Behavioral Genetics Research and Criminal DNA Databases

Kaye discusses DNA databanks and the potential use of such databanks for behavioral genetics research. He addresses the concern that DNA databanks serve as a limitless repository for future research and that the samples used in the databanks could be used for research into a crime gene

All-Payer Claims Database Development Manual: Establishing a Foundation for Health Care Transparency and Informed Decision Making

With support from the Gary and Mary West Health Policy Center, the APCD Council has developed a manual for states to develop all-payer claims databases. Titled All-Payer Claims Database Development Manual: Establishing a Foundation for Health Care Transparency and Informed Decision Making, the manual is a first-of its-kind resource that provides states with detailed guidance on common data standards, collection, aggregation and analysis involved with establishing these databases

Regulatory Competition and the Market for Corporate Law

This article develops an empirical model of firms’ choice of corporate laws under inertia. Delaware dominates the incorporation market, though recently Nevada, a state whose laws are highly protective of managers, has acquired a sizable market share. Using a novel database of incorporation decisions from 1995- 2013, we show that most firms dislike protectionist laws, such as anti-takeover statutes and liability protections for officers, and that Nevada’s rise is due to the preferences of small firms.Our estimates indicate that despite inertia, Delaware would lose significant market share and revenues if it adopted protectionist laws. Our findings support the hypothesis that Delaware faces competitive pressure to maintain its current laws, and that managers are willing to commit to such laws in order to attract capital

The Public Face of the \u27Litigation State:\u27 Federal Empowerment of Litigation by State Governments

Scholars have recently begun exploring the construction of what Sean Farhang has termed the “litigation state” – namely, the distinctly American way in which contemporary federal programs are enforced by means of litigation. The attention in this literature to date has focused on why Congress has encouraged private litigation to enforce various statutory programs. This paper examines the emergence of a related and no less important development – the federal government’s encouragement of state government litigators to help enforce federal regulatory programs, especially state attorneys general ( AGs ). Examining several decades’ worth of congressional actions, court decisions, and federal administrative initiatives that have empowered state AGs, this paper explores how and why Congress and other federal institutions have placed increasing reliance on state AGs to enforce federal law. This question has become important not only because this federal empowerment has been a major driver of the prominent regulatory role state AGs have taken on in recent years, but because the political dynamic concerning state litigation differs from other aspects of the litigation state

It's about time: Investing in transportation to keep Texas economically competitive - Appendices

APPENDIX A : PAVEMENT QUALITY (Zhanmin Zhang, Michael R. Murphy, Robert Harrison), 7 pages -- APPENDIX B : BRIDGE QUALITY (Jose Weissmann, Angela J. Weissmann), 6 pages -- APPENDIX C : URBAN TRAFFIC CONGESTION (Tim Lomax, David Schrank), 32 pages -- APPENDIX D: RURAL CORRIDORS (Tim Lomax, David Schrank), 6 pages -- APPENDIX E: ADDITIONAL REVENUE SOURCE OPTIONS FOR PAVEMENT AND BRIDGE MAINTENANCE (Mike Murphy, Seokho Chi, Randy Machemehl, Khali Persad, Robert Harrison, Zhanmin Zhang), 81 pages -- APPENDIX F: FUNDING TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS (David Ellis, Brianne Glover, Nick Norboge, Wally Crittenden), 19 pages -- APPENDIX G: ESTIMATING VEHICLE OPERATING COSTS AND PAVEMENT DETERIORATION (by Robert Harrison), 4 page

\u3ci\u3eEldred\u3c/i\u3e and \u3ci\u3eLochner\u3c/i\u3e: Copyright Term Extension and Intellectual Property as Constitutional Property

Since the ratification of the constitution, intellectual property law in the United States has always been, in part, constitutional law. Among the enumerated powers that Article I of the Constitution vests in Congress is the power to create certain intellectual property rights. To a remarkable extent, scholars who have examined the Constitution\u27s Copyright Clause have reached a common position. With striking unanimity, these scholars have called for aggressive judicial review of the constitutionality of congressional legislation in this area. The champions of this position--we refer to them as the IP Restrictors--represent a remarkable array of constitutional and intellectual property scholars. In this terms\u27s Eldred v. Aschroft, leading IP Restrictor Lawrence Lessig, representing petitioner Eric Eldred, sought to convince the Supreme Court that the IP Restrictors\u27 view of the Copyright Clause was the correct one. By a vote of 7-2, the Supreme Court rejected Eldred\u27s claim and upheld the statute. But while the Court rejected the IP Restrictors\u27 vision, it did not offer a satisfactory competing conception of the Copyright Clause and how the courts should construe it. Critically, even though the standard of review was of central significance, the Court applied a deferential form of rational basis scrutiny without explaining why this was the appropriate standard. This paper develops the case for deferential review of congressional legislation in the area of intellectual property and, at a deeper level, offers a new paradigm for understanding the Copyright Clause. We propose that from the vantage point of constitutional law, intellectual property should be treated as a form of constitutional property. Deference to congressional judgments is warranted because congressional legislation affecting intellectual property is analytically similar to congressional legislation affecting other forms of property. Courts subject congressional legislation affecting traditional forms of property to deferential review because of concerns about institutional competence and respect for majoritarian decisionmaking. These two concerns in conjunction with proper regard for holistic constitutional interpretation should also lead courts to deferential review of congressional legislation affecting intellectual property.In developing our position, we draw on constitutional history and, in particular, the lessons of Lochner v. New York. In defense of their vision of the Constitution, the IP Restrictors and the dissenters in Eldred make claims about the original understanding that, to an astonishing extent, echo those made by proponents of Lochner-era jurisprudence. We argue, however, that these claims fail for two reasons. First, the IP Restrictors and the dissenters disregard the limited scope of judicial review at the time of the Founding. Additionally, the IP Restrictors and dissenters disregard the range of views among the Founders about monopolies

The Jurisprudence of Willfulness: An Evolving Theory of Excusable Ignorance

Ignorantia legis non excusat-ignorance of the law does not excuse-is a centuries-old criminal law maxim familiar to lawyer and layperson alike. Under the doctrine, an accused finds little protection in the claim But, I did not know the law, for all are presumed either to be familiar with the law\u27s commands or to proceed in ignorance at their own peril. The ignorant must be punished along with the knowing, the maxim teaches, to achieve a better educated and more law-abiding populace and to avoid the easy-to-assert and difficult-to-dispute claim of ignorance that would otherwise flow from the lips of any person facing criminal punishment. Despite this country\u27s long-standing allegiance to the hoary maxim, over the last century, and in particular over the last decade, the courts have seriously eroded the ignorantia legis principle by frequently construing the mens rea term willfully to require proof of an accused\u27s knowledge of the law. The erosive effect that these constructions have had on the ignorantia legis maxim is referred to in this Article as the jurisprudence of willfulness. Professor Davies demonstrates that, contrary to the maxim, the number of federal criminal statutes that have been construed to impose such a heightened mens rea requirement is already quite large. The Article reveals that, if the courts continue to employ their current interpretive approach to the term willfully, at least 160 additional federal statutes containing the term are at risk of similar treatment. The author argues that contemporary constructions of the troublesome scienter term to impose a knowledge of the law element have been grounded on doubtful, unchallenged logic and have bequeathed a legacy of grave interpretive confusion. Professor Davies maintains that much of the jurisprudence of willfulness is inimical to congressional judgments and, therefore, violative of rule of law and separation of powers principles. The Article urges a return to the ignorantia legis principle in all cases in which a clear legislative intent to abandon the maxim when employing the term willfully is missing

Federal Contract Labor Standards Statutes: An Overview

CRS_February_2005_Federal_Contract_Labor_Standards_Statutes.pdf: 4032 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020

Building the System: Follow-up, monitoring & adaptive management

Does impact assessment (IA) end when the license has been granted? While societal resources tend to focus on rigorous project approvals, what happens to the project, to the public and to the environment once approval is granted? Follow up and monitoring are often an afterthought for legislators, public servants and proponents. But they are critical to public confidence and to ensuring that proponents live up to their commitments in a rapidly changing world."This report draws from research funded by the Impact Assessment Agency as part of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Knowledge Mobilization Grant on Informing Best Practice in Environmental and Impact Assessment.