7184 research outputs found
Sort by
Can a President Be Impeached for Non-Criminal Conduct? New Linguistic Analysis Says Yes
No full text“Few terms in constitutional law have been so fiercely contested as ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ [in the impeachment provision].” Although most legal scholars argue that this phrase does not limit impeachment to criminal conduct, reconciling this conclusion with the constitutional text has been a challenge. In this article, co-authored by a law professor and a linguistics professor, we offer what we believe is a new and persuasive approach that arises directly from the constitutional text itself for extending the scope of impeachment to non-criminal conduct. We reach this conclusion by applying the science of linguistics to computer-assisted review of digitized texts written around the period when the Constitution was drafted and ratified. The result of this empirical research is the proposal that “other high crimes and misdemeanors” in the constitutional text should be interpreted as “other high crimes” and “other high misdemeanors.” Our linguistic analysis further establishes that high misdemeanor was a phrase used during the founding era to refer to non-criminal misconduct that requires removal from office. We corroborate this analysis with historical research showing that during the century following the founding era, the U.S. House of Representatives recurrently enacted articles of impeachment using the term “high misdemeanor” to refer to non-criminal misconduct affecting governance
Who Can Defend Voting Rights? An Appeals Court Ruling Sharply Limiting Lawsuits Looks Likely to Head to the Supreme Court
No full text
Access to Affordable Medicines: Obligations of Universities and Academic Medical Centers
No full textOver the last decade, the development and approval of remarkably effective therapeutic interventions, many based on technologies directed at the human genome, have altered the treatment landscape for patients facing a range of serious and life-threatening conditions. These novel therapies include chimeric antigen receptor T cells (CAR-T) for lymphoma, childhood leukemia, and multiple myeloma; antisense oligonucleotide (ASO) therapy for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA); and gene therapy for SMA, Leber’s congenital amaurosis Type 2 (LCA, a rare form of inherited blindness), beta thalassemia major, and hemophilia B. Advances not directed at the genome include drugs targeting the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance protein, which have transformed the lives of most patients with that disease.
These therapies are effective but also expensive. For example, the U.S. list price of tisagenlecleucel CAR-T cell therapy for childhood leukemia is 750,000 (850,000 for LCA (both eyes) to 300,000/year, and median inflation-adjusted launch prices for novel self-administered cancer drugs increased more than 20% from 232,788 per year of therapy between 2017 and 2021. Prices for many of these therapies exceed accepted cost-effectiveness thresholds. Furthermore, even when therapies are cost-effective, high prices prevent many patients from accessing necessary drugs, whether through payers’ decisions not to cover them or through unaffordable copayments, resulting in worsened health outcomes. Patients who receive these therapies can experience financial toxicity due to the substantial out-of-pocket costs that typically accompany receipt of costly drugs. Finally, high prices impose burdens on all members of society through rising health insurance premiums, taxes, and the opportunity costs of forgone investment in other societal priorities
Tokenized Deposits: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Stablecoins
No full textStablecoins are crypto assets sold on the promise or understanding that they are redeemable for fiat at par. Most stablecoin issuers, like banks and money market funds, engage in maturity transformation and are subject to run. One suggestion for addressing stablecoins’ inherent risks is to insure their value. This article examines whether stablecoins meet the policy rationales undergirding government deposit insurance and/or could be insured under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. It finds that insuring stablecoins deposited with banks would not fulfill the policy rationales for deposit insurance, and although insuring stablecoins issued by banks would, they are not insurable under federal law. This article further finds that deposit insurers would face operational challenges in implementing an insurance program, and that incorporating public blockchains into the national payments system could be detrimental in a variety of ways. This article concludes that the only stablecoins that address the myriad concerns are tokenized deposit stablecoins—digital representations of traditional bank deposits—traded over private, permissioned blockchains, they appear to be no better than the existing payment system
North Atlanta Vascular Clinic v. Dr. Thomas Matthews, M.D., Order on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment
Get PDFAlexander S. Glover, et. al. v. Georgia Mining Ventures, LLC, et. al., Order on Motions for Summary Judgment
Get PDF
