7184 research outputs found
Sort by
Health - Certificate of Need
Full text linkThe Act primarily reforms Georgia’s Certificate of Need Laws by removing thresholds for healthcare providers, thereby enabling them to increase the availability of healthcare services. Specifically, this Act seeks to expand access to healthcare for rural Georgians by easing certain restrictions affecting the construction and expansion of hospitals. The Act shortens the time period for reviewing hospital applications while expanding the rural hospital tax credit program. The Act also includes provisions for increasing hospital bed capacity, extending the maximum distance certain healthcare facilities can relocate without a Certificate of Need, expanding rural hospital perinatal services, and exempting psychiatric or substance abuse impatient programs for Medicaid and uninsured patients from Certificate of Need requirements when an agreement is reached with a nearby hospital. Finally, the Act creates the Comprehensive Health Coverage Commission, which will advise the Generally Assembly, the Governor, and the Department of Community Health on the quality of and access to healthcare for low-income and uninsured populations. This includes recommendations on reimbursement, funding, quality improvement and service delivery enhancement opportunities
Education - Protecting Georgia’s Children on Social Media Act of 2024
Full text linkThe Act primarily functions to require age verification and parental consent for social media usage by minors under the age of sixteen and to terminate the use of social medias in schools. The Act further empowers the Department of Education to create model programs in schools to teach digital citizenship and curtail cyberbullying. In addition, the Act allows parents to request information about their child’s social media use
Suspicion as Safe Harbor
No full textThe Fourth Amendment is supposed to protect civilians from the police. Ironically, the Fourth Amendment also protects police by creating a safe harbor that insulates them from constitutional speech and race discrimination challenges. Sauslying the Fourth Amendment\u27s requirement of individualized suspicion goes far in foreclosing claims under the First Amendment and Equal Protection Clause. This is odd given the entirely different purposes the three constitutional provisions serve. The Fourth Amendment protects privacy and liberty while the First and Fourteenth Amendments protect speech and equality, respectively. This Article demonstrates that the safe harbor\u27s existence rests on two premises. The first premise is that police deserve a presumption of regularity because they generally rely on race and speech in a narrowly instrumental way to achieve crime control. The second premise is that the police exist to control crime and that this supremely important state interest justihes discrimination that might be actionable without a safe harbor. Both premises are incorrect. Police discrimination based on speech and race is pervasive and harmful to people of color, the poor, iconoclasts, and other disfavored groups. The police\u27s putative crime control mission cannot justify those harms. The safe harbor ought to be eliminated as a matter of principle. Doing so is likely to have only modest practical effect because of the police\u27s ability to evade judicial review. This suggests deeper constitutional problems with policing that can only be addressed through institutional redesign
Symposium on the ICJ Climate Change Advisory Opinion: New Impetus for Climate Non-Refoulement Cases in International Court Advisory Opinions
No full textCoups and Punishment in the Constitutional Order
No full textThis Essay examines the historical and constitutional foundations of an anti-coup principle in the United States, emphasizing how state-level prosecutions deter and can appropriately punish election subversion. Tracing its roots to English constitutional history and the Glorious Revolution, the anti-coup principle rejects arbitrary executive power. It underscores the need for accountability to sustain democratic norms against presidential self-coup conspiracies. Highlighting how presidential systems are vulnerable to autocoups, the Essay argues that the decentralized nature of American presidential elections and constitutional provisions, such as the Guarantee Clause, empower states to act as guardians against authoritarian threats. It further explores the historical evolution of voting rights through state constitutions. The Essay illustrates states’ foundational role in protecting free and fair elections alongside the federal government, which supports using state prosecutorial power to punish wrongdoers who conspire to overturn lawful presidential elections. The Essay concludes that preserving democratic institutions requires cultural safeguards and the active enforcement of accountability mechanisms at the state level, ensuring that no individual or group undermines the rule of law and citizens’ right to vote with impunity
HB 582 - Defenses to Criminal Prosecutions
No full textThe Act permits criminal defendants to introduce evidence that they are survivors of family violence, sexual abuse, or related trauma in support of a justification defense. It amends various Code sections to provide for the admissibility of such evidence, clarify the applicability of justification defenses, and establish evidentiary standards. The Act also creates privilege protections for communications made between victims and their abuser, provides civil immunity for facilitators of those dialogues, and imposes a uniform oath requirement for peace officers statewide
SB 12 - Inspection of Public Records
No full textThe Act adds the definition of ‘custodian’ for the purposes of public records requests to make clear that a custodian is the agency that has control over such public records. Further, the Act states that all requests for public records must be made to a custodian. As a result, when an individual submits a public records request, the request goes to the government entity rather than directly to the business from whom the record is requested. This diverges from the previous statute which allowed public records requests to be sent directly to private Businesses
