Calvin Massey, Gentleman Farmer

[Excerpt] “So much of Calvin’s work was intelligible as work about freedom and independence, preventing aggregations of government power that threatened individual freedom. Calvin didn’t love federalism because he had a romanticized view of statehood, he believed in it because he thought centralized power in the federal government was a bigger threat to individual freedom than states were. In most states, a tin-pot governor and amateur hour legislators just aren’t going to be as effective at coercing beliefs as an Executive Branch that contains the U.S. Treasury, the Justice Department, the FBI, and the CIA, not to mention the Pentagon and the Department of Education to tell us all how to teach our classes. Some colleagues thought that Calvin was a libertarian, and I honestly can’t remember whether he embraced that label or not, but he sure as hell didn’t want the government telling people what to think or how to behave in their private lives.

Interdependence of Income between China and ASEAN-5 Countries

This paper examines the interdependence of income between China and ASEAN-5 countries by resorting to the time series econometrics analysis from 1960 to 2000 of the real Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Empirical results are found to support the strong interdependence of income between China and ASEAN-5 countries. With the increasing interest of economic integration around the globe especially the proposed China-ASEAN Free Trade Area (CAFTA), the interdependence and synchronization movements of income between member countries is an important characteristic for suitability toward the regional common currency goal.

Why Deporting Immigrants for “Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude” is Now Unconstitutional

In the best of times, immigrants should only be deported according to the rule of law and not by the whim of executive branch officials. Now, it is imperative. Yet the statute authorizing removal of immigrants for “crimes involving moral turpitude” invites officials to base their prosecutorial choices on political or personal views. As a result, defense attorneys advising their clients on the immigration consequences of pleas have no basis for prediction. Although the Supreme Court long ago rejected the argument that the “moral turpitude” clause was void for vagueness, one of the Court’s most recent decisions now makes that conclusion unsupportable. The notion that due process permits officials to banish legal permanent residents based on “moral turpitude,” which never comported with common sense, is now legally incorrect

Why Deporting Immigrants for “Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude” is Now Unconstitutional

In the best of times, immigrants should only be deported according to the rule of law and not by the whim of executive branch officials. Now, it is imperative. Yet the statute authorizing removal of immigrants for “crimes involving moral turpitude” invites officials to base their prosecutorial choices on political or personal views. As a result, defense attorneys advising their clients on the immigration consequences of pleas have no basis for prediction. Although the Supreme Court long ago rejected the argument that the “moral turpitude” clause was void for vagueness, one of the Court’s most recent decisions now makes that conclusion unsupportable. The notion that due process permits officials to banish legal permanent residents based on “moral turpitude,” which never comported with common sense, is now legally incorrect

Interdependence of Income between China and ASEAN-5 Countries

This paper examines the interdependence of income between China and ASEAN-5 countries by resorting to the time series econometrics analysis from 1960 to 2000 of the real Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Empirical results are found to support the strong interdependence of income between China and ASEAN-5 countries. With the increasing interest of economic integration around the globe especially the proposed China-ASEAN Free Trade Area (CAFTA), the interdependence and synchronization movements of income between member countries is an important characteristic for suitability toward the regional common currency goal.interdependence; cointegration; China; ASEAN-5

The Shackling of Incarcerated Pregnant Women: A Human Rights Violation Committed Regularly in the United States

The international human rights community has repeatedly expressed concern about the shackling of pregnant women deprived of their liberty in the United States. The federal government has adopted an anti-shackling policy and some states have passed laws or policies restricting shackling. Despite these positive developments, shackling of women prisoners continues to occur in violation of U.S. and international law.Shackling pregnant women increases the substantial medical risks of childbirth. Shackling of pregnant women is a harmful, painful, and demeaning practice that is rarely necessary to preserve safety. Most female prisoners are non-violent offenders, and women who are pregnant, in labor, or in postpartum recovery are especially low flight and safety risks.Both international law and U.S. constitutional law prohibit shackling during certain stages of pregnancy, childbirth, and post-partum recovery. Article 10 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the "ICCPR") guarantees that persons deprived of their liberty be treated with dignity and respect. Article 7 prohibits torture, or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits cruel or unusual punishments, which some Federal courts have interpreted to prohibit the shackling of pregnant prisoners during childbirth.While the U.S. federal government has adopted an anti-shackling policy that applies to federal prisons and 24 states have adopted policies limiting (to varying degrees) shackling of pregnant prisoners, legislation enacted by state legislatures is preferable to the adoption of an administrative policy by the executive. Indeed, 18 state legislatures in the United States have in fact passed legislation restricting shackling, but many such laws contain broad exceptions or are not adequately implemented.We recommend that the UN Human Rights Committee (the "Committee") that monitors compliance with the ICCPR ask and encourage the United States to 1) enact a federal law banning the practice of shackling prisoners during pregnancy, covering, at a minimum, the third trimester, transport to medical facilities, labor, delivery and postpartum recovery, 2) take appropriate measures to ensure that those 32 states that do not have anti-shackling laws to enact comprehensive laws, including training of correctional officers, 3) to review existing state anti-shackling laws and policies to ensure that they are comprehensive and fully-implemented, and 4) to conduct an empirical study to determine the scope of shackling in U.S. prisons and to understand why the practice of shackling pregnant women persists

School Board Prayer: Reconciling the Legislative Prayer Exception and School Prayer Jurisprudence

The Supreme Court has carved a legislative prayer exception out of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause to allow clergy to deliver opening prayers at legislative sessions and meetings of local public deliberative bodies, such as town boards. Meanwhile, for decades, the Supreme Court has struck drown prayers in the public school context, including prayers in the classroom, at graduation ceremonies, and at high school varsity football games. However, the Supreme Court has not addressed whether prayers at public school board meetings should be barred as prayers in the public school context or permitted under the legislative prayer exception. A circuit split has recently emerged as the Fifth Circuit became the first U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to hold that the legislative prayer exception applies to school board meetings. This article examines the background of the legislative prayer exception and the Supreme Court’s school prayer cases. In addition, this article analyzes the circuit split regarding the application of the legislative prayer exception to public school board meetings. This article proposes that should the Supreme Court address the issue of school board prayer, it should establish clear guidelines for lower courts to follow that focus on context-specific factors, such as the audience, structure, and subject matter of school board meetings. Consequently, the Supreme Court would limit the legislative prayer exception’s applicability to school board meetings that are similar to local government body meetings and prohibit prayers at school board meetings that closely resemble a classroom or school-sponsored event

Is Congress Protecting Our Water? The Controversy Over Section 404, Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972

In 1976 both Houses of the 94th Congress passed amendments to section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. However, the Joint Committee of the House and Senate was unable to write a compromise amendment, leaving the issue to be resolved during the present Congress. The author discusses the environmental interests and political forces which led to the deadlock, and presents the merits of the various proposals which were considered. Moreover, by analyzing the competing economic and ecological policies, the author suggests a course of action for the 95th Congress to take in its re-evaluation of the section 404 program