46622 research outputs found
Sort by
Concerning The Creation Of An Identical Refund Payment Of Excess State Revenuesfrom All Sources As A Mechanism To Refund A Portion Of The Excess State Revenuesfor The State Fiscal Year Only
https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/session-laws-2001-2050/10507/thumbnail.jp
Concerning An Increase In The Earned Income Tax Credit For Income Tax Year Andin Connection Therewith Making An Appropriation
https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/session-laws-2001-2050/10508/thumbnail.jp
Concerning A Reduction In 2023 Residential Property Taxes And In Connection
https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/session-laws-2001-2050/10509/thumbnail.jp
The Shared Ethical Framework to Allocate Scarce Medical Resources: A Lesson from COVID-19
The COVID-19 pandemic has helped to clarify the fair and equitable allocation of scarce medical resources, both within and among countries. The ethical allocation of such resources entails a three-step process: (1) elucidating the fundamental ethical values for allocation, (2) using these values to delineate priority tiers for scarce resources, and (3) implementing the prioritisation to faithfully realise the fundamental values. Myriad reports and assessments have elucidated five core substantive values for ethical allocation: maximising benefits and minimising harms, mitigating unfair disadvantage, equal moral concern, reciprocity, and instrumental value. These values are universal. None of the values are sufficient alone, and their relative weight and application will vary by context. In addition, there are procedural principles such as transparency, engagement, and evidence-responsiveness. Prioritising instrumental value and minimising harms during the COVID-19 pandemic led to widespread agreement on priority tiers to include health-care workers, first responders, people living in congregate housing, and people with an increased risk of death, such as older adults and individuals with medical conditions. However, the pandemic also revealed problems with the implementation of these values and priority tiers, such as allocation on the basis of population rather than COVID-19 burden, and passive allocation that exacerbated disparities by requiring recipients to spend time booking and travelling to appointments. This ethical framework should be the starting point for the allocation of scarce medical resources in future pandemics and other public health conditions. For instance, allocation of the new malaria vaccine among sub-Saharan African countries should be based not on reciprocity to countries that participated in research, but on maximally reducing serious illness and deaths, especially among infants and children
Tribal Air
Prevailing approaches to addressing environmental justice in Indian Country are inadequate. The dual pursuits of distributive and procedural justice do not fully account for the unique factors that make Indigenous environmental justice distinct—namely, the sovereign status of tribal nations and the ongoing impacts of colonization.
This Article synthetizes interdisciplinary approaches to theorizing Indigenous environmental justice and proposes a framework to aid environmental law scholars and advocates. Specifically, by centering Indigenous environmental justice in terms of coloniality and self-determination, this framework can better critique and improve environmental governance regimes when it comes to pollution in Indian Country.
This Article tests that framework on air regulation in Indian Country. Although many consider the Clean Air Act a regulatory success story, air pollution still disproportionately harms American Indians and Alaska Natives. To that end, Tribal Air offers a comprehensive account of air regulation in Indian Country, including a more detailed analysis of tribal air quality laws. It then applies theories of settler colonialism and instruments of self-determination to the implementation of the Clean Air Act in Indian Country. Together these concepts aspire towards an anti-colonialist purpose and offer important ways to achieve Indigenous environmental justice
The Politicization of Criminal Prosecutions
This Article offers a critical review of how political considerations rooted both in domestic and foreign policy-have distorted the criminal process, thereby offering a complementary analysis of what ails the criminal justice system. This analysis builds on the by-now well-known critiques of the racial and socioeconomic discrimination at the system\u27s heart. The result is a criminal justice system that allows political considerations to dictate results far more than they should. In domestic prosecutions, criminal law is mostly used to target those who seek to question the legitimacy of state policies, state agencies (especially the police), or corporate interests, rendering the act of protest in and of itself as criminal. This is in contrast to rightwing protest activity, which must be violent to merit prosecutorial attention. The chief example here is that of the January 6 riot, where the violent activities of the participants have driven the prosecutorial response, not the protest itself The difference between the two types of protest has clear racial implications as well, as noted below. When foreign policy interests drive a prosecution, the authorities can be more explicit in articulating racial and religious biases, with criminal defendants often powerless to defend themselves, even if their culpability is questionable at best. Even when defendants are found not guilty, the possibility of extended immigration detention looms. In other words, criminal prosecution articulates a national interest that encompasses a constructed racial component, which captures both minorities and foreigners as representative of the threat