symposium examines the premises of the conservative philosophy on civil rights and considers four specific areas of civil rights concern: Housing, voting, employment, and women's status in the work-place.' Like a state of the union address, the articles are partisan, some-times passionate, and they do not address all areas of concern from all points of view. They add to the debate without ending it.Although the authors in this Symposium fall on both sides of the political spectrum, each believes that the civil rights agenda can still achieve social progress.

In 1984 the President's Commission on Organized Crime concluded that money laundering was the lifeblood of organized crime.'The Commission found that drug traffickers and racketeers exploited weaknesses in the Bank Secrecy Act to launder much of their income,estimated by one source to be 150 billion dollars annually. In response,the Commission recommended legislation to strengthen currency reporting laws, to extend the investigative powers of federal agencies, and to create a new money laundering offense.' This new legislation would hold criminally liable persons who conduct a monetary transaction with knowledge or reason to know that the funds involved were derived from unlawful activity. The Commission intended the offense to reach those who perform "ministerial duties" necessary for money laundering, but the broad language of the proposed legislation threatened anyone who received and banked money derived from illegal activities. The broad reach of the Commission's offense had ample precedent in laws proscribing the receipt of stolen property. The crime of receiving stolen property typically imposes liability on anyone who knowingly receives property belonging to another with an intent to conceal it from the true owner; the crime does not require complicity in the underlying theft.' Despite this precedent, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) vociferously opposed the new legislation, arguing that the money laundering offense would expose innocent people to criminal liability. The NACDL was particularly concerned about the potential liability of attorneys who receive tainted funds from clients.The NACDL argued that the "in terrorem" effect of the statute on lawyers would deprive defendants of their right to counsel of choice, cripple the adversary system, and radically change the criminal bar." These arguments did not persuade the United States Congress. A version of the Commission's proposed offense passed the House and Senate in October 1986 and was enacted as section 195712 of the ...