Bounds on R-Parity Violating Parameters from Fermion EDM's

We study one-loop contributions to the fermion electric dipole moments in the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model with explicit R-parity violating interactions. We obtain new individual bounds on R-parity violating Yukawa couplings and put more stringent limits on certain parameters than those obtained previously.Comment: 16 pages, LaTe

RS1, Custodial Isospin and Precision Tests

We study precision electroweak constraints within a RS1 model with gauge fields and fermions in the bulk. The electroweak gauge symmetry is enhanced to SU(2)_L \times SU(2)_R \times U(1)_{B-L}, thereby providing a custodial isospin symmetry sufficient to suppress excessive contributions to the T parameter. We then construct complete models, complying with all electroweak constraints, for solving the hierarchy problem, without supersymmetry or large hierarchies in the fundamental couplings. Using the AdS/CFT correspondence our models can be interpreted as dual to a strongly coupled conformal Higgs sector with global custodial symmetry, gauge and fermionic matter being fundamental fields external to the CFT. This scenario has interesting collider signals, distinct from other RS models in the literature.Comment: 32 pages, 6 figures, latex2e, minor changes, references adde

Polymorphous Public Law Litigation: The Forgotten History of Nineteenth Century Public Law Litigation

Recent debates about popular constitutionalism and judicial supremacy have focused on the question of who interprets the Constitution. This article reframes the debate by asking what legal sources courts apply to protect individual rights from government infringement. Throughout the nineteenth century, federal courts applied a mix of international law, statutes and common law to protect fundamental rights and restrain government action. This article uncovers the forgotten history of nineteenth century public law litigation.Professors Post and Siegel have advocated “policentric constitutional interpretation,” wherein the Supreme Court shares authority for constitutional interpretation with other actors. By analogy, this article introduces the concept of “polymorphous public law litigation.” Under the polymorphous model, instead of fixating on constitutional law as the dominant public law discourse, courts apply international law, statutes, and common law — and occasionally constitutional law — to decide public law controversies. The article demonstrates that nineteenth century federal courts applied a polymorphous model of public law litigation.During the twentieth century, the polymorphous model was supplanted by a constitutionalized model of public law litigation, wherein courts rely primarily on constitutional law to decide public law cases. The process of constitutionalization exacerbated the tension between judicial review and popular sovereignty. When the Supreme Court applies constitutional law to decide a case, the Court does not merely decide the case; it also creates or modifies a legal rule that is not subject to revision by legislative majorities. In contrast, when the Court applies other types of law, Congress or state legislatures retain the power to modify the controlling legal rule. Hence, revival of a polymorphous model would help mitigate the tension between judicial review and popular sovereignty