Towards the Second Founding of Federal Sentencing

In 1987, the Nation’s first attempt to standardize federal sentencing came in the form of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Following United States v. Booker, however, the Guidelines project began bending, and today it is now all but broken, besieged by complexity, undue severity, and the very disparities that it was designed to limit. This Article responds to this crisis by establishing the blueprint for an alternative federal sentencing model. Under this proposal, sentencing determinations would be based on statutory grades and unweighted aggravating and mitigating factors. This approach brings coherence to the purposes of punishment and, by deemphasizing quantitative determinations, promises increased judicial discretion and greater opportunities for counsel to influence sentencing. To demonstrate this system’s simplicity and workability, this Article applies the system to actual federal cases

RELATIVE EFFICIENCY IN WHEAT PRODUCTION IN THE INDIAN PUNJAB

Crop Production/Industries,

ECONOMICS OF TECHNICAL CHANGE IN WHEAT PRODUCTION IN PUNJAB (INDIA)

Crop Production/Industries, Research and Development/Tech Change/Emerging Technologies,

THE PRODUCTIVE VALUE OF EDUCATION IN AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT

The purpose of this paper is to present some empirical evidence from a developing agriculture in northwestern India, evidence which shows that schooling of the farm people contributes to their useful productive abilities.International Development, Labor and Human Capital,

Integration-free interval doubling for Riccati equation solutions

Various algorithms are given for the case of constant coefficients. The algorithms are based on two ideas: first, relate the Re solution with general initial conditions to anchored RE solutions; and second, when the coefficients are constant the anchored solutions have a basic shift-invariance property. These ideas are used to construct an integration free superlinearly convergent iterative solution to the algebraic RE. The algorithm, arranged in square-root form, is thought to be numerically stable and competitive with other methods of solving the algebraic RE

THE DEMAND FOR COTTON IN INDIA, 1952-1968

Crop Production/Industries, Demand and Price Analysis,

Shadowing the Flag: Extending the Habeas Writ Beyond Guantanamo

The writ of habeas corpus activates courts’ duty to check arbitrary or unlawful restraints by the Executive on individual liberty. In times of war, courts have been compelled to determine whether the writ is available to individuals held by the Executive outside of the territorial boundaries of the United States. In Johnson v. Eisentrager, in which World War II detainees were held in Germany, the Supreme Court answered in the negative, while in Boumediene v. Bush, involving post–9/11 detainees housedat Guantánamo, the Court reached the opposite conclusion. Operating within these two guideposts, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided in al Maqaleh v. Gates that three detainees held at Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan were not entitled to the constitutional habeas privilege. The purpose of this Article is to explain why the D.C. Circuit got it wrong. Part I provides an overview of the facts and relevant law that formed the basis for the decision. Part II shows that the court misapplied the basic factors set forth initially by the Court in Eisentrager and later clarified in Boumediene. Part III contains a proposed framework that reorients and reframes these factors in order to make habeas jurisdiction analyses more workable and consistent with the historical justifications for the writ, separation of powers considerations, and governing case law. Part IV applies this framework to the Bagram petitions and, in doing so, highlights the problematics of theD.C. Circuit’s decision. In short, under both existing standards and the suggested new way of looking at questions of wartime habeas jurisdiction, I posit that the petitions should not have been dismissed. If left to stand, al Maqaleh will not only cast the detainees into an indefinite legal abyss, but will place the Executive beyond the courts’ traditional constitutional checking duties precisely when the wartime Executive is most tempted to act outside of established law—that is, when judicial review is most critically needed

The Chilling Effect of Government Surveillance Programs on the Use of the Internet by Muslim-Americans

This article demonstrates that the effect of the post-9/l1 climate facing Muslim-Americans pervades even ordinary aspects of contemporary life. Part II of the article discusses the legal paradigm of when discrimination has legal implications and merits government action. Part III explores al-Qaeda\u27s sophisticated use of the Internet and summarizes the government\u27s post-9/l1 online surveillance efforts. Part IV discusses OUPOLL\u27s survey results

Judicial Modesty in the Wartime Context

“The most important thing we do is not doing,” Justice Louis D. Brandeis noted of the Supreme Court. At the height of the Civil War, the Supreme Court in Roosevelt v. Meyer claimed that it could not review, and therefore let stand, a state court decision upholding the Legal Tender Act (“Act”), a critical wartime measure designed to stabilize the Union economy and fund the Union’s war efforts. In this essay, I suggest that this oft-overlooked case warrants the legal community’s consideration because it implicates a question fundamental to our constitutional system: should the courts decline judicial review—or, “not do”—in order to facilitate government responses to wartime challenges