Applying the Private Benefit Doctrine to Farmland Conservation Easements

Farmland or working-land conservation easements serve two purposes. One is charitable, to protect open space from development; the other is practical, to preserve the land in productive agricultural use. These purposes, however, create a tension in the easement itself that can force the land trust that holds the easement to choose between the two purposes when the easement, meant in part to protect the farm, threatens the farm\u27s continued viability. Neutral-impact amendments are amendments to working-land easements that allow farmers to improve farm production or viability without harming the conservation value of the easements. Such amendments seem beneficial: a land trust can advance one of its goals of keeping agricultural land productive–without sacrificing the other goal of preserving the conservation value of the land. By approving such an amendment, however, a land trust likely violates the private benefit doctrine and risks losing its tax-exempt status. This Note argues that the IRS should explicitly decide not to apply the private benefit doctrine to neutral-impact amendments of farmland and working-land conservation easements

The Amended Canadian Patent Act: General Amendments and Pharmaceutical Patents Compulsory Licensing Provisions

On November 19, 1987, the Canadian Senate gave final approval to a number of far-reaching and controversial amendments to the Canadian Patent Act ( Amending Act ). On the same day, following Senate approval, the Bill C-22 became law upon royal assent. The Patent Act, enacted in 1935, had remained largely unchanged, notwithstanding amendments in 1952 and 1969. The present amendments therefore constitute an unprecedented overhaul of the Candian law of patents

Cunningham v. California

In Cunningham v. California, the United States Supreme Court voted 6-3 to invalidate California\u27s determinate sentencing law ( DSL ) as violative of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court held that, notwithstanding the California Supreme Court\u27s determination to the contrary, the DSL conflicted with prior Supreme Court precedent by placing sentence-elevating factfinding within the judge\u27s province, thereby violat[ing] a defendant\u27s right to trial by jury safeguarded by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments

The Rhetoric and Reality of Regulatory Reform

In January 2007, President George W. Bush stirred up widespread controversy by issuing amendments to an executive order on regulatory review adopted initially by President Clinton. The Bush amendments variously require agencies to issue written regulatory problem statements, assign gate-keeping responsibilities to Regulatory Policy Officers within each agency, and undertake analytic reviews before adopting certain kinds of guidance documents. Both legal scholars and policy advocates charge that the Bush amendments place significant new burdens on administrative agencies and will delay the issuance of important new regulatory policies. This paper challenges the rhetorical claims of obstructionism that have emerged in response to the Bush amendments. It begins by comparing criticisms of the Bush amendments with criticisms of previous regulatory reforms, showing that concerns about delay date all the way back to the creation of the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946. Notwithstanding the perennial nature of charges of delay and obstruction, the U.S. regulatory state has grown dramatically in both size and impact over the last six decades. In addition, the extant social science literature has failed to find any systematic delays associated with the specific procedure affected by the Bush amendments, namely regulatory review by the Office of Management and Budget. Overall, the burdens associated with regulatory reforms appear to be far smaller, or more manageable, than critics usually suppose. This paper concludes with several explanations for persistent reality of regulatory growth in the face of the persistent rhetoric of obstruction. These alternative accounts not only help explain the rhetoric-reality divide over regulatory reform in general, but they also provide reason to expect the Bush amendments will have, at most, only a trivial impact on the overall regulatory process.

D3_5.Yearly reports of biodiversity data 2018_2019

Dynamic sod mulching and use of recycled amendments to increase biodiversity, resilience and sustainability of intensive organic fruit orchards and vineyard

A New Battleground for Free Speech: The Impact of Snyder v. Phelps

[Excerpt] “On September 25, 1789, the First Congress of the United States put forth a set of constitutional amendments, ten of which would later become the Bill of Rights. The first of these amendments states, ―Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech . . . . In subsequent caselaw, the U.S. Supreme Court has applied this prohibition to the federal government, as well as state governments through the Fourteenth Amendment. Although this appears to be a simple standard to follow, history has proven otherwise, and the deviations taken have been the subject of much debate.

Congressional Power Under the Civil War Amendments

Since their birth during Reconstruction, the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth amendments have been the subject of heated commentary and varying judicial interpretations. During the 1965 term and more recently, in 1968, the Supreme Court, in several landmark decisions, has expansively described the power granted Congress by those provisions to safeguard civil liberties. This comment examines these decisions from the perspective of early judicial interpretation of the amendments and from the theories offered by modern constitutional scholars. In conclusion, the logical results of this almost unrestricted measure of congressional power are examined

Legislative Alert: Amendments 8, 16 and 17 to the National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4310)

[Excerpt] On behalf of the AFL-CIO, I am writing to urge you to oppose amendments 8, 16 and 17 to the National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 43 10)

Utility Customers\u27 Views of the Consumer Confidence Report of Drinking Water Quality

The author evaluates consumer understanding of water quality reports provided to them by their drinking water utility under the U.S. Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996