4328 research outputs found
Sort by
What Constitutes Dangerous Political Speech and How It Can Incite Violence
No full textReports from Trump rallies in recent days echo a common theme: if their candidate loses there will be anger, despair, even revolution. Trump supporters site the election as being rigged – of which there is no evidence – and a corrupt system. It’s language the presidential candidate himself uses. While political reporters note most Trump supporters are not calling for “revolution” the words from the campaign this season have many asking what constitutes dangerous political speech and how it can incite people to act. We get perspectives from a political scientist, a reporter and legal scholars
Banking Without Guarantees? Public Policy Considerations Concerning Insurance Company Retained Asset Accounts
Get PDFDuring a child’s early years, many lessons are learned about the way the world operates. There are many lessons about language— schoolchildren learn how to write cursive, to write paragraphs, and also how to spell. There are lessons about the various continents and countries around the world, the various cultures, and the various careers one can pursue after entering into adulthood. Amidst these lessons, many will receive a piggy bank for the first time to learn the value of saving money. Over time, the value of the money in a piggy bank sometimes yields a surprise. Around a person’s teenage years, he or she often opens up a checking account for the first time. As part of having a checking account, one has to learn not only how to use but also how to balance a checkbook.
Surprisingly, checkbooks are not only issued by Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insured banks, but also issued by life insurance companies through an account known as a “retained asset account” (RAA). With a retained asset account, a beneficiary under a life insurance contract does not receive a draft for the policy proceeds, but instead receives a checkbook or draft book to draw the policy proceeds from a retained asset account. While in the retained asset account, the money in the account typically earns a small percentage of interest, but the insurance company holding the account also earns interest through a spread
Emerging Issues: A Global Analysis: Legal Recognition and Equal Treatment of Transgender Citizens
Get PDFTransgender individuals across nations have been subjected to a range of restrictive barriers, which limit their legal recognition of fundamental rights and protections. These obstacles place a stigma on transgender individuals, subjecting the community to a wide range of discrimination. These boundaries range in severity; some countries simply impose restrictions of use for certain facilities, while other countries resort to physical abuse. Recently, certain countries have enacted laws to give transgender members the same legal recognition that other citizens are afforded while other countries fail to accept the transgender community and continue to uphold restrictive barriers
Student Comment: Not Really a Battle of the Sexes: Women’s Health Agenda Advocates Global Equality in Medical Research Trials and Drug Administration
Get PDFThe New Women’s Health Agenda seeks to close the discriminatory gap between men’s and women’s medical treatment around the world. Often, women’s reproductive issues are the focus of medical studies in which women are involved; however, chronic diseases are quickly becoming a high health risk for the female population around the world. This comment explores the past, present, and future of women’s global health. Throughout history, women have been prevented from participating in clinical trials for reproductive protection reasons. The problem arises after men have successfully responded to treatment because the medication is then administered to both men and women. Women are still facing numerous challenges in regards to proper healthcare today. Women today are experiencing an increase in mental health diseases and chronic diseases such as heart disease, autoimmune diseases, and HIV/AIDS. Women of color and of low socioeconomic status also face their own unique challenges. This comment argues importance of a global healthcare system in which men and women are treated as biologically different, but socially and psychologically equal
Book Review (reviewing Louis Fisher\u27s Congress: Protecting Individual Rights)
Get PDFFisher is currently the Scholar in Residence at the Constitution Project, and is well known for his many years as Senior Specialist on Separation of Powers at the Congressional Research Service and as Specialist in Constitutional Law at the Law Library of Congress. He has extensive experience testifying before Congress on topics that include Congress and the constitution, war powers, executive power and privilege, and several aspects of the federal budget and its processes. He has written numerous books on these topics, including (to name only a few) The President and Congress: Power and Policy (1972); Defending Congress and the Constitution (2011); Constitutional Conflicts between Congress and the President (6th ed., 2014) and Political Dynamics of Constitutional Law (5th ed., 2011). He is without a doubt a renowned scholar on constitutional law.
In Congress: Protecting Individual Rights Dr. Fisher has written a history analyzing how the Congress, the Supreme Court and the President have acted, or failed to act, to protect the rights of individuals. This relatively brief book is divided into chapters that highlight the various areas where the protection of individual rights have been at issue throughout U.S. history. Chapters include the Rights of Blacks (Chapter 3), The Rights of Women (Chapter 4), The Rights of Children (Chapter 5), Protecting Religious Liberty (Chapter 6) and The Rights of Native Americans (Chapter 6). Each chapter traces the history of some of the most significant issues in our nation’s past, using brief explanations of significant Supreme Court cases and instances where the exercise of Presidential power failed to protect individuals and highlighting when Congress exercised or attempted to exercise its political will to protect those rights
Commentary on City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power v. Manhart
No full textMarie Manhart, a former employee of the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, brought a class action lawsuit on behalf of herself and current and former employees, challenging the Department\u27s requirement that female employees contribute approximately 15 percent more than make employees to the Department\u27s retirement plan. The Department used sex-based actuarial tables to classify employees and determine the amount of an employee\u27s contribution. The plaintiffs alleged that because identically situated male employees paid less, the policy constituted discrimination based on sex under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The plaintiffs argued that the Department impermissibly classified employees by sex and not as individuals to determine the amount of the contributions.
The Department defended the differential treatment, asserting that women on average had longer life expectencies than men. It was argued that Title VII did not apply because actuarial longevity factor was a factor other than the [employee\u27s] sex. In the original majority opinion written by Justice Stevens, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts that the employer discriminated by reducing the take-home pay of women. The Court found retroactive relief inappropriate, however, because of the potential impact on the employer and the economy
Recent Developments: The Constitutionality of Regulations and Bans on the Second Amendment
Get PDFThe 9th Circuit decided to overturn a local California county zoning ordinance that was infringing upon a citizen’s Second Amendment right to own and operate a gun store. The ordinance stated that any store that sold firearms or operated as a firing range needed to be 500 feet away from the front door of the shop to the front door of school zones, government buildings, residential areas, and other stores that sell firearms. The owners of Valley Guns & Ammo found a place located in Alameda County, just outside the radius and began working on acquiring the property and renovating it into their gun store and firing range. During this time period, the county came by and informed the owners that they could not operate their gun store at the building because their store would be located inside the disqualifying radius. The building that was to be used had only one door, and the owners had measured the distance from the front door to the nearest disqualifying property’s front door at 532 feet away. The court declined to address the factual issue of the county improperly measuring the distance, and instead determined the constitutionality of a zoning ordinance that regulates the Second Amendment.
The owners of the store appealed the zoning violation, claiming that they were outside the radius as described by the statute. The county measured from the exterior wall of the store to the nearest “residential property line rather from door to door,” putting the property 54 feet too close to the closest disqualifying property marker. Once the case reached the 9th Circuit, the court overturned the lower court’s decision, holding that the ordinance as read and interpreted by the lower court was a violation of the storeowner’s Second Amendment rights. The court recognized the importance of protecting one’s fundamental rights from an overbearing government ordinance. This ruling gained a great deal of criticism from the public and the fellow judges, especially in the dissent which claimed that this was not a Second Amendment claim, but merely a zoning issue made to look like a Second Amendment claim
Recent Development: Scarfield v. Muntjan: A Jury Demand in an Amended Complaint, Which is Dismissed for Failure to State a Claim, Does Not Revive a Previously Waived Jury Demand for Counts in the Original Complaint
Get PDFThe Court of Appeals of Maryland held that, while a waived jury trial may be revived by an amended complaint in which new and substantive issues are raised, the dismissal of a new count raised in an amended complaint will not revive the originally waived demand for jury trial
Recent Development: Peterson v. State: Limitations on Defense Cross-Examination are Permitted When the Testimony Lacks a Factual Foundation, Is Overly Prejudicial, or Has Not Been Adequately Preserved
Get PDFThe Court of Appeals of Maryland held that the defendant’s right to confrontation was not violated when the defense was precluded from cross-examining a witness about hallucinations and his potential sentence prior to entering into a plea agreement. Peterson v. State, 444 Md. 105, 153-54, 118 A.3d 925, 952-53 (2015). The court found that the defendant failed to preserve the issue of a witness’s expectation of benefit with respect to pending charges, and failed to show sufficient factual foundation for a cross-examination regarding the expectation. Id. at 138-39, 118 A.3d at 944. In addition, the court found that, although not protected by attorney-client privilege, exclusion of co-defendant’s counsel’s testimony was proper because of its prejudicial nature and limited probative value
Defending Breakthrough Innovation: The History and Future of the State of Patent Law
Get PDFCongress, while enacting at least six major revisions to patent law since 1793, has left the definition of patentable subject matter essentially unchanged. The Supreme Court, on the other hand, has been uncomfortable with the concept for more than a century. Despite this long-standing discomfort, it has struggled to advance a theoretical basis for its concern. In a series of recent cases, it has finally developed a theory as to why certain types of inventions, although embraced by the statutory definition, are nonetheless unpatentable. The theory, in effect, abandons the federal government’s role in protecting those inventions. This article explores the consequences of the resulting vacuum and challenges the conventional wisdom that patents are purely federal and purely statutory.
Part II of this article traces the history of the statutory concept of patentable subject matter and the judicial efforts to narrow this definition. Part III of this article reviews the current Supreme Court theory. Part IV analyzes the consequences of that theory from a federalism perspective and argues that, by creating a federal vacuum, the Court has opened the door for state patent laws. Part V outlines how certain states can take advantage of this opening and deals with some anticipated objections to this proposal