Cornell Law Review最新文献_第8页

Unleashing the Dogs of War: What the Constitution Means by 'Declare War' 释放战争之犬:宪法中“宣战”的含义

IF 2.5 2区社会学

Cornell Law Review Pub Date : 2007-03-29 DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.977244

S. Prakash

{"title":"Unleashing the Dogs of War: What the Constitution Means by 'Declare War'","authors":"S. Prakash","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.977244","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.977244","url":null,"abstract":"Though a good deal of war powers scholarship makes claims about the original meaning of \"declare war,\" these works do not consider a host of sources pertinent to the inquiry. This Article considers these materials and sheds new light on two questions. Does Congress's power to declare war encompass the authority to decide whether the nation will wage war? Relatedly, does Congress's power to decide whether the country will wage war extend to those situations where another nation already has declared war on the United States? This Article answers both questions in the affirmative. In the eighteenth century the power to declare war was a power to decide whether a nation would wage war. Materials from that era reveal that any decision to wage war, however expressed, was a declaration of war. The commencement of warfare was regarded as the surest declaration of war. Because the Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war, only Congress can determine whether the nation will start a war or enter a war against a nation that already has declared war against the United States. Necessarily, the President cannot unilaterally choose to wage war against another nation, even when that nation has already declared war.","PeriodicalId":51518,"journal":{"name":"Cornell Law Review","volume":"105 1","pages":"45"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2007-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67919743","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 6

Regulatory beneficiaries and informal agency policymaking. 监管受益人和非正式机构决策。

IF 2.5 2区社会学

Cornell Law Review Pub Date : 2007-03-01

Nina A Mendelson

{"title":"Regulatory beneficiaries and informal agency policymaking.","authors":"Nina A Mendelson","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Administrative agencies frequently use guidance documents to set policy broadly and prospectively in areas ranging from Department of Education Title IX enforcement to Food and Drug Administration regulation of direct-to- consumer pharmaceutical advertising. In form, these guidances often closely resemble the policies agencies issue in ordinary notice-and-comment rulemaking. However, guidances are generally developed with little public participation and are often immune from judicial review. Nonetheless, guidances can prompt significant changes in behavior from those the agencies regulate. A number of commentators have guardedly defended the current state of affairs. Though guidances lack some important procedural safeguards, they can help agencies supervise low-level employees and supply valuable information to regulated entities regarding how an agency will implement a program. Thus far, however, the debate has largely ignored the distinct and substantial interests of regulatory beneficiaries--those who expect to benefit from government regulation of others. Regulatory beneficiaries include, among others, pharmaceutical consumers, environmental users, and workers seeking safe workplaces. When agencies make policy informally, regulatory beneficiaries suffer distinctive losses to their ability to participate in the agency's decision and to invoke judicial review. This Article argues that considering the interests of regulatory beneficiaries strengthens the case for procedural reform. The Article then assesses some possible solutions.</p>","PeriodicalId":51518,"journal":{"name":"Cornell Law Review","volume":"92 3","pages":"397-452"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2007-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"26645161","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

A response to Bloch, Lubbers & Verkuil's "The Social Security Administration's new disability adjudication rules": a cause for optimism ... and concern. 对Bloch, Lubbers & Verkuil的《社会保障局的新残疾裁决规则》的回应:一个乐观的理由……和关心。

IF 2.5 2区社会学

Cornell Law Review Pub Date : 2007-01-01

Robert E Rains

引用次数: 0

The Social Security Administration's new disability adjudication rules: a significant and promising reform. 社会保障局新的残疾裁决规则:一项重大而有希望的改革。

IF 2.5 2区社会学

Cornell Law Review Pub Date : 2007-01-01

Frank S Bloch, Jeffrey S Lubbers, Paul R Verkuil

引用次数: 0

Medical proof, social policy, and Social Security's medically centered definition of disability. 医学证明，社会政策，以及社会保障中以医学为中心的残疾定义。