Corporal Punishment in Public Schools: Constitutional Challenge After Ingraham v. Wright

Corporal punishment has been employed to maintain discipline and order in American schools since the colonial period.\u27 During that era, the practice was not restricted to the classroom: corporal punishment was the generally accepted mode of correction for practically every civil and criminal offense. Attitudes toward correction did not begin to change until after the American Revolution. Since then, corporal punishment has been steadily discarded as a method of correction in both prisons and the military. Despite discontinuance in these areas, corporal punishment remains a well-established facet of the American educational process. Only a few states and municipalities have legislative prohibitions against the use of this disciplinary method in their public schools, and the courts consistently have rejected constitutional challenges to provisions authorizing its use... As representative bodies,legislatures theoretically enact and amend the laws as changes in societal attitudes dictate. Resolution of the question whether corporal punishment should be used as a means of disciplining schoolchildren requires basic value judgments that courts are ill-equipped to make. Nonetheless, to the extent that a form of punishment has constitutional implications, the judicial function must be exercised. Challenges to the constitutionality of corporal punishment have commonly relied upon four theories: cruel and unusual punishment,the parental rights doctrine, procedural due process, and substantive due process. The first three issues have been resolved formally by the Supreme Court of the United States. The substantive due process issue, however, has been determined conclusively only in the Fifth Circuit. This Note will first review these four issues as they have confronted the lower courts and then will analyze Ingraham v. Wright, in which the Supreme Court ruled on the cruel and unusual punishment and procedural due process issues. Discussion will center on the substantive due process issue, suggesting the feasibility of a suit challenging the practice as administered in a given instance

Justice Stevens: The First Three Terms

This Special Project undertakes an examination of Justice Stevens\u27 Supreme Court opinions in an effort to identify his philosophical orientations, to evaluate the consistency of his views, and to determine the extent to which he has developed workable analytical methods. To achieve these goals, Justice Stevens\u27 opinions are examined in three contexts: first, the area of federal-state relations,including commerce clause and supremacy clause questions; second, the individual rights area, emphasizing criminal constitutional and first amendment issues, and problems of fifth and fourteenth amendment analysis; and third, questions concerning the proper role of the Supreme Court in the constitutional scheme. Even though any vote cast by a Supreme Court Justice may illustrate a significant aspect of his ideology, this Special Project limits attention to opinions authored by Justice Stevens on the assumption that they most accurately represent his views.\u2

Expanding indications for recombinant human TSH in thyroid cancer

Univ Colorado Denver, Aurora, CO USAHlth Sci Ctr, Aurora, CO USASinai Hosp, Div Endocrinol, Baltimore, MD 21215 USAJohns Hopkins Univ, Sch Med, Baltimore, MD USAUniv Massachusetts, Sch Med, Worcester, MA USAUniv Wurzburg, Dept Nucl Med, Wurzburg, GermanyUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, Dept Med Endocrinol, São Paulo, BrazilUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, Dept Med, Div Endocrinol, São Paulo, BrazilUniv Florida, Gainesville, FL USAOhio State Univ, Columbus, OH 43210 USAUniv São Paulo, Sch Med, Lab Mol Tireoide, São Paulo, BrazilNukl Med Klin & Poliklin, Wurzburg, GermanyMethodist Hosp, Houston, TX 77030 USARoyal N Shore Hosp, St Leonards, NSW 2065, AustraliaInst Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, FranceNagasaki Univ, Dept Mol Med, Nagasaki 852, JapanUniv Siena, Endocrinol Sect, Dept Internal Med, I-53100 Siena, ItalyUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, Dept Med Endocrinol, São Paulo, BrazilUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, Dept Med, Div Endocrinol, São Paulo, BrazilWeb of Scienc

The Signaling Mucins Msb2 and Hkr1 Differentially Regulate the Filamentation Mitogen-activated Protein Kinase Pathway and Contribute to a Multimodal Response

A central question in the area of signal transduction is why pathways utilize common components. In the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, the HOG and filamentous growth (FG) MAPK pathways require overlapping components but are thought to be induced by different stimuli and specify distinct outputs. To better understand the regulation of the FG pathway, we examined FG in one of yeast's native environments, the grape-producing plant Vitis vinifera. In this setting, different aspects of FG were induced in a temporal manner coupled to the nutrient cycle, which uncovered a multimodal feature of FG pathway signaling. FG pathway activity was modulated by the HOG pathway, which led to the finding that the signaling mucins Msb2p and Hkr1p, which operate at the head of the HOG pathway, differentially regulate the FG pathway. The two mucins exhibited different expression and secretion patterns, and their overproduction induced nonoverlapping sets of target genes. Moreover, Msb2p had a function in cell polarization through the adaptor protein Sho1p that Hkr1p did not. Differential MAPK activation by signaling mucins brings to light a new point of discrimination between MAPK pathways