9 research outputs found

    Ohio\u27s Modern Courts Amendment Must Be Amended: Why and How

    Get PDF
    A 1968 amendment to the Ohio Constitution granted the Supreme Court of Ohio the authority to promulgate “rules governing practice and procedure” for Ohio courts. The amendment also provided that “[a]ll laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect” and that no rule may “abridge, enlarge, or modify any substantive right.” Although the amendment was explicit about automatic repeal of existing laws, it says nothing about whether the General Assembly may legislate on a procedural matter after a court rule takes effect. That silence has caused enduring confusion. Since 1968, the Supreme Court of Ohio has considered dozens of cases in which a court-promulgated rule appears to conflict with a subsequently enacted statute. The court has reached two views on whether later-enacted statutes that conflict with existing court rules are constitutional. One holds that, because the constitution grants rulemaking authority exclusively to the court, the General Assembly has no authority once the court promulgates a procedural rule. It has also held the opposite: the General Assembly may legislate on a procedural matter already addressed in a court rule if the legislature intends to remake that “matter of practice or procedure” into a “substantive right.” These contradictory interpretations cannot both be right, yet each remains controlling precedent in Ohio. Neither of the court’s contradictory rulings rests on a cogent textual analysis of the 1968 amendment. This failing, however, is no reflection on the court. A definitive resolution of the conflicting interpretations is impossible because the sparse language of the amendment simply does not contain enough textual foundation from which to derive a compelling, permanent answer—one way or the other. The authors propose an amendment that would add language to the 1968 amendment. By providing a textual basis for the court’s second interpretive ruling, it would make clear and permanent the legislature’s authority to share in the process of forming court rules. It would align Ohio’s rulemaking process with Congress’s participation in rulemaking for federal courts and with the large majority of states that preserve for their legislatures at least some participation in forming the content of rules of practice and procedure

    Computational Determination of the Relative Free Energy of Binding – Application to Alanine Scanning Mutagenesis

    No full text

    Auge

    No full text

    The Search for Novel Antiarrhythmic Strategies

    No full text

    The Dialect of Immune System in the CNS: The Nervous Tissue as an Immune Compartment for T Cells and Dendritic Cells

    No full text

    Coronal Heating as Determined by the Solar Flare Frequency Distribution Obtained by Aggregating Case Studies

    Full text link
    Flare frequency distributions represent a key approach to addressing one of the largest problems in solar and stellar physics: determining the mechanism that counter-intuitively heats coronae to temperatures that are orders of magnitude hotter than the corresponding photospheres. It is widely accepted that the magnetic field is responsible for the heating, but there are two competing mechanisms that could explain it: nanoflares or Alfv\'en waves. To date, neither can be directly observed. Nanoflares are, by definition, extremely small, but their aggregate energy release could represent a substantial heating mechanism, presuming they are sufficiently abundant. One way to test this presumption is via the flare frequency distribution, which describes how often flares of various energies occur. If the slope of the power law fitting the flare frequency distribution is above a critical threshold, α=2\alpha=2 as established in prior literature, then there should be a sufficient abundance of nanoflares to explain coronal heating. We performed >>600 case studies of solar flares, made possible by an unprecedented number of data analysts via three semesters of an undergraduate physics laboratory course. This allowed us to include two crucial, but nontrivial, analysis methods: pre-flare baseline subtraction and computation of the flare energy, which requires determining flare start and stop times. We aggregated the results of these analyses into a statistical study to determine that α=1.63±0.03\alpha = 1.63 \pm 0.03. This is below the critical threshold, suggesting that Alfv\'en waves are an important driver of coronal heating.Comment: 1,002 authors, 14 pages, 4 figures, 3 tables, published by The Astrophysical Journal on 2023-05-09, volume 948, page 7
    corecore