8353 research outputs found
Sort by
Feminist-in-Chief? Examining President Obama\u27s Executive Orders on Women\u27s Rights Issues
Get PDFThis article focuses on President Obama’s use of executive orders in various areas of women’s rights issues including the empowerment of women, gender-based violence, reproductive rights, and employment. As scholars of the American presidency have noted, executive orders can be used either as strategic tools to short-circuit legislative gridlock or to underscore and complement presidential policy measures pending in Congress. Executive orders can also serve to promote projects of special interest groups. Finally, knowing that their directives can be powerfully symbolic, presidents can be particularly effective in the use of executive action to underscore the gulf between the Democratic Party and the GOP on women’s issues. Examining the content and context of President Obama’s executive orders on women’s rights can help us to ascertain whether he has been the Feminist-in-Chief during his time in office
Imposing Company Ownership Transparency Requirements: Opportunities for Effective Governance of Equity Capital Markets or Constraints on Corporate Performance
Get PDFEffects of Settlement Between a Local Company and a Host State in a Bilateral Investment Treaty Claim of Foreign Shareholders Arising From the Same Conduct
Get PDFCase: \u3cem\u3ePhilippines v. China\u3c/em\u3e: The South China Sea Finally Meets International Law
Get PDFThe Natural-Born Citizen Clause, Popular Constitutionalism, and Ted Cruz’s Eligibility Question (with M. Bodie)
Get PDFThis Essay argues that recent debates over the eligibility of Barack Obama and Ted Cruz to serve as President offer unique insights into the phenomenon of constitutional contestation outside the courts. Rather than anything approaching serious constitutional engagement, the public debate over presidential eligibility has been characterized by dramatic shifts in public opinion, crass opportunism, and excessive deference to elite views. Cruz is a fervent advocate of the American people standing up against courts and elites when it comes to defining basic constitutional values, but he abandons his commitment to popular constitutionalism when it comes to questions of presidential eligibility. Instead, he favors a reading of the “natural born Citizen” clause that was crafted by constitutional lawyers under which he is eligible for the Presidency. Contestation over the meaning of the “natural born Citizen” requirement shows the power of popular constitutionalism to reframe the terms of a debate, but it also shows the fluid, ephemeral, and opportunistic qualities of popular constitutional claims
Uncertain Futures in Evolving Financial Markets
No full textToday’s publicly offered investment funds, including mutual funds, have ever more diverse investment strategies, as they increasingly invest in financial instruments that, in earlier years, had been the province of only the most sophisticated investors. Although the new landscape of investment possibilities may substantially benefit retail investors, one financial instrument attracting increasing amounts of retail investors’ assets is acutely troublesome: the commodity futures contract. Futures originated as a means for farmers and other producers of agricultural commodities to ensure that their products could be sold at reasonable prices. Early on, the goals of futures regulation centered on one particular risk facing futures market participants—manipulative trading that destabilizes futures markets—with little emphasis on other risks, including risks to futures traders’ assets. Over the years, that goal has remained largely static.As this Article argues, that is the problem. The many retail investors that now participate (indirectly) in the futures markets are at risk as a result of the inadequate regulation of futures commission merchants (“FCMs”), the brokerage firms that are essential for futures transactions. “Inadequate” regulation in this context, moreover, means inadequate procedural regulation—regulation aimed at protecting assets that a brokerage customer deposits with a broker for purposes of carrying out her trading activities. The weaknesses of the procedural regulation of FCMs are evident in rules governing both FCMs’ operations and the liquidation of insolvent FCMs. And the deficiencies are more than theoretical, having become all-too-evident in the wake of two recent FCM bankruptcies. Proposing tailored policymaking solutions, this Article further contends that futures regulation can become substantially more effective—and do so in a cost-effective manner that need not excessively disrupt existing regulatory approaches. These proposals would not only help protect retail investors as they navigate new investment options; they would also help fortify the promising role that futures trading has begun to play in twenty-first century financial markets
Faculty Perspectives - Spring 2016
Get PDFThis issue features scholarship by up-and-coming scholars Patrick R. Goold, Myrisha S. Lewis, Seth C. Oranburg and Joy Y. Xiang. Also inside: David Gerber on law and economics.https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/fac_perspectives/1005/thumbnail.jp
Guide to AC031 - \u3cem\u3eIllinois Public Employee Relations Report\u3c/em\u3e
Get PDFIllinois Public Employee Relations Report, 1988-2011
The Illinois Public Employee Relations Report began as a publication of the Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The first issue was published in March of 1984. Beginning in 1990 with Volume 7, No. 1, IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law joined the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign as a co-publisher of the Report, with Professor Martin Malin serving as faculty editor along with Professor Peter Feuille (U of I).
The Illinois Public Employee Relations Report provides current, nonadversarial information to those involved or interested in employer-employee relations in public employment. Each issue features a Recent Developments section written by the student editorial board, and other legal developments of interest to the public sector labor relations community, such as Fair Labor Standards Act, Equal Employment Opportunity laws, First Amendment issues, and the Illinois Public and Educational Labor Relations Act.
The Report is a quarterly publication. Beginning in 2012 with Volume 29, No. 1, the Report became an electronic-only publication.
Related collection(s): The Illinois Public Employee Relations Repor
Impunity for Snake Oil Merchants?: The Seventh Circuit Upholds the Class Action as a Vehicle for Consumer Protection
Get PDFThe class action is often the only way for victims of consumer fraud to pursue a remedy. Several federal circuit courts have recently adopted the heightened ascertainability requirement—a requirement that makes certifying a consumer class almost impossible. A plaintiff can only meet the heightened ascertainability requirement by showing that members of her proposed class can be identified in a reliable and administratively feasible way. This typically requires documentary proof of class membership. For classes made up of purchasers of deceptive low-cost products who have not kept their receipts, heightened ascertainability has served as an insurmountable barrier to certification.
In Mullins v. Direct Digital LLC, the Seventh Circuit rejected the adoption of the heighted ascertainability requirement. The court held that nothing in Rule 23 mentioned or implied the requirement, and that Rule 23 and the court’s settled class certification analysis already adequately addressed the policy concerns motivating its adoption. In so holding, the court recognized the negative implications that heightened ascertainability would have on the consumer class action.
The Seventh Circuit got it right in rejecting heightened ascertainability. This rule should be abandoned because it undercuts the core policy behind the class action: the vindication of the rights of a group of people who individually would be without effective strength to bring a corporate defendant to court at all. The Judicial Conference’s Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure should amend Rule 23 to codify the Seventh Circuit’s approach to class certification outlined in Mullins. Such an amendment would eliminate judicially created hurdles to class certification and preserve the class action as an instrument for consumer protection and deterrent against corporate wrongdoing