16885 research outputs found
Sort by
Arbitrary Arbiters: Evaluating the Right to Be Informed of Eligibility for Discretionary Relief in Removal Proceedings
Get PDF
Zoom Happy Hours
No full textInformal social gatherings are the lifeblood of any 1 L experience. Whether social distancing is making such gatherings impossible, or you\u27re just looking to supplement your in-person student-professor experiences, this session is for you. We\u27ll talk about why you might want to host a virtual happy hour with your students, how to do it, and things you should keep in mind when doing so. So grab a drink, pull up a chair and say cheers to a successfully planned virtual happy hour
Using Psychological Principles to Deliver an Online Lecture Effectively
No full textDelivering some content to students via an online lecture is unavoidable. But violating the psychological principles of an effective lecture is avoidable. In this presentation, I will review a synthesis of the empirical research on these principles and apply them to legal research and writing, discuss how and why they especially matter for online learning, and finally, examine the ways in which these principles are most often violated. I will use a stealth what not to wear style of pulling up anonymous (oh no, she did not just wear that outside) power point slides posted publicly online and use an Oprah make-over style of how to bring the slides into the realm of effectiveness (oh yes she is owning her style!). At the end of the presentation, the audience should have a better understanding of what these principles are, how to apply them to your online teaching, and how to ensure that you are using them strategically to enhance the delivery of your online lectures
Property\u27s Problem with Extremes
Get PDFWestern-style property systems are ill-equipped to deal with extremes--extreme poverty, extreme wealth, extreme environmental harm. Though they can effectively handle many problems, the current systems are inherently incapable of providing the types of reform needed to address extreme situations that are straining the fabric of societies--situations that are stressing the integrity of core societal and natural systems to the breaking point. The American property system, in particular, is problematic. The system has a long tradition of strong individual rights and relies primarily on the efficiency norm to operate and shape the incentives of rights holders. The economic model that now dominates the American property system cannot, on its own, make the reforms needed to address problems of extremes. The assumption of a rational property owner and the individual scale of decision-making create an intrinsically self-serving system that will not, without redirection, force individual owners to consider important, outside interests or internalize serious, long-term externalities. Constitutional protection of property, with its increasingly economic focus, reinforces the owner-centric approach.
Yet property systems are fundamentally important to free and secure societies. Strong property rights protect the autonomy of individuals against government and third-party infringement. They also promote economic activities, rewarding investment and labor. A strong property system, in other words, provides a way to order a society and its resources by establishing a framework for allocating, distributing, and managing interests in the resources. This framework includes organizational and operating principles that enable the society\u27s economic and political systems to work on a daily basis.
This Article focuses on property\u27s problem with extremes by asking whether it is possible to have a property system that both protects individual rights and sustains the integrity of the earth system. Because of its global scale and potentially disastrous impacts, climate change provides the ultimate lens for examining property\u27s ability to handle extremes. Climate change is a problem that affects the whole regardless of the contributions of the part. It is a problem that needs solutions from the whole but can benefit from the responsiveness of the part. In order for Western property systems to operate in ways that minimize property\u27s adverse effects on the earth and on humans, some fundamental rewiring of property\u27s incentive structure and operating rules must occur
Teaching Transactional Research
No full textThis presentation will talk about creating a transactional law research class to supplement law school curriculum in this area, and the challenges of moving a heavily exercise-based, project driven class online. We will work with participants to brainstorm moving class-based exercises on line and talk about how to make a flipped classroom completely remote
Privacy or the Polls: Public Voter Registration Laws as a Modern Form of Vote Denial
Get PDFOn May 11, 2017, President Donald J. Trump signed an executive order establishing the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity (PACEI), with the mission to “study the registration and voting processes used in Federal elections.” Pursuant to this mission, Vice Chair of the Commission, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, sent out letters to state election officials soliciting all “publicly available voter roll data,” including all registrants’ full first and last names, middle names or initials, addresses, dates of birth, political party, last four digits of Social Security numbers if available, voter history from 2006 onward, information regarding any felony convictions, voter registration in another state, and military status. The requests were met with fierce public backlash from both citizens and state officials, with as many as fourteen states refusing to comply with the Commission’s request, ultimately forcing the Commission to dissolve due to sheer lack of state compliance.
Although many citizens may be glad that their information will not be disclosed to the Trump administration, the uproar over the PACEI request suggests that many citizens are unaware of the already public nature of their voter registration data. PACEI did not require states to submit any information beyond that which is already publicly available. Currently, “[a]ll 50 states and the District of Columbia provide access to voter information. Just as citizens and representatives strongly opposed disclosing voter information to the federal government, many voters express similar opposition to forfeiting their privacy to the public. Representatives and public officials are becoming increasingly aware of constituents’ privacy concerns and the negative effect that public record laws have on voter registration. Connecticut State Senator Paul Doyle said: “My constituent told me that they were going to take themselves off the voter list and de-register because of their information being available online.” The Supervisor of Elections for Marion County, Florida, Wesley Wilcox, noted a similar response from Florida constituents: “As a result of th[e] unintended impact of the ‘Public Records Law’, some voters are turned off to voting and have even requested to be removed from the voter registration rolls and surrender their right to vote in exchange for additional protection of their privacy.” State legislatures have responded to such concerns; in 2016, there were at least thirteen bills proposed in eight states that dealt with the distribution and availability of voter information.
There are legitimate and compelling reasons that eligible voters might be concerned about the public disclosure of their registration information. Consequently, publicizing voter registration presents the risk that, when forced to choose between protecting their privacy and registering to vote, some voters choose not to register; the unacceptable consequence being that eligible citizens are left unable to exercise their right to vote. This Note will argue that state disclosure of voter registration information as public record operates as a form of vote denial by conditioning voter registration on the public disclosure of a voter’s registration information. This disclosure threatens to decrease the number of eligible citizens who register to vote and consequently prevent eligible citizens from exercising their constitutional right to vote. This Note will then propose that Congress model a reform for voter registration laws after the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act
A Defense of the Regulatory Takings Doctrine: A Historical Analysis of this Conflict Between Property Rights and Public Good and a Prediction for its Future
Get PDFSince man first left the state of nature and formed property rights, there have been issues when states desire to use the property of another for what they consider to be the greater good. In their wisdom, the Founding Fathers of the United States built on centuries of historical principles ranging from the Romans to the English and enshrined in the Fifth Amendment the common law notion that “private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The rise of environmentalism has brought a new frontier to the ancient struggle between the rights of individuals and the rights of the government over private property as new types of regulation unforeseen by the Founders raise questions, such as what constitutes a taking and for what actions must the government provide compensation.
On the forefront of these arguments regarding the scope of the Fifth Amendment is the regulatory takings doctrine. The first major case to draw attention to the view that severe regulation can amount to a taking was Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon. In Pennsylvania Coal, the Court found that a state act that banned the mining of anthracite coal, if doing so would destabilize human habitation, could not retroactively deny a party’s contracted mining rights to a plot of land. More importantly, it introduced the view that the Fifth Amendment’s protection against uncompensated takings applies to a decrease in value from regulation.
This is an issue of grave importance for environmental regulation, for if the government is required to compensate every landowner whose property loses value from a regulation, then they will quickly become prohibitively expensive or, at the very least, highly unpopular due to their cost. Much ink has been spilled on this issue; however, the vast majority of environmental law literature opposes it. There is a wide spectrum of opposition, ranging from other nations’ standards to application difficulties. Of particular note is the argument that the Founding Fathers never intended for the takings doctrine to apply to a decrease in value due to regulation. If this statement were true, then the argument for a constitutional requirement to compensate regulatory takings is greatly weakened.
Due to the fact that courts have been upholding regulatory takings claims, the balancing of a constitutional right (security in one’s property), and the serious potential ramifications for environmental law, it would be a shame for the issue to only be explored from one angle. In this Note, I will argue in favor of the regulatory takings doctrine, particularly that, while environmental regulation was not foreseen by the Framers, had they known, they would have intended for the Fifth Amendment to cover regulatory takings. This analysis will be done through the lens of Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England. Introduction, Section 2 of the Commentaries addresses the ideal manner in which to interpret the meaning of a law or doctrine. Since the influence of Blackstone on the drafters of both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights cannot be disputed, this should provide an accurate reflection of how it was expected to be interpreted. This argument will be further augmented by background historical sources and events that clearly had an influence on the drafting of the Fifth Amendment and can shine a better light onto its intent.
As explained by Blackstone, there are five tiers which should be used to interpret the “will of the legislator” when an amendment was drafted. First, through the plain meaning of the wording of the statute. Second, through context by analyzing other parts of the document as well as similar documents by the same drafters. Third, the meaning of the words in regard to the purpose of the amendment. Fourth, considering hypothetical situations that will result from its application. Finally, by simply trying to understand the reasoning behind the law.
Part I will address the historical background of eminent domain, starting with its inherent roots in the establishment of property rights in English common law under Henry II, to the place it held in the minds of the men responsible for the drafting of the American Takings Clause. Part II will be composed of a five-tier analysis of the doctrine in the manner prescribed by Blackstone. Part III will address how best to interpret the results of the analysis in Part II and to consider it for future environmental regulation