Letter from a Swedish Businessman to Geraldine Ferraro

Letter from a Swedish businessman to Geraldine Ferraro. Author included multiple letters and documents regarding the bankruptcy of his company. Letters have handwritten notes.https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/vice_presidential_campaign_correspondence_1984_international/1261/thumbnail.jp

Tax Simplification: So Necessary and So Elusive

[Excerpt] Cries for tax simplification have long been heard from presidents, legislators, current and former government officials and the public. The judiciary has often expressed its frustrations in comprehending the tax statutes. The Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) itself has had occasion to hesitate and waver in its interpretation and application of the tax statutes, and indeed, several IRS officials have admitted to retaining professional assistance to prepare their personal income tax returns. Though nearly everyone seems to advocate tax simplification, the goal remains elusive. Tax litigation continues to abound, and sometimes, where words alone do not suffice, judges augment textual opinions with graphic illustration in order to effectively elucidate their decisions. The tax statutes and regulation books continue to grow ever more voluminous, and the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”)10 is replete with sections containing exceptions to the stated rule and to the listed exceptions. Not included in the Code proper, however, are several uncodified revenue statutes of significant importance. A single transaction often gives rise to liability for diverse types of taxes. Several factors conjunctively operate to make and keep our tax system complex. By way of specific examples, this article will discuss some of the dynamics that impede and counteract the tax simplification efforts of the executive and the legislative branches. In doing so, the author does not purport that the cases, statutes, regulations or reports chosen for discussion are the only such examples. Nor does the author intend to woodenly impose any classification system, for the forces at work against tax simplification often appear in many guises and are susceptible to diverse analyses and classifications; moreover, they often interact synergistically with one another. The author seeks here to advance the scholarly and practical understanding as to why taxation continues to resist simplification, by way of identifying and describing the actions of forces that complicate the taxation process

Terror Financing, Guilt by Association and the Paradigm of Prevention in the ‘War on Terror’

Material support has become the watchword of the post-9/11 era. Material support to groups that have been designated as terrorist has been the U.S. government\u27s favorite charge in post-9/11 terrorism prosecutions. Under immigration law, material support is a basis for deportation and exclusion - even where individuals have been coerced into providing support by the terrorist group itself. And under the Military Commissions Act, it is now a war crime. This essay argues that the criminalization of material support to designated terrorist organizations is guilt by association in twenty-first-century garb, and presents all of the same problems that criminalizing membership and association with the Communist Party did during the Cold War. I first outline the ways in which guilt by association has been revived through the concept of penalizing \u27material support\u27 for organizations labeled terrorist. I then discuss the constitutional questions that these laws present, and sketch how the courts have thus far resolved those questions. In short, the courts have sought to trim the worst excesses of the laws, but have been largely unwilling to confront head on their fundamental infirmity - the imposition of guilt by association without any proof of intent to further any terrorist acts. The essay concludes by explaining how the material support laws fit into the United States\u27 broader paradigm of prevention in confronting the threat of terrorism. That term, coined by former Attorney General John Ashcroft, describes an amalgam of tactics in which the government employs highly coercive and intrusive measures against groups and individuals based not on proof of past wrongdoing, but on necessarily speculative fears about what they might do in the future. The material support laws further this goal by expanding the definition of what constitutes a past crime, just as the Smith Act membership provision of the Cold War era did. These laws are not purely preventive, in that they do require proof of some past wrongdoing. But their expansive definitions of wrongdoing stretch that concept beyond its limits in the name of preventing future harm

Commencement Exercises Program, August 19, 1932

Commencement Exercises Program, August 19, 1932

The Perilous Dialogue

The master metaphor in the national security dialogue is, indeed, “security or freedom”. It dominates the counterterrorist discourse both in the United States and abroad. Transcripts from debates in Ireland’s Dáil Éireann, Turkey’s Büyük Millet Meclisi, and Australia’s Parliament are filled with reference to the need to weigh the value of liberty against the threat posed by terrorism. Perhaps nowhere is this more pronounced than in the United Kingdom, where, for decades, counterterrorist debates have turned on this framing. Owing in part, though, to different constitutional structures, what “security or freedom” means in America differs from what it means in Britain. In the United States, we tend to treat “security” and “freedom” as distinct phenomena: policy considerations set against pre-existing, political rights. Security becomes linked to decisions taken by the executive to preserve life—e.g., heightening protection against terrorist attacks by restricting entitlements specified in the Bill of Rights. Thus, Judge Richard Posner argues that in dangerous times, we must adjust constitutional rights to meet the demands of security. Professors Adrian Vermeule and Eric Posner propose “a basic tradeoff between security and liberty.” As Professor Holmes points out, the tradeoff framework is not limited to those who come down more heavily on the security side of the equation; civil libertarians also refer to the framework, arguing for the protection of rights in the face of security demands. In the United Kingdom, in contrast, scholars and policy makers tend to consider security versus freedom as a case of competing rights: the right to life or the right to freedom from fear set against the right to move freely. As Prime Minister Tony Blair announced on 9/11, the exercise of state power would be necessary to protect “the basic civil liberty that people have to go about their business free form [sic] terror.” This framing—competing rights in tension—reflects Britain’s constitutional structure. Measures introduced by Parliament do not have to conform to a written constitution. While some documents, such as the 1215 Magna Carta, or the 1689 Bill of Rights, carry special significance, they are part of a broader system that encompasses legal and non-legal rules. The multiplicity and fluidity of rights, and the constant effort to balance them, reflect Britain’s relationship with Europe, where the European Convention on Human Rights (incorporated into British domestic law through the 1998 Human Rights Act) and European Communities law weave together to create a complex system of rights and rules protecting them. Despite the manner in which the United States and United Kingdom interpret “security or freedom,” reflective of their respective constitutional differences, in both countries the dichotomy between rights and security dominates the counterterrorist discourse. And in both regions, because the dichotomy ignores in its narrow terms of reference the far-reaching effects of counterterrorism, it stifles the debate. The “hydraulic” assumption inherent in the “security or freedom” framework overlooks the possibility that rules—indeed, the rule of law itself—provide security. There are multiple types of securities and liberties at stake. And the framework distorts the “real tradeoffs” that are being made, such as the risks inevitably entailed in the allocation of limited resources. Most importantly, “security or freedom” fails to capture the single most important characteristic of counterterrorist law: increased executive power that shifts the balance of power between the branches of government. This article suggests that at each point where the legislature would be expected to push back against the executive’s power—at the introduction of measures, at the renewal of temporary provisions, and in the exercise of oversight—its ability to do so is limited. The judiciary’s role is similarly restricted: constitutional structure and cultural norms narrow the courts’ ability to check the executive at anything but the margins. With the long-term political and economic effects of this expanded executive strength masked by the immediacy of the “security or freedom” dichotomy, the true costs of anti-terror legislation in the United States and in the United Kingdom have gone uncalculated. Over the past four decades, both countries have seen the relationship between governmental branches altered, individual rights narrowed, and the relationship of the citizens to the state changed. Counterterrorist law has alienated important domestic and international communities, created bureaucratic inefficiencies, and interrupted commercial activity. As these two countries set global counterterrorist norms through important multilateral and bilateral organizations, such as the United Nations (“UN”), the UN Security Council, the G7/G8, and the Financial Action Task Force, the risk increases that these detrimental effects will be transferred to other constitutional democracies. American and British provisions, moreover, have evolved outside the specter of terrorist groups actually using weapons of mass destruction to inflict mass casualties. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction—and I would add biological weapons to Professor Holmes’s concern about fissile material—together with a growing willingness on the part of extremists to sacrifice themselves, may drive the two countries to take increasingly severe measures. Such provisions could lead to a shift in the basic constitutional structure of both countries