Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University
Florida Agricultural & Mechanical University College of LawNot a member yet
884 research outputs found
Sort by
First, Do No Harm: Response to “If You Prick Me”
Get PDFBrianna Lennon makes several cogent and persuasive arguments about Female Genital Mutilation (“FGM”) in her recently published Student Note entitled, If You Prick Me: The American Academy of Pediatrics’ Female Genital Cutting Policy Turnabout. She successfully articulates why she believes that by prohibiting FGM, opponents are in effect reinforcing it as a tie to the former culture or country. However, although Ms. Lennon makes some sound points, she overlooks and thereby, fails to answer the most obvious question which is, who owns a woman’s body? If one reaches the conclusion that a woman owns her body, then the logical extension of this is that FGM, by its very nature must be prohibited and eliminated and is “wrong.” When a society dictates, through tradition or some other form of forced persuasion, what a woman must do with her body in order to achieve a placed designed for her in that society, then, she clearly does not own her body. Moreover, notwithstanding cultural imperatives, nuanced intricacies, traditions, or the values of the culture which practice it, FGM is torture and should not and must not be tolerated. Perhaps it was the realization of these facts which led the American Academy of Pediatrics (“AAP”) to rethink and withdraw its endorsement of a ritual prick to replace FGM. This article is in response to the Note written by Ms. Lennon and is intended to further the dialogue on the subject of female genital mutilation
The Coal Miners Have Taken Care of Us: Let\u27s Now Take Care of the Coal Miners
Get PDFFor over a hundred years, coal has helped power America\u27s economy.\u27 In short, without coal mining no industrial revolution would have occurred. Coal fueled the new industrial capitalism. \u27 Moreover, from the very beginnings of industrialization in the United States, Appalachian coal and other fossil fuels have fired the engine of American industry, \u27 and it was Appalachian coking coal that helped make the steel America needed.\u27 Coal transformed the United States into an industrial superpower from a virtual wilderness. This massive use of coal has come at a price to the miners. The death and injury rate from mining is matched by few other industries. From 1892 to 1992, 120,000 miners died in the United States.\u27 Thus, in providing the United States the energy it needed to make its steel, power its electricity, and move its goods, miners have suffered. Only when tragedy strikes the coal fields does Congress act to help the coal miners. In the past such tragedy has taken the form of explosions, mine floods, fires, and roof collapses. Lurking in the future for many coal miners is another tragedy, one more subtle than others but every bit as deadly: black lung.\u27 In addition, the families of the miners have suffered. Sarah Ogan Gunning, a miner\u27s wife from Harlan, Kentucky, conveyed some of this suffering in the song, I am a Girl of Constant Sorrow. Throughout the years, miners have placed their trust in those that let them down. Their union, the United Mine Workers of America (UMW), let them down due to corruption. Their government let them down by ignoring black lung disease for decades and for failing to win its War on Poverty; in part, because it offered too little in too short of a time without enough understanding of the unique forces that had shaped Appalachia into the nation\u27s poorest region. This paper has an Appalachian focus and examines the heavy toil that coal mining has taken on these workers and their families. It concludes that these hard-working coal miners and their families have not received the recognition that they deserve. It further concludes that for their work and sacrifices, miners and their families deserve additional compensation that we as a society need to provide
The Fifth Freedom: The Constitutional Duty to Provide Public Education
Get PDFThis Article explains why there is a fundamental duty for the government to provide public education under the U.S. Constitution. Numerous scholars and public officials have written on the need to overrule San Antonio v. Rodriguez or adopt alternative approaches to recognizing a right to public education either judicially or by way of constitutional amendment. This Article identifies a consistent and systemic reluctance by the Court to meaningfully enforce positive rights, which are the duties that the government owes to the people. In doing so, it explores the consistent recognition throughout American history that education is a fundamental duty of government. When the Supreme Court issued its infamous holding in San Antonio v. Rodriguez, it did so using the language of negative rights. However, even as the Court failed to recognize a fundamental right, it simultaneously upheld existing precedent that recognized the government\u27s special duty to provide public education. Recognizing the fundamental duty to public education as a positive right would correct a major inconsistency in U.S. constitutional law and help bring fundamental rights doctrine more in line with broader understandings of social justice. In order to safeguard the fundamental right to public education, a new form of fundamental rights analysis for positive rights must be developed. The details of such a rights analysis will take time, but it must begin with an understanding that traditional strict scrutiny analysis cannot be applied to positive rights as they are to negative rights. Part II discusses the development of fundamental rights under the U.S. Constitution. Part II ends with recognition that despite a comprehensive jurisprudence regarding individual liberties, there is a dearth of jurisprudence regarding constitutional duties owed to individuals, which are also known as positive rights. Part III examines the normative justifications for recognizing a fundamental duty to provide public education by examining the educational philosophies of such luminaries as Thomas Jefferson and John Dewey alongside today\u27s international human rights laws. Part IV describes and criticizes the current doctrine regarding the right to public education as inconsistent with the aspirational holding of Brown v. Board of Education. It builds from Justice Marshall\u27s Rodriguez dissent and includes a critique of the Court\u27s use of federalism, race neutrality, and exposes the Court\u27s reluctance to recognize positive rights and duties. Part V discusses possible approaches to judicially enforcing a right to public education. It explores the limits of current fundamental rights doctrines that are based in negative rather than positive rights and the resulting need to develop a new form of rights analysis that applies in the context of fundamental duties owed to individuals
The Need for Congress to Get Onboard with Cruise Ship Pollution Regulation: How the Lack of Federal Regulation of the Cruise Ship Industry is Destroying the Nation\u27s Waters
Get PDFYou Don\u27t Own Me: Why Work for Hire Should Not Be Applied to Sound Recordings
Get PDFMany recording artists and songwriters never reap the rewards of their work. America\u27s first professional songwriter died in poverty at the age of thirty-seven. At the Congressional level the situation has described recording artists as one group of creators who get ripped off more than anybody else in any other industry . As we approach 2013, there will be a new line of cases that deal with authors of sound recordings attempting to terminate their copyright assignment to the record companies. While the most efficient and frugal solution would be legislative action, the most probable outcome is expensive, fact-intensive litigation. Congress and the Supreme Court have emphasized the value of predictability in copyright ownership. In this situation, Congress has fallen short of that goal. Sound Recordings do not fit the definition of work made for hire under the 1976 Copyright Act. While analyzing the 2013 terminations, courts should not overlook the congressional intent of creating an inalienable termination right for authors
2011 Hooding Ceremony Program
Get PDFhttps://commons.law.famu.edu/hooding-ceremony-programs/1006/thumbnail.jp
Law Day Oral Argument Session 5th District Court of Appeal, 2011
Get PDFAs part of the fifth annual Law Day event, a three judge panel from the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal is hearing appellate oral arguments in the FAMU College of Law Ceremonial Moot Courtroom. The first arguments are regarding evidence and jury instruction issues; the second case involves real property, mortgages and liens, as well as jurisdiction issues; the final arguments are regarding juror non-disclosure. A question-and-answer session follows each set of arguments during which the justices and attorneys entertain questions about the appellate process and organization of the court.https://commons.law.famu.edu/law-day/1004/thumbnail.jp
