LARC Cardoso Law (Yeshida Univ)
Not a member yet
9951 research outputs found
Sort by
The 2024 Cardozo Colloquium on Global and Constitutional Theory: How the Supreme Court Lost the American Public
Get PDFhttps://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/flyers-2023-2024/1083/thumbnail.jp
Dean Melanie Leslie’s Office Hours
Get PDFJoin Dean Leslie and Professors Sam Weinstein, Matt Wansley and Jacob Noti-Victor for a discussion on IP and Innovation. Some of the topics discussed will be recent legal developments in the fields of antitrust, big tech, startups, venture capital and artificial intelligence, as well as any questions raised by student attendees.https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/event-invitations-2024/1020/thumbnail.jp
Remembering Vienna
Get PDFJoin us for a special evening with Evelyn Konrad ’05, a Holocaust survivor and Cardozo alum, who will share her powerful story of resilience, survival and identity. Evelyn Konrad’s story was featured in the recently published book Austria and Us.https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/event-invitations-2024/1024/thumbnail.jp
\u3ci\u3eMusic, Mayhem, and a Mississippi: Still Burning\u3c/i\u3e-The \u3ci\u3eHope\u3c/i\u3e of Smothering the Deleterious Effects of Deliberate Indifference
No full textThe article argues that the deliberate indifference standard, as applied in Eighth Amendment jurisprudence, fails to adequately address inhumane and unconstitutional prison conditions, particularly in Mississippi. It critiques the standard for prioritizing prison officials\u27 intent over objective conditions, allowing systemic neglect and racial disparities to persist. The analysis advocates for a shift toward an objective standard to better protect human dignity and hold prison administrators accountable
Conceptual Schemes/Frameworks and Their Relation to Law: A New Argument for Separation of Church and State
No full textA central question that arises when interpreting the U.S. Constitution is which theory of interpretation is the best? In his recent book, How to Interpret the Constitution, Cass Sunstein reviews various theories of constitutional interpretation currently in vogue and then offers what he believes would be the best approach going forward. In this Article, I want to take up a more basic question presupposed by the very idea of a theory of interpretation. That is, whether it is even possible to arrive at more than a provisional understanding of what would be the best interpretation in any given area of study, including constitutional law. That said, I do believe some of the interpretations suggested by Cass Sunstein and elsewhere by myself and others to be more persuasive than most others, even if only partially so. For, as Sunstein himself points out, no theory seems perfect to figure out the Constitution\u27s meaning in every possible world in which we could imagine it to exist. So, we best just focus on our own world or what we take to matter in our world. In keeping with this idea, I plan to begin by looking first at how we might interpret the world around us based on our past experiences by considering a somewhat imaginative recent experience of my own. Next, I consider some recent studies in the neurosciences and a previous but highly influential article by the philosopher Donald Davidson concerning conceptual schemes and whether we could ever hope to make any sense of a scheme radically different from our own. Here it should be pointed out that I will use the word scheme when referring to a very broad system of thought for which there may not be much outside, versus when I use the word \u27framework, as referencing something far narrower than a whole system of thought, even if what is referenced might purport to be a significant part of a still larger system. My goal is to eventually adopt John Rawls\u27 public reason method to separate out non-workable systems of thought as might be part of a particular religious or philosophical tradition that cannot be easily tied to any other system of thought easily imagined within a pluralistic society. I plan to do this by relating how Rawls\u27 public reason might allow for the creation of a moral interpretation of the Constitution adopting the moral theory of Alan Gewirth. The latter I adopt because its grounding does not presuppose any prior moral or religious framework. I then apply that interpretative method to five cases Sunstein believes are fixed points in our current constitutional understanding. In short, I plan to isolate out an area of human rights where even very different understandings of the world might be able to meet, while acknowledging that there will still be other areas that simply evade any common connection. I hope what I offer here to be of help for a theory of constitutional interpretation that focuses on morality, without having to compete with various religious frameworks going forward
The Abolition of Woman
No full textThe article argues that modern feminist jurisprudence, while initially aimed at advancing women\u27s rights, has deviated from its original goals and now contributes to the erosion of the unique identity and value of women. This shift is evident in areas such as reproduction, gender fluidity, and motherhood, where legal and academic discourse increasingly deconstructs the concept of womanhood, leading to its potential abolition
The Arrest of Telegram CEO Pavel Durov & What it Says about Europe’s Approach to Privacy
No full textOn August 24, 2024, Pavel Durov, the CEO of the messaging app Telegram, was arrested in Paris. French authorities have charged him with various crimes, including complicity in the distribution of child pornography, the sale of illegal drugs, and the distribution of hacking software. Durov is banned from leaving France and must check in at a police station twice a week. If convicted, Durov faces a ten-year prison sentence. French prosecutors are holding Durov criminally liable for permitting criminal activity to go unchallenged on Telegram. This indictment is possible under France’s LOPMI law, which was passed in January 2023. Under LOPMI, a person is liable for “complicity in the administration of an online platform to allow an illicit transaction, in an organised gang.’” LOPMI, which currently has no equivalent in other countries’ legal systems, “criminalises tech titans whose platforms allow illegal products or activities.” While “holding executives at social networks criminally liable for content that appears on sites was, until now, considered almost unthinkable,” Telegram’s approach to compliance with government requests for information and cooperation is exceptional. France is seeking to send a message: tech executives are responsible for activity on their platforms