Legislation & Statutory Interpretation最新文献

{"title":"Cox, Halprin, and Discriminatory Municipal Services under the Fair Housing Act","authors":"Robert G. Schwemm","doi":"10.18060/3954","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18060/3954","url":null,"abstract":"For most of its forty-year history, the federal Fair Housing Act (\"FHA\") has been accorded a generous construction by the courts. The modern federal judiciary, however, has grown so hostile to civil rights that decisions narrowing the coverage of the Nation's anti-discrimination laws have become the norm. With respect to the FHA, this trend is reflected in two appellate decisions - Halprin v. The Prairie Single Family Homes Ass'n, 388 F.3d 327 (7th Cir. 2004), and Cox v. City of Dallas, 430 F.3d 734 (5th Cir. 2005) - that took remarkably narrow views of the FHA by denying that its principal provisions apply to post-acquisition cases brought by current residents. These two decisions and the specific issue dealt with in Cox - whether the FHA prohibits the discriminatory provision of municipal services to minority neighborhoods - are the subject of this Article. Part I describes the Cox litigation and its connection with Halprin. Part II surveys the pre-Cox cases that have dealt with discriminatory municipal services. Part III analyses the FHA's relevant provisions and their legislative history, an analysis that shows Cox and Halprin to have been wrong in denying FHA protection to current residents. Part IV builds on this analysis to provide a sounder approach to FHA claims alleging discriminatory municipal services. Although the result in Cox may be defended, this Article's ultimate conclusion is that the analysis in Cox and Halprin is so flawed - and in particular has so misconstrued the FHA's 3604(b) - that it should be rejected by other courts.","PeriodicalId":297504,"journal":{"name":"Legislation & Statutory Interpretation","volume":"85 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123585632","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Protecting the Right to Vote: Oversight of the Department of Justice's Preparations for the 2008 Election - Statement of Gilda R. Daniels before the Senate Judiciary Committee, September 9, 2008","authors":"Gilda R. Daniels","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1273213","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1273213","url":null,"abstract":"In 2000, we witnessed faulty voting machines with hanging chads and dimpled ballots. We also experienced error-filled purges and voter intimidation in minority neighborhoods. Since the 2000 Presidential election the voting rights vocabulary has expanded to include terms such as, voting irregularities and election protection and created a new debate regarding voter access versus voter integrity. Despite the debates and new legislation in the form of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), and the continued enforcement of other voting statutes such as the Voting Rights Act and the National Voter Registration Act, (NVRA), problems persist in the operation of our participatory democracy. Although outdated voting machines were not the primary problem in 2004, the use of electronic voting machines birthed new concerns about accuracy and reliability, along with questions regarding poll workers' ability to master the technology. This election enjoyed its share of election administration problems such as the misuse of provisional ballots, overzealous poll watchers, extremely long lines, deceptive voter practices, and ill-advised voter purges. In light of the problems and issues with the last two Presidential elections, it is vitally important that the Department use the full breadth of its statutory authority to act proactively to ensure that our democratic process provides every eligible citizen the opportunity to access the ballot and ensure that the ballot will be counted. In order to protect the fundamental right to vote, the government must act prior to Election Day. The Department should initiate contact with both state election officials and organizations to engage in a significant exchange of information in a nonpartisan and proactive way.","PeriodicalId":297504,"journal":{"name":"Legislation & Statutory Interpretation","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116825550","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Poetic Injustice: A Case Study of the UK's Anti-Terrorism Legislation","authors":"Reza Banakar","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1540608","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1540608","url":null,"abstract":"This paper explores the effects of anti-terrorism policy and legislation on the Muslim immigrant communities, in general, and British-born Muslims, in particular. R v Malik, in which the Court of Appeal quashed Samina Malik's conviction on terrorism charges, provides our point of entry into the legal discourse on counter-terrorism. Malik's conviction at the Old Bailey and the subsequent decision of the Court of Appeal to declare her conviction unsafe, will serve to highlight three interrelated aspects of anti-terrorism policy and legislation in the UK. These two decisions, firstly, will help to examine how the legal and policing measures to combat the threat of terrorism interact with the ethno-cultural relationships in contemporary Britain. Secondly, they will allow us to view the UK's anti-terrorism policy and legislation in relation to what David Garland termed the \"culture of control\", which marks the move from a criminal policy based on \"penal welfarism\" to a governance of crime based on \"the management of risks\". Finally, they will throw light on the tension between the UK government and the judiciary.","PeriodicalId":297504,"journal":{"name":"Legislation & Statutory Interpretation","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125525868","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Traceability, Moral Hazard, and Food Safety","authors":"S. A. Starbird, V. Amanor-Boadu","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1328101","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1328101","url":null,"abstract":"Errors in traceability can significantly impact the moral hazard associated with producing safe food. The effect of moral hazard depends on the proportion of unsafe food costs that can be allocated to the responsible producer, which depends on the efficiency of the traceability system. In this paper, we develop a model that identifies the minimum level of traceability needed to mitigate moral hazard and motivate suppliers to produce safe food. Regulators and consumer can use the results of this research to design regulations and contracts that mitigate moral hazard and motivate producers to deliver safe food.","PeriodicalId":297504,"journal":{"name":"Legislation & Statutory Interpretation","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129310117","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Insurance for Acts of Terrorism","authors":"Robert J. Rhee","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1245682","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1245682","url":null,"abstract":"This is volume 32, chapter 191, Appleman's on Insurance 2d. This treatise chapter discusses insurance case law arising from acts of terrorism, including those arising from the September 11 attacks and pre-9/11 instances of terrorism. It analyzes the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (TRIA), as amended by the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2005 and the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007. Among other things, it discusses coverage issues, including the problems of overbroad coverage and potential gaps. Lastly, policy considerations surrounding TRIA are discussed including insurance industry strategies, the difficulties of assessing terrorism risks, the effect of TRIA subsidized insurance on the market, and the benefits and problems such subsidized insurance engender.","PeriodicalId":297504,"journal":{"name":"Legislation & Statutory Interpretation","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122676453","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Lessons Learned from the 2004 Presidential Election: Testimony of Gilda R. Daniels before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, July 24, 2008","authors":"Gilda R. Daniels","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1273217","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1273217","url":null,"abstract":"Since the 2000 Presidential election the voting rights vocabulary has expanded to include terms such as, \"voting irregularities\" and \"election protection\" and created a new debate regarding voter access versus voter integrity. Despite the debates and new legislation in the form of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), and the continued enforcement of other voting statutes such as the Voting Rights Act, and the National Voter Registration Act, (NVRA), problems persist in the operation of our participatory democracy. What we have witnessed since 2000, particularly during the 2004 election, gave us some reason to hope but also reason for concern. Although outdated voting machines were not the primary problem in 2004, the use of electronic voting machines birthed new concerns about accuracy and reliability, along with questions regarding poll workers' ability to master the technology. This election enjoyed its share of election administration problems such as the misuse of provisional ballots, overzealous poll watchers, and ill-advised voter purges. Many of the calls received or infractions observed on Election Day do not rise to a legally actionable level. After any election, however, no immediate remedy exists for the mistakenly purged voter or an uncounted provisional ballot. Disenfranchisement, however, occurs one voter at a time and can create a pattern for a jurisdiction or a political party that should be addressed and thwarted well before Election Day. In light of the problems and issues with the last two Presidential elections, it is vitally important that the Department use the full breadth of its statutory authority to act proactively to ensure that our democratic process provides every eligible citizen the opportunity to access the ballot and ensure that the ballot will be counted. After the 2000 election and certainly by 2002, the Civil Rights Division, Voting Section shifted its focus from enforcing the voting rights of minorities under Section 2 of the VRA, as evidenced in the lack of cases brought on behalf of African-Americans, to enforcement of Section 203 for language minorities, the protection of overseas and military voters under UOCAVA, HAVA compliance and voter integrity (fraud) issues. In fact, this administration brought the first case pursuant to Section 2 on behalf of white voters in Noxubee, MS. This lack of enforcement of the Voting Rights Act would indicate a well documented shift away from enforcement of statutes that require free and full access to a new emphasis on restricting the ballot in the name of integrity. This must be corrected.","PeriodicalId":297504,"journal":{"name":"Legislation & Statutory Interpretation","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125688165","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Minimizing Impairment-Related Youth Traffic Deaths: The Need for Comprehensive Provincial Action","authors":"E. Chamberlain, R. Solomon","doi":"10.17269/CJPH.99.1657","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17269/CJPH.99.1657","url":null,"abstract":"Despite the progress made between the early 1980s and the mid-1990s, traffic crashes remain the single largest cause of death among 15-24 year-old Canadians. In recent years, approximately 45% of these deaths have been alcohol-related and, no doubt, additional youth crash deaths are drug-related. While young people are significantly overrepresented in impairment-related deaths as drivers, their overrepresentation is even greater as passengers, pedestrians, bicyclists, and users of recreational vehicles. These crashes are not simply a function of young people's immaturity and lack of driving experience; they also reflect young people's hazardous patterns of alcohol and drug use. Under the Canadian constitution, the provinces have extensive legislative authority over driver and vehicle licensing, traffic enforcement, liquor licensing, and off-premise alcohol sales. Moreover, research in Canada and abroad has identified legislative initiatives that can significantly reduce impairment-related youth traffic deaths. Consequently, the provinces are well positioned to protect Canadian youth from such preventable harm. The provinces need to adopt a broad approach, including a comprehensive graduated licensing program, a zero blood-alcohol restriction on drivers under 21, enhanced police powers, and more rigorous enforcement of the existing licensing legislation.","PeriodicalId":297504,"journal":{"name":"Legislation & Statutory Interpretation","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121868681","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Komplexität und Normenklarheit - oder: Gesetze sind für Juristen gemacht (German) [Complexity and Normative Clarity - Or: Legal Statutes are Made for Lawyers]","authors":"E. Towfigh","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1314196","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1314196","url":null,"abstract":"The paper deals with the complexity of legal norms and the instrument the German constitutional law establishes to control it, namely the requirement of normative clarity. First, I introduce a definition of complexity of written legal norms, conceptualized by their density (number of items to be considered) and interdependencies (within a norm and of different norms), thus focussing on the complexity of the underlying rule, rather than its language. Complexity is then described as a primarily cognitive problem, with reflexes on the time and monetary scales. The view taken here is therefore a subjective one, setting out from the individual who tries to understand a legal text. The technicality of a norm can reduce complexity for those trained in the law, and at the same time raise it for laypeople. Legal doctrine, too, aims at reinforcing consistence and reducing complexity. The requirement of normative clarity, however, is not a means to reduce complexity, but only to control it. Normative clarity is held to be founded in the principle of the separation of powers, and its measure is the executability of the law. Against concurrent views, I therefore argue that it is not the norm's addressee who must understand the norm, but rather lawyers. Only then can the problem of legal complexity be handled in systems that rely heavily on statutory law. The argument is supported by theoretical, behavioural and doctrinal reasons.","PeriodicalId":297504,"journal":{"name":"Legislation & Statutory Interpretation","volume":"64 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116125395","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A Statute by Any Other (Non-Acronomial) Name Might Smell Less Like S.P.A.M., or, The Congress of the United States Grows Increasingly D.U.M.B.","authors":"C. Sagers","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1113026","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1113026","url":null,"abstract":"While the question why we Americans name our statutes is rarely asked and not obvious, it turns out to be extremely interesting and, at least in the case discussed in this essay, illuminating. Namely, it appears to have occurred to someone on Capitol Hill that there is something to be gained by devising statute names that spell out clever acronyms. These things normally aim to be amusing or cute in some sense, and also usually serve some rhetorical purpose. A first surprise about them is their recent and shocking profusion. During the first two hundred years of the Republic there appear to have been perhaps two such statutes. In the twenty years since, there have been at least fifty-three. But on closer examination the practice turns out to be not actually so amusing after all, and thinking about it is not just some trite diversion. This trend in its detail turns out to have something fairly sobering to say about the way our Congress has operated for some years now. It also has something to say about who our elected representatives are as people, how they see their responsibilities, and just how low their opinions of we their constituents really must be. The ugliest thing about it is that, with we Americans, this sort of thing works; American democracy, like the popular names of several recent statutes, is a joke that isn't funny.","PeriodicalId":297504,"journal":{"name":"Legislation & Statutory Interpretation","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121333881","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Relativism in Legal Thinking: Stanley Fish and the Concept of an Interpretative Community","authors":"Torben Spaak","doi":"10.1111/j.1467-9337.2007.00384.x","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9337.2007.00384.x","url":null,"abstract":"Relativistic theories and arguments are fairly common in legal thinking. A case in point is Stanley Fish’s theory of interpretation, which applies to statutes and constitutions as well as to novels and poems. Fish holds, inter alia, (i) that an interpretation of a statute, a poem, or some other text can be true or valid only in light of the interpretive strategies that define an interpretive community, and (ii) that no set of interpretive strategies (and therefore no interpretation) is truer or more valid than any other. In this article, I discuss these claims critically and argue that the very idea of an interpretive community is more or less unintelligible, and that in any case Fish’s theory is self-refuting.","PeriodicalId":297504,"journal":{"name":"Legislation & Statutory Interpretation","volume":"50 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123662284","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}