We’ve recently learned that HeinOnline’s “U.S. Congressional Documents” library offers browsable copies of the Congressional Record Index. Given proposals to axe many print copies of the Congressional Record, there is concern that, among other things, we could lose ready access to the great research tool that is the Index. Last year, we researched dozens of wilderness-related bills in the 1950s-1960s. Initially, title searching in Congressional documents databases did not identify them all, because a few of the earlier bills were captioned as “forestry”—a fact discovered by using the print version of the Congressional Record Index. So, we are relieved that HeinOnline has preserved the Index’s utility with browsable PDFs. To boot, they do a great job with metadata structuring. Each letter within an Index may be accessed via separate hyperlink. As one browses, the list of hyperlinks remains visible along the left of the screen, allowing for easy navigation. Thank you, HeinOnline!
Tag Archives: HeinOnline
The Index to Foreign Legal Periodicals (IFLP) has moved from the Ovid platform to HeinOnline on the Law Library Databases page. It used to be listed separately under “Foreign Legal Periodicals.” IFLP has the same content as before, but with much improved search capabilities. If you are looking for citations to articles about foreign countries or in foreign languages, the IFLP is a great starting point.
From the database description on HeinOnline:
The Index to Foreign Legal Periodicals is the preeminent multilingual index to articles and book reviews appearing in more than 500 legal journals published worldwide. It provides in-depth coverage of public and private international law, comparative and foreign law, and the law of all jurisdictions other than the United States, the UK, Canada, and Australia. The IFLP also analyzes the contents of about eighty individually published collections of legal essays, Festschriften, Mélanges, and congress reports each year.
Index to Foreign Legal Periodicals (IFLP) on HeinOnline
Although the lion’s share of today’s headlines focus on the results of the Iowa Caucus, there are a number of stories on Obama’s recess appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. [For more information on the Cordray appointment, read articles in the Washington Post, New York Times, and on blogs such as the Volokh Conspiracy etc.]
A number of the news articles reference reports and opinions that discuss the authority and scope of recess appointments.
Lucky for us, many of these items are available online.
HeinOnline has a great collection of U.S. Attorney General Opinions. There is an early Attorney General opinion, “Executive Authority to Fill Vacancies,” from October 22, 1823, and it available to us via HeinOnline. [“The substantial purpose of the constitution was to keep these offices filled; and the powers adequate to this purpose were intended to be conveyed.”]
Also mentioned in some news coverage is a 1905 Senate Report (S. Rep. No. 58–4389) titled, “Inquiry as to what constitutes recess of Senate.” This report, along with other House and Senate Reports, is available full-text (PDF) to us via ProQuest Congressional (formerly Lexis Congressional).
There are also quite a few CRS (Congressional Research Service) Reports on this topic. The ProQuest Congressional database includes many of these reports; searching the web will also direct you to OpenCRS, which is a great (free) database of many CRS reports. Of note, the 2012 CRS Report by Henry B. Hogue, “Recess Appointments: Frequently Asked Questions,” and the 2005 report by T.J. Halstead, “Recess Appointments: A Legal Overview.”
If you have questions about using these databases, please let us know.