{"id":11562,"date":"1968-04-01T21:26:08","date_gmt":"1968-04-02T02:26:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/?p=11562"},"modified":"2020-07-03T17:27:21","modified_gmt":"2020-07-03T21:27:21","slug":"vol-3-no-2-spring-1968","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/vol-3-no-2-spring-1968\/","title":{"rendered":"Vol. 3, No. 2, Spring 1968"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>3 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev., No. 2 (Spring 1968)<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"text-decoration: underline\">Articles<\/span><\/p>\n<p>RENEWAL IN THE GHETTO: A STUDY OF RESIDENTIAL REHABILITATION IN BOSTON\u2019S WASHINGTON PARK<br \/>\n<em>David R. Gergen<\/em><\/p>\n<p>RECEIVERSHIP: A USEFUL TOOL FOR HELPING TO MEET THE HOUSING NEEDS OF LOW INCOME PEOPLE<br \/>\n<em>Albert Rosen<\/em><\/p>\n<p>THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965: AN EVALUATION<br \/>\n<em>L. Thorne McCarty and Russell B. Stevenson, Jr.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"text-decoration: underline\">Recent Cases<\/span><\/p>\n<p>DISCHARGE OF A POLICE OFFICER FOR INVOKING THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION. <em>GARDNER v. BRODERICK<\/em>, 29 N.E.2d 184 (N.Y. 1967)<br \/>\n<em>Joseph Coyne<\/em><\/p>\n<p>FELON\u2019S CHALLENGE TO STATE LAW DISENFRANCHISING FELONS HELD NOT TO RAISE SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL QUESTION. <em>GREEN v. BOARD OF ELECTIONS OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK<\/em>, 380 F.2d 445 (2d Cir. 1967)<br \/>\n<em>Stephen B. Moldof<\/em><\/p>\n<p>VAGRANCY LAWS INVALID AS TOO VAGUE AND AS IMPROPER EXERCISE OF POLICE POWER. <em>FENSTER v. LEARY<\/em>, 229 N.E.2d 426 (N.Y. 1967); <em>Alegata v. Commonwealth<\/em>, 231 N.E.2d 201 (Mass. 1967); <em>Baker v. Binder<\/em>, 274 F. Supp. 658 (W.D. Ky. 1967)<br \/>\n<em>Mark Budnitz<\/em><\/p>\n<p>RESIDENCE REQUIREMENT FOR WELFARE BENEFITS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. <em>THOMPSON v. SHAPIRO<\/em>, 270 F. Supp. 331 (D. Conn. 1967)<br \/>\n<em>George J. Hayward<\/em><\/p>\n<p>FAILURE TO NOTIFY REGISTRANT OF TIME HIS CLASSIFICATION TO BE CONSIDERED AND TO ALLOW HIM TO BE PRESENT CONSTITUTED DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS SUFFICIENT TO ACQUIT HIM ON CHARGE OF FAILING TO REPORT FOR INDUCTION. <em>UNITED STATES v. THOMSON<\/em>, Criminal No. 66-309-W (D. Mass., Dec. 4, 1967)<br \/>\n<em>Joseph Remcho<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>3 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev., No. 2 (Spring 1968) Articles RENEWAL IN THE GHETTO: A STUDY OF RESIDENTIAL REHABILITATION IN [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":10129,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1492],"tags":[],"coauthors":[924],"class_list":["post-11562","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-volumes"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/peZrWS-30u","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11562","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/10129"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11562"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11562\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11562"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11562"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11562"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=11562"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}