The Camel's Nose Is in the Tent: Rules, Theories, and Slippery Slopes

Slippery slopes have been the topic of a spate of recent literature. In this Article, the authors provide a general theory for understanding and evaluating slippery slope arguments (SSAs) and their associated slippery slope events (SSEs). The central feature of the theory is a structure of discussion within which all arguments take place. The structure is multi-layered, consisting of decisions, rules, theories, and research programs. Each layer influences and shapes the layer beneath: rules influence decisions, theories influence the choice of rules, and research programs influence the choice of theories. In this structure, SSAs take the form of meta-arguments, as they purport to predict the future development of arguments in the structure. Evaluating such arguments requires having knowledge of the specific content of the structure of discussion itself. The Article then presents four viable types of slippery slope argument, draws attention to four different factors that (other things equal) tend to increase the likelihood of slippery slopes, and explores a variety of strategies for coping with slippery slopes.SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUMENTS; STRUCTURE OF DISCUSSION (ARGUMENT); RULES; UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

Aggregating opinions in non-uniform ordered qualitative scales

Producción CientíficaThis paper introduces a new voting system in the setting of ordered qualitative scales. The process is conducted in a purely ordinal way by considering an ordinal proximity measure that assigns an ordinal degree of proximity to each pair of linguistic terms of the qualitative scale. Once the agents assess the alternatives through the qualitative scale, the alternatives are ranked according to the medians of the ordinal degrees of proximity between the obtained individual assessments and the highest linguistic term of the scale. Since some alternatives may share the same median, an appropriate tie-breaking procedure is introduced. Some properties of the proposed voting system have been provided.Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad (Project ECO2016-77900-P

Evaluational adjectives

This paper demarcates a theoretically interesting class of "evaluational adjectives." This class includes predicates expressing various kinds of normative and epistemic evaluation, such as predicates of personal taste, aesthetic adjectives, moral adjectives, and epistemic adjectives, among others. Evaluational adjectives are distinguished, empirically, in exhibiting phenomena such as discourse-oriented use, felicitous embedding under the attitude verb `find', and sorites-susceptibility in the comparative form. A unified degree-based semantics is developed: What distinguishes evaluational adjectives, semantically, is that they denote context-dependent measure functions ("evaluational perspectives")—context-dependent mappings to degrees of taste, beauty, probability, etc., depending on the adjective. This perspective-sensitivity characterizing the class of evaluational adjectives cannot be assimilated to vagueness, sensitivity to an experiencer argument, or multidimensionality; and it cannot be demarcated in terms of pretheoretic notions of subjectivity, common in the literature. I propose that certain diagnostics for "subjective" expressions be analyzed instead in terms of a precisely specified kind of discourse-oriented use of context-sensitive language. I close by applying the account to `find x PRED' ascriptions

The Lending-Limit Combination Rules: Regulation by Enforcement at the OCC

The regulation-by-enforcement critique has made an impact at the Securities and Exchange Commission, and scholars are beginning to turn this critique against other agencies. Using this critique, this Note demonstrates that the federal combination rules for the lending-limit law should be rewritten. Under the lending-limit law, national banking associations may lend only a certain percentage of their unimpaired capital and unimpaired surplus to any one borrower. Although the combination rules include several per se rules pursuant to which loans made to two borrowers will be aggregated, they also grant the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) the power to determine ad hoc whether to aggregate two loans. This power to determine on an ad hoc and even on a post hoc basis whether a violation of the law has occurred is an affront to the rule of law and is unfair to the industry. The combination rules should be amended to remove the OCC\u27s power to make ad hoc determinations

Risk assessment and management of genetically modified organisms under Australia's Gene Technology Act:

"Compared to both Canada and the United States, Australia has been slow to approve commercial planting of transgenic crops. Two probable reasons exist for the slow approval rate of transgenic crops in Australia. The first reason is community perceptions about the risks associated with transgenic technologies. The second is the regulatory framework currently employed to approve commercial releases. This paper examines some of the potential regulatory issues that may be affecting the review process and approval of transgenic technologies. First we provide a brief introduction to the regulatory structure in Australia, second we consider the impact of regional, national and state jurisdictions, third we argue that the regulator needs to consider the use of benefits analysis in decision making, fourth we argue for the use of probabilistic risk assessments in certain circumstances, and fifth we look at potential problems inherent in majority voting in a committee and recommend alternatives." Authors' AbstractRisk assessment,

The Pros and Cons of Politically Reversible Semisubstantive Constitutional Rules

Most observers of constitutional adjudication believe that it works in an all-or-nothing way. On this view, the substance of challenged rules is of decisive importance, so that political decision makers may resuscitate invalidated laws only by way of constitutional amendment. This conception of constitutional law is incomplete. In fact, courts often use so-called “semisubstantive” doctrines that focus on the processes that nonjudicial officials have used in adopting constitutionally problematic rules. When a court strikes down a rule by using a motive-centered or legislative-findings doctrine, for example, political decision makers may revive that very rule without need for a constitutional amendment. For such an effort to succeed, however, those decision makers must comply with special, deliberation-enhancing procedural requirements crafted by courts to ensure that constitutional concerns receive fair attention in the lawmaking process. Is semisubstantive review legitimate and sensible? In this Article, the author disentangles—and then responds to—each of ten critiques that judges and scholars have directed at semisubstantive decision making. While acknowledging that most of these critiques have some merit, the author concludes that courts should continue to deploy semisubstantive doctrines as one, but not the only, tool of constitutional review. This approach, it is argued, serves a worthy aim. It protects constitutional values in a meaningful way, while taking due account of the salience of republican self-rule