What \u3cem\u3eLawrence\u3c/em\u3e Brought for Show and Tell : The Non-fundamental Liberty Interest in a Minimally Adequate Education

In 1973, under an Equal Protection Clause challenge, the Supreme Court in San Antonio v. Rodriguez held that education is not a fundamental right implicitly or explicitly found within the U.S. Constitution. The substantive due process jurisprudence of the Court\u27s 2003 term raises serious questions about the legal and theoretical underpinnings of Rodriguez. Lawrence v. Texas stands for a bold, new architecture that the Court may employ in future substantive due process decisions. This Note argues that if the due process analysis forged in Lawrence is followed, the Supreme Court may reconsider its thirty-year-old Rodriguez decision, recognize the non-fundamental liberty interest in a minimally adequate education under the Due Process Clause, and provide some relief to schoolchildren in grossly underperforming schools

Report of a Survey of the Estancia Public Schools

It is the purpose of this study to present an evaluation of the public school system of Estancia, New Mexico, by means of a statement of existing conditions found to be true by a complete and unbiased examination of all phases of the educational program, the school plant, and the school records. Comparisons are made with conditions which have existed in this school in the past and with existing conditions in New Mexico

\u3ci\u3eFTC v. Lundbeck\u3c/i\u3e: Is Anything in Antitrust Obvious, Like, Ever?

In FTC v. Lundbeck, the Eighth Circuit affirmed a bench verdict finding a merger to monopoly, followed by a 1400% price increase, not only legal, but effectively not even subject to antitrust. The result followed from the district court\u27s view that peculiarities in the market for hospital-administered drugs rendered it essentially immune from price competition. That being the case, the court found that even products very plainly substitutable on any traditional functional interchangeability analysis are not in the same relevant market for purposes of rules governing horizontal mergers. We think the court\u27s analysis was incorrect for a number of factual reasons, but stress that, much more importantly, a case like Lundbeck calls for return to traditionally broad, prophylactic rules

Method and apparatus for in-situ detection and isolation of aircraft engine faults

A method for performing a fault estimation based on residuals of detected signals includes determining an operating regime based on a plurality of parameters, extracting predetermined noise standard deviations of the residuals corresponding to the operating regime and scaling the residuals, calculating a magnitude of a measurement vector of the scaled residuals and comparing the magnitude to a decision threshold value, extracting an average, or mean direction and a fault level mapping for each of a plurality of fault types, based on the operating regime, calculating a projection of the measurement vector onto the average direction of each of the plurality of fault types, determining a fault type based on which projection is maximum, and mapping the projection to a continuous-valued fault level using a lookup table

The Voting Rights Act After Shelby County v. Holder: A Potential Fix to Revive Section 5

The passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) was a momentous occasion for minority voters in the United States, and its positive effects could be measured immediately. However, when Section 4 of the VRA was declared unconstitutional in Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the ability of the VRA to continue its protection of minority voters was called into question. We argue that the VRA is still necessary and propose an administrative notification system that could fix the issues with Sections 4 and 5.Le vote au Congrès en 1965 de la loi sur les droits de vote (Voting Rights Act) fut un événement historique pour les minorités aux Etats-Unis et ses effets furent immédiats. Cependant, en 2013, la Cour Suprême dans l’arrêt Shelby County c. Holder, déclara qu’une de ces dispositions était inconstitutionnelle. Des lors la capacité de la loi à protéger le droit de vote des minorités a été remise en question. Dans cet article nous expliquons que le Voting Rights Act est toujours nécessaire et proposons un système de notification administrative afin de résoudre les problèmes soulevés par les Sections 4 et 5