The Secured Transactions Article of the Commercial Code and Section 60 of the Bankruptcy Act

The secured creditor enjoys several advantages over his unsecured brethren. If the debtor defaults on his obligation, the secured creditor is sometimes empowered to take matters in his own hands, sell the property covered by his security, and reimburse himself out of the proceeds without the time and expense of the lawsuit to which the unsecured creditor must resort. If the debtor disposes of all of his property, the secured creditor\u27s claim, if properly perfected, follows the property into the hands of the transferee and may be satisfied therefrom without the necessity of litigation to establish that the transfer was a fraudulent conveyance. If unsecured creditors go after property of the debtor to satisfy their claims, the secured creditor\u27s interest in the property covered by his security, if properly perfected, is immune from their levies. And if the debtor goes into bankruptcy, the secured creditor has first claim on the proceeds of the property covered by his security, after which he shares pro rata on any unpaid balance with the full claims of unsecured creditors in the remainder of the debtor\u27s assets

Why a State Bill of Rights?

Historical perspective reveals that the recent activism of the federal courts in the area of political and civil rights was largely necessitated by the unwillingness of state courts to recast those rights in molds adapted to our changing society. Federal supplementation of the states\u27 inaction in this field has now regrettably caused many state courts to assume a posture of even more begrudging conservatism in the interpretation and implementation of our political and civil tights. In this background, Professor Countryman advocates state legislative initiative to formulate new and broad general principles for protecting our fundamental rights, He identifies three major reasons for such action—the desirability of expanding federal interpretations of constitutional rights, the need to extend several constitutional protections to application against the States, and the need to delineate new rights not comprehended within the Bill of Rights appended to the United States Constitution. [This article was presented at the State Constitutional Revision Conference, sponsored by the University of Washington School of Law, Seattle, Washington (June 13-14, 1968).

The Federal Trade Commission and the Courts [Part 2]

Continuation of the article from volume 17, no 1

Frank R. Kennedy

A tribute to Frank R. Kenned

Old Age Assistance in Washington

Two decades ago, recognition of a governmental duty to care for the aged who had no means of support had gone no further than to provide for their maintenance in almshouses and poor farms. But in 1922 the American Association for Labor Legislation and the Fraternal Order of Eagles began a campaign to abolish the poorhouse system and to substitute for it a proposed Old Age Pension Act providing for monthly grants to needy aged persons from funds to be raised by county governments. Washington adopted this act in 1933 and by the end of the following year 28 states had enacted a similar type of old age assistance law. Two years later, Congress passed the Social Security Act, introducing another innovation. This Act contemplated a uniform system of old age assistance on a, nation-wide scale, to be accomplished through state cooperation induced by a system of federal grants-in-aid. By September, 1938, a plan to comply with the requirements of the federal scheme was in effect in every state in the Union, in the District of Columbia, and in Alaska and Hawaii