El federalismo y el tribunal de Roberts

Aquest article examina quatre decisions del Tribunal Suprem dels EUA preses durant el període 2011-2013 sota la direcció del president John Roberts en relació amb el federalisme dels EUA. Tot i que és massa aviat per fer avaluació definitiva de la jurisprudència federal del Tribunal, aquestes decisions suggereixen que el Tribunal continuarà, o fins i tot intensificarà, la construcció restrictiva del poder federal afavorida pel seu predecessor, el Tribunal de Rehnquist. En efecte, sembla just dir que el Tribunal de Roberts està desenvolupant una jurisprudència federal que persegueix no sols limitar el poder federal, sinó protegir la «dignitat» dels estats com a sobirans conjuntament amb el govern federal.Els quatre casos considerats són: National Federation of Independent Business contra Sibelius, que ratificava majoritàriament la legislació d'assistència sanitària del president Obama (però no sota el poder ampli de la Clàusula del Comerç i la Clàusula Necessària i Justa de la Constitució); Shelby County contra Holder, que va derogar les provisions clau de la Llei del Dret a Vot de 1965 per tal que el Congrés no pogués imposar, llevat que estigués justificat per condicions vigents, a alguns estats (que tenien una trajectòria de discriminació en el vot) càrregues no suportades per altres; els Estats Units contra Windsor, que va dictaminar que el Congrés no pogués definir el matrimoni de manera que exclogués els matrimonis entre persones del mateix sexe sense tenir en compte les lleis estatals, i Arizona contra els Estats Units, que va considerar que la llei federal tenia prevalença sobre l’estricte estatut d'immigració d'Arizona perquè l'estat «no pot seguir polítiques que minen la llei federal».This article examines four decisions of the US Supreme Court rendered in the period 2011-2013 under the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts relating to the issue of US federalism. While it is too soon to offer a definitive appraisal of the Court’s federalism jurisprudence, these decisions suggest that the Court will continue, if not deepen, the narrowing construction of federal power favoured by its predecessor, the Rehnquist Court. Indeed, it seems fair to say that the Roberts Court is developing a federalism jurisprudence which seeks not only to limit federal power but to protect the “dignity” of the states as dual sovereigns with the federal government.The four cases considered are: National Federation of Independent Business v. Sibelius, which upheld most of President Obama’s health care legislation (but not under the broad power of the Commerce or Necessary and Proper Clauses of the Constitution); Shelby County v. Holder, which struck down key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 because Congress could not, unless justified by current conditions, impose on some states (which had a history of discrimination in voting) burdens not borne by others, United States v. Windsor, which ruled Congress could not define marriage to exclude same sex marriages regardless of state law; and Arizona v. United States, which held that the strict Arizona immigration statute was preempted by federal law because the state “may not pursue policies that undermine federal law.”Este artículo examina cuatro decisiones del Tribunal Supremo de los EE.UU. tomadas durante el periodo 2011-2013 bajo la dirección del presidente John Roberts en relación con el federalismo de los EE.UU. Aunque es demasiado pronto para hacer evaluación definitiva de la jurisprudencia federal del Tribunal, estas decisiones sugieren que el Tribunal continuará, o incluso intensificará, la construcción restrictiva del poder federal favorecida por su predecesor, el Tribunal de Rehnquist. En efecto, parece justo decir que el Tribunal de Roberts está desarrollando una jurisprudencia federal que persigue no sólo limitar el poder federal, sino proteger la «dignidad» de los estados como soberanos conjuntamente con el gobierno federal.Los cuatro casos considerados son: National Federation of Independent Business contra Sibelius, que ratificaba mayoritariamente la legislación de asistencia sanitaria del presidente Obama (pero no bajo el poder amplio de la Cláusula del Comercio y la Cláusula Necesaria y Justa de la Constitución); Shelby County contra Holder, que derogó las provisiones clave de la Ley del Derecho al Voto de 1965 a fin de que el Congreso no pudiera imponer, a menos que estuviera justificado por condiciones vigentes, a algunos estados (que tenían una trayectoria de discriminación en el voto) cargas no soportadas por otros; los Estados Unidos contra Windsor, que dictaminó que el Congreso no pudiera definir el matrimonio de manera que excluyera los matrimonios entre personas del mismo sexo sin tener en cuenta las leyes estatales, y Arizona contra los Estados Unidos, que consideró que la ley federal tenía prevalencia sobre el estricto estatuto de inmigración de Arizona porque el estado «no puede seguir políticas que minan la ley federal»

Not Just Academic: How Sociologists and Anthropologists Promoted Inclusion in the Community for Individuals with Disabilities

"Until the 1970s, the practice of placing people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) in large and isolated settings was regarded as both humane and legally correct. Then, some community-based voluntary associations sought legal redress for patterns of abuse, neglect and deprivation in such facilities. A noted challenge to keeping individuals with IDD in state schools is found in Halderman v. Pennhurst State School & Hospital, 446 F.Supp. 1295 (E.D. Pa., 1977). This litigation encouraged the development of new community options and the close of facilities in a number of states.

Interfacing peripheral nerve with macro-sieve electrodes following spinal cord injury

Macro-sieve electrodes were implanted in the sciatic nerve of five adult male Lewis rats following spinal cord injury to assess the ability of the macro-sieve electrode to interface regenerated peripheral nerve fibers post-spinal cord injury. Each spinal cord injury was performed via right lateral hemisection of the cord at the T9–10 site. Five months post-implantation, the ability of the macro-sieve electrode to interface the regenerated nerve was assessed by stimulating through the macro-sieve electrode and recording both electromyography signals and evoked muscle force from distal musculature. Electromyography measurements were recorded from the tibialis anterior and gastrocnemius muscles, while evoked muscle force measurements were recorded from the tibialis anterior, extensor digitorum longus, and gastrocnemius muscles. The macro-sieve electrode and regenerated sciatic nerve were then explanted for histological evaluation. Successful sciatic nerve regeneration across the macro-sieve electrode interface following spinal cord injury was seen in all five animals. Recorded electromyography signals and muscle force recordings obtained through macro-sieve electrode stimulation confirm the ability of the macro-sieve electrode to successfully recruit distal musculature in this injury model. Taken together, these results demonstrate the macro-sieve electrode as a viable interface for peripheral nerve stimulation in the context of spinal cord injury

The Future of Medicaid

Medicaid, the US federal-state financed program that assists people to gain access to health services when they cannot afford them, is in peril. Some of the recently defeated proposals to change financing of the program, the shift to managed care, and massive state deficits all threaten to limit optional and Home- and Community-Based Waiver Services to people with long-term care requirements. This policy research paper will explore some current myths about Medicaid, what states are doing to reduce Medicaid expenditures, and propose 10 principles and observations that should shape a response from the disability community to efforts to shrink Medicaid

The Social Construction of Disability

This symbolic interactionist theory examines the structure of relationships between the disabled and the nondisabled through face-to-face interaction and the formation and participation in organizations which provide specialized services. Some propositions from Randall Collin\u27s Conflict Sociology (1975) create a framework for understanding the behavior of the disabled. Goffman\u27s concept of career is used to examine the conditions under which various adaptive strategies are employed by the disabled to negotiate favorable definitions of self from their social communication. Finally, a symbolic interactionist explanation is outlined to account for the active and interested involvement of the nonhandicapped with the handicapped in getting the handicapped to accept their situation

Thirty-five years of assisted reproductive technologies in Israel

AbstractIsrael is known as a pronatalist country. Whether due to the Biblical commandment to ‘be fruitful and multiply’ or the traumas of the Holocaust and perennial wars, reproduction is a central life goal for most Israelis. Israeli women bear substantially more children than their counterparts in industrialized countries and view child-rearing as a key life accomplishment. These personal world-view and real-life individual quests take place in a context of equally pronatalist state policies and religious openness to assisted reproductive technologies. In this paper, I outline 35 years of assisted reproductive technologies in Israel by tracing a principal axis in the development of three major technologies of assisted reproduction: the proliferation of IVF-ICSI; the globalization of gamete donation; and the privatization of surrogacy. The paper is based on a policy analysis as well as various studies of assisted reproductive technologies, conducted in Israel over this period

Taking Threats Seriously: Section 264.1 and Threats as a Form of Domestic Violence

An alarming number of women are in abusive relationships where violence and threats of violence pervade their lives. This article examines the offence of uttering threats in the Canadian Criminal Code, using the Manitoba Court of Appeal decision in R v O’Brien as a backdrop. We make two arguments. First, we argue that, in intimate relationships, threats of death and bodily harm are a form of domestic violence, often used by men in concert with physical violence and other forms of intimidation to control and dominate women. The Canadian criminal justice response to charges of uttering threats in intimate partner relationships must fully account for the cumulative, ongoing and dynamic nature of abuse, as well as abused women’s complex and varied responses to abuse. Second, we examine the history of s.264.1 of the Criminal Code and the case law to argue that the courts have applied the elements of the offence improperly and in a manner that is inconsistent with the statutory language and legislative intent. In so doing, the judgments incorrectly burden abused women with testifying to their fear in response to threats by their abusers, despite the fact that such evidence is unnecessary to prove the offence. This error reflects the continued privatization of domestic abuse and violence against women more generally. Compelling abused women to testify to their fear risks exposing women to increased physical violence and threats and ignores the complex considerations which drive abused women’s decision to co-operate in the prosecution of their partners or to support their defence