The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law
Not a member yet
5983 research outputs found
Sort by
Blue Water Navy Veterans And The Agent Orange Rulings: A Lifeboat For The Veterans; A Storm Warning For The VBA
Full text linkAgent Orange was a herbicidal chemical used by the U.S. military for tactical use during the Vietnam War. Although initially told by the government not to worry about exposure to the chemical, veterans, their wives, and their offspring began having severe health and reproductive issues. In the early 1990’s, Congress passed the Agent Orange Act and the government directed the Institute of Medicine to report on the health effects of Agent Orange. Through this approach, Vietnam Veterans could claim benefits for illnesses listed in connection with Agent Orange. But only some Vietnam Veterans.
Initially, only veterans who served on-shore or near fresh water channels were entitled to claim disability benefits from exposure. The ruling in Procopio v. Wilkie, 913 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (codified through the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act) extended the presumption of herbicide exposure to Veterans who served in the offshore waters as well. Beginning Jan. 1, 2020, the so-called Blue Water Navy Veterans are finally also presumed to have been exposed to herbicides and may be entitled to benefits.
Although wonderful news for the veterans and families, there may be farreaching impacts on the VA’s already ballooning budget, highly burdened VA system, and overworked VA personnel
Restricting Scientific Legitimacy in the Age of Biotechnology?
Full text linkIn the Age of Biotechnology, there is no more pressing question than whether a philosophy of science exists and translates into a notion that—with or without qualification—the sovereignty of science is central to the advancement of society and should be totally emancipated from concurrence or oversight by society at large. Far too many Americans choose neither to be “informed” nor to accept the responsibilities of citizenship to participate fully in a deliberative democracy—they have chosen instead to exercise their “right” to remain ignorant. Consequently, science reigns without restraint or even review. The scientific community has a coordinated responsibility to society, in general, to disclose to and educate the public about its research agendas in a transparent and understandable manner. In order to meet this responsibility, however, factual data—not “junk” science—is an absolute requirement for an “educated” partnership of interest between society and science in order to flourish.
Lawmakers and the courts must be in alignment with the march of science. For society to remain apathetic and for the legal system to fail to be responsive to advancement guarantees societal malaise or uneasiness and results in an absolute sovereignty of science. Both in dialogue and policy making, however, a principle of precaution has been introduced and accepted domestically and internationally as a means of mediation. This precautionary principle serves as a construct for evaluating scientific and biotechnological undertakings, which would create more potential risks rather than benefits before proceeding. In essence, this is a cost/benefit analysis.
This Article investigates the steps which need to be undertaken in order to ensure that scientific conduct is legitimized—and thereby recognized—as indispensable for global peace and progress. Contemporary philosophy of science embraces the positive value of scientific investigations that are not only useful and practical but also, at the same time, view biotechnology as a tool for viewing the whole of life in a positive, affirming way. Such a philosophy must seek to accommodate what may be seen as a shared partnership rather than codify an absolute sovereignty of science
Professor José F. Anderson Discusses His Book Genius For Justice
No full textOn the evening of February 9, the Black Law Student Mentoring and Leadership Program, Diversity Advisory Council, and Black Law Students Association held a lecture in the Walter A. Slowinski courtroom at The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law in Washington, D.C. The lecture was part of the University\u27s celebration of Black History Month. The evening opened with a welcome by Professor Veryl Miles, who introduced the speaker, Professor José F. Anderson.
Anderson is a professor of law at the University of Baltimore and the author of Genius for Justice: Charles Hamilton Houston and the Reform of American Law. The students in attendance received copies of Anderson\u27s book. Anderson\u27s lecture focused on the career of Charles Hamilton Houston, who played a significant role in dismantling Jim Crow laws, especially attacking segregation in schools and racial housing covenants. Anderson also discussed Houston\u27s involvement in training and mentoring a generation of black attorneys, including Justice Thurgood Marshall
Defending Against Projects of Faction: Reforming the Congressional Investigation Process
Full text linkThroughout American history, the power to investigate has been one of key powers of the U.S. Congress. This power, shaped by the Congress itself and the courts, has evolved into a critical tool used to hold parties accountable and to promote effective legislation for the American people. Yet as much as it can be used to further the interests of all Americans, so too can it be used to further a party’s own political agenda. Today, the congressional investigation process has become overly-politicized, misused for fundraising purposes, and overseen by members of Congress who are not investigators by trade.
As a means of reform, the U.S. Congress should institute a neutral office to conduct an initial inquiry into matters referred by a congressional committee or subcommittee. Such an office could conduct an initial investigation of an issue in order and determine whether or not further inquiry would be merited. This will help ensure that investigations are vetted by a neutral, independent, and professional entity and preserve the trust of the American people
Growing in Faith: Embracing Christ\u27s Cross in the Middle of the World
No full textThe Catholic University Columbus School of Law (Catholic Law) held on Thursday, October 12, its first Faith in Action lecture of 2023-24 academic year. Visiting Catholic Law by invitation of Elizabeth Kirk, Director of the Center for Law and the Human Person, Luis E. Perez, first Deputy Director of Enforcement at the Office for Civil Rights at the United States Department of Health & Human Services, engaged students with discussion about how his faith impacts his vocation in law. Mr. Perez’s remarks were given in his personal capacity and do not necessarily represent the views of any agency of the United States
Swipe Right into a Disciplinary Hearing: How The Use of Dating Apps Could Earn an Attorney More Than a Bad First Date
Full text linkThe Model Rules of Professional Conduct seek to police the conduct of attorneys. Each jurisdiction adopts its own rules of professional conduct to apply to the attorneys licensed within it. Notably, the model rules prohibit any sexual relationship between the attorney and client unless that relationship precedes the attorney-client relationship. Traditionally, defining a sexual relationship was simple, particularly if the attorney and client engaged in sexual intercourse. The introduction of dating apps, however, has blurred the line.
This article outlines the inherent risks of attorneys using dating apps at a time when most newly-licensed attorneys make up the majority of dating app users by drawing similarities between real world sexual relationships and those that can be found alone. This article seeks to warn new attorneys of these risks, as well as offer a basic policy outline for law firms and other employers of attorneys to implement until the model rules can catch up to this new reality
The October 2021 Term and the Challenge to Progressive Constitutional Theory
Full text linkThis Essay examines the ways in which the Supreme Court\u27s October 2021 Term challenges core theoretical commitments of progressive constitutional theory. Progressive constitutional theory originated in the progressive political theory of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Accordingly, progressive constitutional theory shares progressive political theory\u27s commitments to two propositions: rationalism and individualism. These commitments lead to an understanding of history as moving in a particular direction--one that is generally in line with progressive ideology. The originalist and traditionalist approaches of the Court\u27s October 2021 decisions call into question the progressive confidence in the direction of history while simultaneously rejecting the rationalistic and individualistic premises of progressivism. This helps explain why many progressive constitutional theorists have found the Court\u27s decisions so disorienting and confounding. The October 2021 Term challenged--even though it did not definitively refute--the progressive narrative of constitutional redemption through history. The implications of the Court\u27s decisions will reverberate through American constitutional theory for decades to come
