Missouri v. Holland\u27s Second Holding

This legitimate federalism problem, however, does not warrant a complete rethinking of Treaty Power doctrine. It just requires some tinkering around Missouri v. Holland\u27s edges. The solution I propose is far narrower than those proposed by Bradley and Rosenkranz, and unlike their proposed solutions, it is consistent with the Founder\u27s design. I argue that the power to implement treaties under the Necessary and Proper clause is the power to require compliance with treaty obligations. Because aspirational treaty provisions do not impose obligations in any meaningful sense of the term, the clause does not give Congress the power to implement such provisions. If such provisions concern matters otherwise beyond Congress\u27 legislative powers, the Constitution leaves their implementation to the States. This approach is consistent with the Founders\u27 design because the Constitution reflects the Founders\u27 fear of treaty violations by States, and only obligatory provisions can be violated. Part II of this article considers and rejects Professor Bradley\u27s approach. Part III considers and rejects Professor Rosenkranz\u27s approach. Part IV sets forth the true federalism problem posed by the holding of Missouri v. Holland and advances my more tailored solution to this problem

On Teaching Mediation

In this article, I will delineate the issues and explore the implications of resolving them in different ways. Part I develops a taxonomy of variations in models of mediation. In Part II, I analyze choices and constraints in course design. In Part III, I specify the choices I have made in structuring my own course in mediation. I will relate those choices to the context of my school, to my students\u27 backgrounds and interests, and to my competencies and goals. The initial version of this paper was written for my students to read as they entered my course. Pedagogically, the text oriented them to the course and gave them an overview of its content. Just as importantly, the paper (together with the court syllabus) disclosed to the students the treatment I proposed to administer to them at a time they could still enroll in other courses if they should chose to do so. In Part IV, I will address mediation teachers\u27 professional responsibilities; there is an ideology of professional service that informs my approach to these matters that I hope to make explicit

Assured Water Supply Laws in the Sustainability Context

By juxtaposing five western states’ existing assured supply laws, this Article provides a preliminary assessment of whether, and how, assured supply laws can best promote sustainability—and, by extension, make at least one area of environmental law more like sustainability law. The Article reaches three principal conclusions. First, it finds that, as they appear to, assured supply laws in fact promote sustainability. Second, the extent to which assured supply laws likely promote sustainability greatly varies by state, because these laws’ policy designs also depend on the state of enactment. Finally, additional work is needed to provide a more concrete assessment of how effective assured supply laws are, both in general and in the context of sustainability. The Article proceeds in three parts. Part I briefly introduces assured supply laws, including how they function, rationales offered for their adoption, and their apparent benefits and costs. Part II places these laws in a sustainability context, attempting to reformulate how we think of assured supply laws from a sustainability, rather than a traditional environmental, vantage. Part III concludes by contrasting five state regimes through the lens of a possible model for sustainability law. Part III shows that assured supply design very much matters for how well the laws promote sustainability

The Fatal Failure of the Regulatory State

The impact of government policies depends on their design, implementation, and enforcement.! The administrative law literature focuses primarily on matters of regulatory structure.2 Government agencies entrusted with protection of the environment and promotion of health and safety foster these objectives by designing and promulgating regulations that are sometimes quite stringent.\u27 Whether these regulations will in fact generate their intended effects depends on whether they create sufficient economic incentives to discourage risky behavior... The Article begins by documenting the low values currently placed on life in regulatory enforcement efforts. Part I presents examples involving job safety, food safety, motor-vehicle safety, and environmental quality, which demonstrate that the assignment of low values to fatalities is not an infrequent practice. Why such low values are problematic is the focus of Part II, which outlines the practices used in regulatory impact analyses for prospective regulations and the principles for optimal deterrence. To implement these principles requires changing the current statutory guidance, as the agencies currently are hamstrung by very low caps on allowable penalties. Part III presents the proposed revisions of several representative statutes pertaining to health, safety, and the environment. Once firms begin to face meaningful enforcement sanctions, this enhanced penalty structure will alter their calculation of the costs and benefits of regulatory compliance. As Part IV indicates, establishing penalty levels consistent with law and economic theories of optimal deterrence also will influence the corporate risk analyses used in determining appropriate levels of safety. But realizing the full potential of such changes will require that companies be provided with legal protections for undertaking analyses that balance the competing economic concerns of costs and risks. The concluding discussion summarizes the rationale for rectifying the mismatch between regulatory design and regulatory enforcement

A Suggestion on Suggestion

Part I of the full article briefly describes the history and current slate of research into children\u27s suggestibility. In this part, we argue that, although psychological researchers disagree considerably over the degree to which he suggestibility of young children may lead to false allegations of sexual abuse, there is an overwhelming consensus that children are suggestible to a degree that, we believe, must be regarded as significant. In presenting this argument, we respond to the contentions of revisionist scholars, particularly those recently expressed by Professor Lyon. We show that there is good reason to believe the use of highly suggestive questions remains very common, and hat these questions present a significant possibility that children will make false allegations even on matters such as sexual abuse. Part II develops a framework, using Bayesian probability theory, for considering the findings described in Part I. We argue that there is merit to the traditional - and constitutionally compelled - view that an inaccurate criminal conviction is a far worse result than a failure to reach an accurate conviction, and that this perspective should inform the design of legal systems. With this in mind, we explain that even relatively slight probabilities of false allegations are potentially significant. Moreover, we show that the very substantial probability that a child who has been abused will fail to reveal the abuse tends, perhaps counterintuitively, to diminish the probative value of an allegation of abuse when it is actually made. In the discussion below, taken from Part III of the longer article, we turn to discussion of the legal implications of our analysis

KVK NEWSLETTER(1)

Not AvailableThe Hon’ble Union Minister for Agriculture and President of Indian Council of Agricultural Research Society constituted a High Power Committee under the Chairmanship of Dr.R.S. Paroda, Former Secretary, Department of Agricultural Research and Education, Govt. of India and Director General, Indian Council of Agricultural Research to revisit all relevant issues pertaining to functioning of Krishi Vigyan Kendras and suggest measures to ensure their efficiency and effectiveness in meeting the stakeholders’ expectations. The Committee was assigned specific Terms of Reference to review: (i) mandate, (ii) sanction/establishment procedure, (iii) domain of activities (iv) coordination and monitoring system, (v) performance indicators, (vi) required technological backstopping by the Directorates of Extension of State Agriculture Universities/Indian Council of Agricultural Research Institutes, (vii) sense of belongingness, (viii) convergence and linkage mechanisms, (ix) required infrastructural facilities, (x) personnel policies, (xi) administrative procedures, (xii) financial procedures, and (xiii) other relevant matters in order to make the Krishi Vigyan Kendras more effective, vibrant and useful. The Committee had extensive discussions with various stakeholders during its 23 meetings, mostly held in New Delhi, and ensured wide interactions with all those involved in the Krishi Vigyan Kendra system. The Committee has accordingly made necessary recommendations on each of the Terms of Reference. In addition, the Committee has also developed detailed guidelines for the Management of Krishi Vigyan Kendra system in two parts, i.e. Part-I, which deals with the “Road Map for the Krishi Vigyan Kendra system” that include Prelude, Genesis and Growth, Vision, Mission and Mandate, Design, Structure and Strategy, and Operational Terminology; and Part-II, which relates to Implementation of Krishi Vigyan Kendra System including Administration, Finance, Coordination, Implementation and Monitoring, Convergence and Linkage, Scientific and Technical and Capacity Development.Not Availabl

Missouri v. Holland’s Second Holding

The Supreme Court in Missouri v. Holland famously held that Congress has the power to pass a law to implement a treaty even if the law would not fall within Congress’ legislative power in the absence of the treaty. Essential to this holding were two distinct propositions. The first proposition is that the treaty-makers have the constitutional power to make treaties on matters falling outside Congress’ enumerated powers. The second is that, if the treaty-makers make such a treaty and the treaty is not self-executing, the Necessary and Proper Clause gives Congress the power to implement such a treaty through a statute even if, in the absence of the treaty, the statute would be beyond Congress’s legislative power. The Court in Missouri v. Holland focused on the first proposition. It devoted only one sentence to the second proposition: “If the treaty is valid there can be no dispute about the validity of the statute under Article I, § 8, as a necessary and proper means to execute the powers of the Government.” Controversy concerning the issue addressed in Missouri v. Holland has recurred throughout our history, but, each time, the controversy has revolved around the first proposition. That Congress has the power to implement any obligations undertaken under valid treaties has not been seriously questioned – until recently. In recent articles, critics of Missouri v. Holland have argued that it is the second holding that should be rejected. In their view, the Constitution permits the making of treaties falling outside Congress’ legislative power under Article I, but denies Congress the power to implement such treaties. It is easy to see why no one has ever regarded such a regime as plausible: it would contradict one of the Founders’ key convictions – that the federal government must have the power to assure compliance with its international commitments. Although their particular proposals are untenable in light of the Founders’ design, these critics are on the right track insofar as they identify the second of Missouri v. Holland’s holdings as the potentially problematic one from a federalism perspective. The scope of the actual federalism problem attributable to the holding of Missouri v. Holland, however, is far more limited thanthey suggest, and does not warrant a complete rethinking of Treaty Power doctrine. It just requires some tinkering around Missouri v. Holland’s edges. The potential federalism problem concerns only aspirational treaty provisions, which might easily gain Senate consent because they do not appear to require anything in particular, but, under a broad interpretation of Missouri v, Holland, could then be the basis of a broad legislative power on matters falling outside Article I. The solution I propose is to exclude aspirational treaties from the scope of Missouri v. Holland’s second holding.The power to implement treaties under the Necessary and Proper clause is the power to require compliance with treaty obligations. Because aspirational treaty provisions do not impose obligations in any meaningful sense of the term, the clause does not give Congress the power to implement such provisions. If such provisions concern matters otherwise beyond Congress’ legislative powers, the Constitution leaves their implementation to the States

When Should You Adjust Standard Errors for Clustering?

In empirical work in economics it is common to report standard errors that account for clustering of units. Typically, the motivation given for the clustering adjustments is that unobserved components in outcomes for units within clusters are correlated. However, because correlation may occur across more than one dimension, this motivation makes it difficult to justify why researchers use clustering in some dimensions, such as geographic, but not others, such as age cohorts or gender. It also makes it difficult to explain why one should not cluster with data from a randomized experiment. In this paper, we argue that clustering is in essence a design problem, either a sampling design or an experimental design issue. It is a sampling design issue if sampling follows a two stage process where in the first stage, a subset of clusters were sampled randomly from a population of clusters, while in the second stage, units were sampled randomly from the sampled clusters. In this case the clustering adjustment is justified by the fact that there are clusters in the population that we do not see in the sample. Clustering is an experimental design issue if the assignment is correlated within the clusters. We take the view that this second perspective best fits the typical setting in economics where clustering adjustments are used. This perspective allows us to shed new light on three questions: (i) when should one adjust the standard errors for clustering, (ii) when is the conventional adjustment for clustering appropriate, and (iii) when does the conventional adjustment of the standard errors matter

Hard Cases Under the Convention on the International Sale of Goods: A Proposed Taxonomy of Interpretative Challenges

QC 20120703</p