The Roundtable
Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.
 By Thomas Cribbins
Thomas Cribbins is a junior at the University of Michigan studying political science. From the very beginning, Americans have been wary of the power of the federal government. The Framers tried to hedge this concern by creating a “government of laws, not men.”. [1] The Federalist Papers echo reassurance to pre-Constitutional America by promising to protect the government from ambitious, self-interested politicians and factions. [2] In Federalist 45, Madison again addressed the fears of an almighty central government by announcing: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” [3] However, the federal government’s power has certainly expanded in the intervening centuries, particularly in the last few decades. Pushing the limits of the enumerated powers has employed many people in and outside the federal government. However, the issue stems when stretching an enumerated power cannot get the job done. What is Congress, the President or any other part of the federal government to do when the puzzle simply will not come together? This brings to the curious case of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, the Supreme Court case Missouri v. Holland (1920), and what seems to amount to the new powers the federal government assumed because they were granted by Canada. Until 1918, states were granted almost all authority over the taking of game animals within their state.In turn, every state had radically different ideas about game management and this dynamic generated a moral hazard with several states competing to take a larger share of game. This included inflating bag limits to prevent more southern states from being able to take a larger share of the waterfowl or other migratory birds that routinely crossed state lines. [4] Congress decided to stop the madness and protect the common-pool resource that the states all intended to desecrate. The result was the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, a treaty with Canada that granted the Secretary of the Interior the broad, redundant and superfluous powers to regulate migratory birds. The treaty was eventually signed onto by Mexico, Russia and Japan, but the point still remains: who said Congress or the federal government at large should be in charge of regulating migratory birds? [5] Who even said they should have any part at all?
0 Comments
 By Justin Yang
Justin Yang is a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania studying Politics, Philosophy, and Economics. The rule of law is absolutely fundamental in liberal democracies to enable the democratic institutions to work well. It is the rule of law that ensures that peaceful transitions of power will occur and those in power cannot prevent their political adversaries from taking offices they are rightfully elected to. But if the situation allows for it, the law can also be exploited and weaponized, twisted to make anti-democratic or even dictatorial actions legal. These situations have popped up many times in history, and the most recent case is happening right now in Hong Kong. In an election on September of this year, six localist candidates were elected to the city’s legislature, the Legislative Council. These candidates advocate for much greater autonomy for Hong Kong, or even independence from China. In an admittedly immature act of protest, some of these new legislators purposefully stated the oath of office that pledges allegiance to China incorrectly. Thinking of it as an internal matter, the President of the Legislative Council invalidated their oaths but allowed them to retake it at a later date and take their seats as democratically elected legislators. However, the executive branch, the head of which is chosen by a committee of Beijing loyalists, took the unprecedented and blatantly political step to sue the legislative branch. [1]  Anna: What course do you teach at Penn?
Penny Ellison: Animal Law and Ethics A: What’s the class about? PE: It’s about animals in all aspects that we use and come in contact with. So, we go through all the federal and state laws that apply to animals in different contexts, whether it be domestic animals, agricultural animals, animals that are used in labs, animals that perform in circuses, all of those things. So, we talk about what law is out there and why it protects the animals, and from an ethical perspective, we also get to philosophy and ethics as applied to animals.  By Justin Yang
Justin Yang is a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania studying Politics, Philosophy, and Economics. Another presidential election has passed by. There were times during the campaign when the polls were close enough to trigger traumatic memories of the 2000 election – recounts, legal battles, uncertainty. The root of the problem, and our fears, is the Electoral College, a fundamentally flawed system that allows for undemocratic results by counting some people’s votes more than others. For most people, the simple and obvious answer would be to abolish the Electoral College and institute a popular vote for president, but that would require major electoral reform through an amendment to the Constitution. This isn’t easy – two-thirds of both houses of Congress or two-thirds of the states would need to propose the amendment, and three-fourths of the states need to ratify it. However, people have offered an alternative way that wouldn’t add a single drop of ink to the Constitution: The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. [1] However, because it would enact major electoral reform and allegedly subvert the Constitution, its legality and constitutionality is under question. I believe that such a compact would pass constitutional scrutiny.  By Clarissa Alvarez
Clarissa Alvarez is a sophomore at The George Washington University studying political science and economics. As a native of bordertown Laredo, Texas, I am often surprised by how little others know about the borderlands, and those who do mention it often bring up common misconceptions. For example, there’s the popular misconception that bloodshed and violence is commonplace along the U.S.-Mexico borderlands. While that may be true for Mexican border towns, the opposite is most accurate for U.S. towns along the U.S.-Mexico border. In fact, U.S. border cities tend to be some of the safest regions in the U.S. Law enforcement ranging from the local police department and Border Patrol to the FBI, DEA, Texas National Guard, and ICE tend to be overly present. Though, that may well be because U.S. border cities sit across what have been labeled as some of the most murderous cities in the world. Geography and landscape differ from border state to border state. Some sister cities are separated by a wall, while others are separated by natural barriers like the Rio Grande River that runs along the Southern Texan border. To alleviate border security issues, a large influx of law enforcement is present along the edge of the U.S. border checkpoint, acting as a militarized-like zone. On the Mexican side of the border, people have get-togethers and parents throw their children small birthday parties along the narrow area of land beside the Rio Grande. Children jump into the Rio Grande and playfully splash water at each other, their parent’s watchful of their children, constantly reminding them to not go as far as to accidentally cross into the U.S. and attract Border Patrol attention. People on the U.S. side of the border generally do not want to know what happens, and they shut their eyes to the mishaps that occur on the Mexican side of the border. As famously said by a previous Mexican President Porfirio Diaz, “Poor Mexico, so far from God and so close to the United States.” For U.S.-Mexico border cities that share a culture, there are evident political parallels and intersections between both countries. |
|
|