7184 research outputs found
Sort by
We the Citizens? : A Corpus Linguistic Inquiry into the Use of People and Citizens in the Founding Era
Get PDFThe last Amendment included in the Bill of Rights, the Tenth Amendment, states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”1 Employed as a tool to invalidate statutes2 and also interpreted as a “truism,”3 ultimately the Tenth Amendment has largely been regarded as an Amendment which explicitly secures what the Constitution sets forth in its structural framework: that the United States government is a federalist system, meaning that it is one of shared powers between the national government and state governments. However, a closer examination of the Amendment reveals that a portion of the Tenth Amendment—specifically, its last three words, “to the people”—is conspicuously absent from the Supreme Court’s treatment and analysis of the Amendment. Additionally, people is not the only reference to individuals in the Constitution. The Constitution is written in terms of people and citizens, which generates the question: how were those two words used differently during the Founding Era?
This Article addresses the background and historical context of the people as used in the Tenth Amendment; prior research on the word people as used in the Tenth Amendment and the research question for this Article; the corpus methodology for analyzing this research question; and a comparative analysis of the words people and citizens
The Trauma of Trump\u27s Family Separation and Child Detention Actions: A Children\u27s Rights Perspective
No full textIn April 2018, the Trump Administration publicly announced a new zero-tolerance policy for illegal entries at the U.S. border. This action kicked off a wave of family separations that made headlines and drew criticism from around the globe. Despite resounding condemnation of these actions, the Trump Administration defended its family separation policy as a “tough deterrent.” At least 2,600 families were torn apart in the ensuing months. And subsequent reports--from both the government and others--have detailed widespread abuses of and substandard conditions for children held in detention centers. The consequences of these separations and the maltreatment of children in detention are pronounced. The trauma that children have endured potentially has lifelong ramifications. This Article provides an in-depth, children\u27s rights-based analysis of the Trump Administration\u27s family separation and child detention policies and actions. A children\u27s rights perspective offers several critical insights. First, children\u27s rights are rooted in a legal mandate. Second, examining the Trump Administration\u27s actions from a children\u27s rights perspective reveals the breadth of rights violations occurring. This more nuanced understanding of the events can help in devising appropriate strategies to respond to such violations. Third, a children\u27s rights perspective helps place the Trump Administration\u27s actions in their historical context to better understand the gravity of these actions. Children\u27s rights law is as close to universally accepted as any human rights law, and thus any departures from such widely embraced standards are particularly revealing. Finally, the authors discuss the implications of this children\u27s rights assessment, urging action on several fronts to address this harm and prevent violations of children\u27s rights in the future
Moving Tax Disputes Online Without Leaving Taxpayer Rights Behind
No full textAs the Service’s technological infrastructure continues to show its age, both the Service and Congress appear to be recognizing the importance of the Ser-vice having technological infrastructure that allows it to take advantage of the capabilities of modern computing systems to improve both its enforcement and service efforts. The National Taxpayer Advocate has entered this conversation as well, encouraging Congress and the Service to prioritize improvements to the Service’s technological infrastructure but simultaneously raising legitimate concerns about the impact that an overreliance on technology might have on taxpayer rights, particularly rights of vulnerable population groups who may not be able to utilize technology.Fortunately, increasing technological deployment as part of taxpayer service is not a zero sum game that requires sacrificing taxpayer rights in the name of efficiency. The Service can accomplish the goal of deploying technology in a pro-taxpayer rights manner if it brings considerations of affirming taxpayer rights to the forefront of its deliberations about how best to utilize technology. Both the academic literature and Service strategic documents have focused on a wide variety of taxpayer interactions with the Service in proposing how this can be done. There is one type of interaction, however, that has thus far been underexplored both in the academic literature and in the Service’s strategic efforts to move more of its taxpayer interactions online: taxpayer controversy resolution.This Article argues that the Service has insufficiently considered whether it can increase its use of technology-based interactions with taxpayers in the controversy-resolution process in a manner that both achieves efficiency gains and affirms taxpayer rights. Specifically, three areas in controversy resolution could lend themselves to such rights-affirming technological implementation.First, the Service should focus on how to provide online information about notices sent to taxpayers. These notices exist at the time at which taxpayer rights and the Service’s dual roles as an enforcement and service agency inter-sect the most, given that these notices bring taxpayers into a direct controversy with the Service, are often difficult to understand, and frequently re-quire a specific taxpayer response to avoid a waiver of rights. Second, the Service should focus on improving its ability to allow taxpayers to satisfy their tax obligations online, including the limited use of algorithmic decision-making for routine disputes. Judicious use of online dispute resolution provides the government efficiency benefits while safeguarding taxpayer rights. Third, to address justice gaps that would remain if it addresses the first two areas, the Service should focus on developing partnerships with the nonprofit and academic sectors designed to produce new innovative technological platforms that might enhance taxpayer access to information and dispute-resolution tools.These proposals would allow the Service to resolve controversies more quickly and prioritize the allocation of its personnel for dispute-resolution and customer-service issues that do not lend themselves to online resolution. In addition, these proposals can help taxpayers receive quality service and ensure that taxpayers do not have to pay more tax than they are either legally required or can economically afford to pay. Consequently, these proposals will allow the Service to move more of its controversy-resolution service and enforcement efforts online without abandoning the very taxpayer rights it is entrusted to protect
The Implications of \u3cem\u3eRutledge v. PCMA\u3c/em\u3e for State Health Care Cost Regulation
No full text
FIRST AMENDMENT: Executive Order by the Governor Limiting Large Gatherings Statewide
Get PDFBeginning in March 2020, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp (R) issued a series of Executive Orders addressing the State’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Included in these Orders was a prohibition on large groups of people gathering in a single location. Though an effective means of curtailing the virus’s rapid transmission, this specific provision became a source of controversy for groups who believed such a prohibition infringed upon their First Amendment rights
CRIMES AND OFFENSES: Proposed Constitutional Carry Act of 2019 & Executive Order by the Governor Temporarily Extending Renewal Requirements for Weapons Carry Licenses
Get PDFIn March 2020, Governor Brian Kemp (R) issued an Executive Order declaring a Public Health State of Emergency due to COVID-19. The Supreme Court of Georgia also issued a Judicial Order declaring a Statewide Judicial Emergency. The Council of Probate Court Judges subsequently characterized the processing of weapons carry licenses as non-essential and temporarily suspended license issuances to limit the spread of COVID-19. HB 2 would have eliminated the license requirement and the need for probate judges to process applications. However, HB 2 never received a hearing before the 2019–20 legislative session ended. Gun rights advocates called on Governor Kemp to suspend the licensing requirement in the midst of the pandemic and brought a string of Second Amendment lawsuits challenging the suspension of the only avenue available to legally carry a gun in public for self-defense
Cryptocurrency Meets Bankruptcy Law: A Call for Creditor Status for Investors in Initial Coin Offerings
Get PDFIn 1973, experts Homer Kripke and John J. Slain published a
seminal study titled The Interface Between Securities Regulation and
Bankruptcy—Allocating the Risk of Illegal Securities Issuance
between Securityholders and the Issuer’s Creditors. That lengthy
analysis, contributed by, respectively, a former Securities and
Exchange Commission official and a professor of law, examined the
status quo and concluded that investors were receiving unfair priority
vis-à-vis creditors in bankruptcy proceedings administered under the
federal Bankruptcy Code. Focusing on the traditional “absolute
priority rule,” the study pointed out that the Securities and Exchange
Commission support for the investor priority was unfounded and
urged deference to the notion of general creditors coming first.
Since then, a host of developments complicated both the analysis
and the traditional view of Kripke and Slain. First, the pivotal
determination of “rescinding shareholder” has been made complex
by, among other things, an expanded notion of “sophisticated
investor” occasioned by phenomena such as “crowdfunding.”
Second, stock swaps, hedges, repurchase agreements, and other
hybrid responses to financier discomfort have clouded the definition
of “investor.” Finally, the explosive growth of cryptocurrencies (and
the ventures that would sell, distribute, trade, or package them)
highlighted the need for a new, softer line between creditor and
investor.
Accordingly, the present authors revisit the absolute priority rule
with a view towards historic SEC involvement with bankruptcy law
and contemporary classification of some cryptocurrency-related
entities as securities issuers. The article concludes that in light of the
existing provisions and interpretations, the “absolute priority rule”
examined through the lens of today’s innovative securities should be
rethought to give investors in initial coin offerings creditor status.
Whether the reader agrees or not is likely subordinated to the need
for a conversation on the most egalitarian response—under both the
securities laws and the Bankruptcy Code—to the investor’s claim for
in pari passu treatment normally reserved for creditors, and likewise
the general creditors’ opposition to sharing a legally enforceable
priority
