STU Scholarly Works (St. Thomas University)
Not a member yet
1001 research outputs found
Sort by
Bitcoin ATM: A Criminal\u27s Laundromat for Cleaning Money
No full textThis comment discusses how solely applying current Bank Secrecy Act ( BSA ) and Department of Treasury Financial Crime Enforcement Network ( FinCEN ) regulations to virtual currency-specifically Bitcoin ATMs-will put a strain on Bitcoin ATM owners and the industry, but will not reduce the risk of money laundering. Part II of this comment discusses the characteristics of Bitcoin, explains the environment in which it exists, and how individuals use Bitcoin. In Part III, this comment discusses how BSA regulations apply to virtual currency. Additionally, Part III analyzes how Bitcoin ATM owners and operators would be classified under FinCEN\u27s 2013 guidance. Part IV shifts focus to the potential BSA requirements for Bitcoin ATM owners and operators, and discusses the potential for criminal and civil sanctions for disregarding BSA regulations. Lastly, Part V discusses how the current identification requirements under the BSA are not conducive for Bitcoin ATMs to properly identify their customers. Part V additionally suggests FinCEN implement regulations that will create a balance between the need to identify customers and Bitcoin\u27s focus of anonymity. The focus of the suggested regulation is to equip Bitcoin ATMs with (1) a passport or government issued identification ( ID ) scanner; (2) software that matches the information gathered from the ID with state and national databases; (3) a camera that takes a picture of the Bitcoin ATM user in real-time; and (4) facial recognition software that matches the scanned ID with the picture taken in real-time and with the picture on file with the issuing authority. This proposed regulation would make it easier to fight money laundering at Bitcoin ATMs while balancing the privacy concerns held by Bitcoin users
Law-Abiding Illegal Aliens: Paying Taxes for the Chance of Legal Immigration Statuts, Or Not
No full textThe tension between the IRS regulations requiring unauthorized immigrants to file taxes, and the United States Department of Homeland Security ( DHS ) prohibiting these same individuals from lawfully working in the United States, is an ongoing controversy in this country. The DHS, by means of its Immigration and Nationality Act ( INA ) regulations, penalizes unauthorized immigrants who falsely claim to be United States citizens for purposes of obtaining employment, irrespective of whether the aliens filed and paid their taxes. This Comment will focus on the inconsistencies between the IRS and the DHS, and suggest a proposal for amending the INA. Part I of this Comment introduced the overall inconsistency amongst the government agencies. Part II focuses on the experiences of some unauthorized immigrants and the situations they face as unauthorized immigrants abiding by the law. Part III introduces relevant background information useful to the understanding of who the immigrants are, what it means to be an inadmissible alien, and the type of waivers for which they may qualify. Part IV provides a brief description of the relevant immigration acts Congress enacted, and what misrepresentation on 1-9 Employment Eligibility Verification Form ( Form 1-9 ) means to the DHS and to immigrants. Following this brief explanation on Form 1-9, Part V introduces the ITIN, and the issues it raises. Part VI considers the undocumented workers\u27 tax contributions to the United States Government. Part VII discusses recent proposals and their drawbacks. Part VIII suggests a proposal to amend the INA and provide additional relief to certain undocumented workers who paid income taxes and are currently facing deportation. Part IX concludes this Comment
A Warmer Welcome Home: The Need for Incorporating Therapeutic Jurisprudence in Reentry Courts
No full textThis comment will focus on one of the first established reentry courts-the Harlem Reentry Court ( HRC )-by evaluating its effectiveness with the basic principles of therapeutic jurisprudence. Section II provides general background on all the relevant topics: therapeutic jurisprudence, problem-solving courts, and reentry courts. Section III specifically focuses on the background, formation, and strategies of the HRC. Section IV gives an in-depth analysis of HRC\u27s process, and how recognizing and further incorporating therapeutic practices could increase its success. Finally, Section V will conclude the argument by advocating for nationwide exposure and implementation of reentry courts for parolees around the country with a greater emphasis on therapeutic jurisprudence
The Inalienable Right to Stand Your Ground
No full textThis Article seeks to open a dialogue about an individual\u27s inalienable Right to Self-Defense and the interplay between that Right and Stand Your Ground doctrines. In Section II, this Article will present an overview of what, precisely, a Stand Your Ground statute actually encompasses and permits, as many misconceptions have arisen as to the effect of a Stand Your Ground law. Due to the position many political groups have taken, as well as inaccurate news reporting by the media, there is a mistaken belief that Stand Your Ground laws allow a shooter to become judge, jury, and executioner. In Section III, the Article will seek to explain that, contrary to the contention that there is a fundamental duty to avoid conflict, the right to defend oneself-self-preservation-is a Natural Right, not granted to the individual by the state. In that vein, the state cannot abrogate the right of an individual to defend himself, which the Duty to Retreat requires. Since the legal interpretation dovetails from the Natural Rights analysis, Section III will then explain when and why the Duty to Retreat entered American jurisprudence. The Duty, rather than being a fundamental principle of the law, \u27\u27 was actually a misreading or misunderstanding of the common law, all too readily expounded upon by the Progressives in the early Twentieth Century. In our conclusion, we ask whether a state Stand Your Ground statute is even required to extinguish the Duty to Retreat, given the inalienable right of the individual to defend himself. Correspondingly, the question must be asked as to whether a state is even authorized to abrogate the right to self-defense and require an individual to retreat. For if the right to self-preservation a fundamental, deeply rooted, and inalienable right is, the state\u27s ability to infringe upon it is off the table
Front Matter
No full textFront Matter includes Masthead, advisors, and Table of Contents for the Intercultural Human Rights Law Review Volume 10 (2015)
Children of a Lesser Jones: Punitive Damages in Unseaworthiness
No full textThe title of the famous stage play and movie, Children of a Lesser God, comes from a stanza of Alfred Lord Tennyson\u27s, Idylls of the King, which reads as follows, As if some lesser god had made the world, but had not force to shape it as he would. Like Tennyson\u27s lesser God, Congress enacted the Jones Act, but did not have the force to shape it as it was supposed to be. On the contrary, it allowed the courts to interpret, twist and abuse it to the furthest limits, well beyond even the questionable ones imposed by Miles v. Apex Marine. The consequence is that seamen, once considered the wards of the court, are still struggling to get remedies routinely enjoyed by other plaintiffs who did not have the fortune (or misfortune?) of a statute enacted to expand, not contract, their rights. This article attempts an assessment of the contemporary standing of Jones seamen, focusing on one single, specific, and very narrow issue: whether punitive damages may be awarded in seamen\u27s claims for injuries or death caused by a ship\u27s unseaworthiness
Bringing Operation Pedro Pan Back from Never Never Land: Is INA 207(B) the President\u27s Solution to the Humanitarian Crisis at the Border
No full textThe choice to bestow refugee designation on the growing unaccompanied minor children population would no doubt carry far-reaching and long-lasting consequences of its own. Because of these potential important and complex ramifications, a closer examination of the implications of the President utilizing his authority under Section 207(b) must be undertaken. To do so, Part I of this article provides a brief description of the origin of refugee law in general and Section 207(b) in particular. Part II explains the previous instances wherein past presidents exercised their authority to help foreign nationals seek refuge in the United States. Part III further details the humanitarian crisis at the border and provides an overview of the deportation proceedings facing the children if alternative congressional or presidential action is not taken. Finally, Part IV discusses the possible effects of refugee designation under Section 207(b) and posits arguments both for and against looking to this little-known legal provision as a solution to the country\u27s humanitarian crisis at the border. Although Americans on both sides of the political spectrum remain divided on exactly how to cope with the general undocumented population in the U.S., most citizens agree or acknowledge that undocumented children present special considerations and unique challenges for the country and its government. Granting refugee status would essentially use existing immigration law to allow the children to work around that law, effectively creating a loophole through which the children may come to and remain in the country. By examining the practical, legal and moral considerations at odds in this issue, we may begin to decide if Section 207(b) can offer a real refuge for these children
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Will Parity for Mental Health Care Truly Be Achieved in the 21st Century
No full textOn March 23, 2010, President Barack Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), which established significant changes to health care provisions in the United States. The goal of the PPACA was to return a realistic choice, as well as the right, of health care to all Americans. The PPACA was developed to provide health care that is affordable and accessible for all individuals across the lifespan. A novel change, in comparison to previous health care reforms, was the addition of mental health and substance abuse care as a right for all stakeholders. This population has consistently been ignored in previous attempts at health care parity, therefore, the PPACA has reached a new frontier in the treatment of a population that consists of approximately 18% of the US population. This paper will analyze the history of mental health care in this country, specifically the lack thereof, as well as why mental health has been ripe for the inclusion into the services to be provided. Lastly, an analysis of the disadvantages of the PPACA in mental health and substance use will be presented, with a particular focus on providers and the implications in the state of Florida
Should Therapeutic Jurisprudence Be Used to Analyze Impacts of Legal Process on Government
No full textThis article takes the controversial position that despite therapeutic jurisprudence\u27s (sometimes referred to as TJ ) focus on the impact of laws and legal processes on the emotional and related physical well-being of human beings, there can be TJ-like impacts on government, at least in certain circumstances, that can be discovered by making a TJ analysis of the situation. It further contends that these TJ-like impacts on government ought to be examined for a number of important reasons: (1) they provide greater insights into therapeutic and antitherapeutic impacts on humans; (2) the deeper understandings gained through this analysis can then be used to formulate recommendations and solutions to refine and reform the law or government\u27s actions as a legal actor-ultimately for the benefit of human physical and emotional well-being; (3) government, informed by these findings can, in these circumstances, revise its interactions with the governed in order to enhance the likelihood of successful completion of government initiatives through proactively recognizing and addressing antitherapeutic impacts on the persons involved; and (4) use of these TJ findings to revise government conduct can advance both respect for government and law, and encourage voluntary compliance with law and legal processes, all of which are essential to government\u27s ability to fulfill its role in society
Interracial Marriage and the Original Understanding of the Privileges or Immunities Clause
No full textThe article will proceed in four parts, corresponding to the following conclusions: (1) that before the [fourteenth] Amendment, most (but not all) authorities concluded that such laws abridged a pre-existing right recognized at common law, which represented a privilege of citizenship; (2) that during the adoption of the Amendment, both proponents and opponents generally (though not unanimously) declared, acknowledged, or conspicuously failed to deny, that the Amendment would invalidate such laws; (3) that contra the Supreme Court\u27s claim in Casey (and the argument of Virginia\u27s attorneys in Loving), within five years of the Amendment\u27s ratification, racial-endogamy laws were either non-existent or unenforced in a clear majority of the states, in large part because Republican officials-including virtually every Republican judge to face the question-concluded that African Americans\u27 constitutional entitlement to the status and privileges of citizenship precluded the making or enforcing of such laws; and (4) that the contrary holdings were made by Democratic judges hostile to Reconstruction, whose hostility was frequently manifest in their implausible interpretations of the Amendment. The article will conclude with reflections on how the Supreme Court\u27s decision in the Slaughter-House Cases dealt a serious blow to the Amendment\u27s original meaning and thus facilitated the renewed making and enforcing of these laws. This history will prove, by a strong preponderance of the evidence, that the Fourteenth Amendment, as understood by the citizens that proposed, ratified, and initially interpreted it, precluded the making or enforcing of state racial endogamy laws, insofar as such laws prohibited or invalidated marriages between citizens of the United States