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 Cary Holley
Cary Holley is a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania studying Political Science. While public education has experienced growth in the United States, it has been accompanied by increasingly grave disparities in both the access to and quality of public education for children across the country. The failure of state legislatures to provide satisfactory reform has initiated a wave of lawsuits nationwide. The hope for a judicial remedy to the serious education problem in our country is becoming a national phenomenon, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is no exception. A multi-year lawsuit, first filed in 2015, by Pennsylvania schools against the Pennsylvania Department of Education and other parties has recently progressed with unclear implications about the possibility of true reform.
0 Comments
 By Luis Bravo
Luis Bravo is a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania studying Sociology. Tags: ICC, War Crimes, International Relations In November 2017, the International Criminal Court (ICC) made headlines by deciding to investigate the United States for war crimes and potential crimes against humanity in Afghanistan. A report by the ICC’s Chief Prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, alleges there is reasonable basis to believe the United States’ army tortured at least 61 prisoners. The report also states that the CIA carried out similar actions with at least 27 other detainees. [1] This latest move comes amidst allegations that the ICC fails to prosecute wealthy, industrial nations, instead focusing its efforts on African countries. While the investigation is not expected to yield charges, a more assertive International Criminal Court has the potential to bolster the failing institutions’ legitimacy and establish the ICC as a powerful deterrent against war. The ICC is an international court that prosecutes crimes against the international community like genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. [2] It was established in July 2002 after the adoption of the 1998 Rome Statute, which outlines the ICC’s jurisdiction as well as its rules and procedures. [3] The ICC is not meant to replace national courts. Instead, it is designed take action on crimes that the country in question has supposedly failed to reasonably address. While over 120 countries have signed the treaty, the United States has not yet ratified it. During the Clinton administration, the treaty received a considerable amount of support from the president. This changed during the Bush administration, which refused to support the institution. Though the Obama administration demonstrated a greater commitment to support the court, neither Clinton nor Obama were able to pass the Rome Statute through Congress, allowing the United States to comply with the ICC’s requests at will. [4]  By Connor Gallagher
Connor Gallagher is a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania studying chemical engineering On June 16, 2016, the Philadelphia City Council voted 13-4 in favor of a 1.5-cents-per-ounce tax on “sugar-sweetened beverages,” colloquially referred to as the “soda tax.” [1] It took effect on the first day of 2017, after surviving a legal challenge in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, the state trial court for the city. [2] Taxes on sugary drinks are recent phenomena. The first such measure in the United States was passed in late 2014 by Berkeley, California. [3] Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s ban on large soft drinks received considerably more media attention, before being struck down by a local judge in early 2013. [4] As of January 30, Philadelphia’s soda tax finds itself in similar jeopardy.  By Natasha Darlington
Natasha Darlington is a fourth year student at the University of Warwick studying Law. From algorithms to analytics, smart contracts to artificial intelligence, there is no doubt that technology will transform the legal profession in the years to come. Junior lawyers are tasked with reading through contracts in an attempt to find unusuals or key clauses or conducting due diligence reports, but it would seem that the growing use of artificial intelligence has taken the legal world by storm. Today more and more firms are utilizing the digital technology as a way to satisfy growing client expectations. These demands have shown a shift in parts of the “legal profession, often perceived as a technology laggard” [1], which could mean technology is having a profound effect on law firms’ staffing, pricing, and location. Already, many commercial law firms in the United States, United Kingdom, and Singapore are using artificial intelligence platforms to analyze contracts: allowing for cost reduction, less time spent performing low level work, and the opportunity for lawyers to carry out demanding work for clients including complex negotiations in mergers and acquisitions transactions. Having said that, there are some potential drawbacks to using artificial intelligence. Many law firms could realize that they will lose out to rivals if they do not adopt such technology, yet digital platforms may not be appropriate for their individual business models, which signifies some worries amongst legal professionals.  By Justin Yang
Justin Yang is a junior at the University of Pennsylvania studying Politics, Philosophy, and Economics. One of the long-forgotten clauses of the United States Constitution is the Treason Clause, among the few crimes defined in the document. With many Americans today engaging in attacks against the United States through terrorism or cyber-warfare, two of the biggest threats the country faces, an interesting question can be raised: can those people be charged and convicted with treason?  By Justin Yang
Justin Yang is a junior at the University of Pennsylvania studying Politics, Philosophy, and Economics. The controversy over state and local governments declaring themselves to be so-called “sanctuaries” for undocumented immigrants may have been more salient months ago, but it hasn’t died down. In mid-January, Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen announced she would look for ways to file criminal charges against sanctuary cities for refusing to cooperate with federal deportation efforts. [1] There have been many other efforts by the federal government and Republicans to curb efforts by mainly Democratic states and cities to shield undocumented immigrants from federal enforcement agencies, all based on accusations of illegal and unconstitutional efforts by state and local governments to obstruct and nullify federal immigration law. However, unlike many other partisan issues these days, the law seems clear cut here: cities and states are perfectly entitled to set themselves up as sanctuaries for undocumented immigrants. This claim may seem counterintuitive on its face—how can states and local governments pick and choose whether to enforce federal law? After all, our Constitution clearly states that federal law shall be supreme over state and local law; some have even asserted that sanctuary cities harken back to a time when states and cities would defy the federal government during the Jim Crow era. [2] In addition, there are specific federal statutes that require state and local officials to aid federal immigration authorities; Section 1373(a) of Title 8 of the U.S. Code says state and local governments can’t ban officials from sending or receiving information regarding the immigration or citizenship status of people to the Department of Homeland Security. [3] President Trump has chosen to enforce this particular statute through a withdrawal of federal grants and funds for violators, as per a January 25, 2017 executive order. [4]  By Libby Rozbruch
Libby Rozbruch is a junior at the University of Pennsylvania studying Psychology. Over the past decade, scientists have been exploring the potential of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) as a method for lie detection. fMRI measures small, variable changes in the ratio of oxygenated blood to deoxygenated blood during a particular task or when a particular stimulus is presented. When a specific area of the brain is active, there is a local increase in oxygen-rich blood. In turn, fMRI allows scientists to assess and identify increased activity in brain regions associated with the cognitive processes required for lying. [1] The question is – should information acquired from this type of brain imaging technology be used as evidence in the courtroom?  By Owen Voutsinas-Klose
Owen Voutsinas-Klose is a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania. Gerrymandering, the time-honored American tradition that gets its name from Massachusetts’s early 19th century-era Governor Elbridge Gerry, is seeing a new threat from a judiciary increasingly keen on invalidating overtly partisan maps. The process of redistricting varies greatly by state, with some states including California, Arizona and Iowa using independent citizens commissions or offices to draw lines following each census with the goal of eliminating partisan bias. However, in the vast majority of states, the legislature is responsible for creating maps. The issue of gerrymandering took up special prominence in recent years after the GOP wave in 2010 allowed the party power in a record number of state legislatures coincidentally in the year of a census, allowing them control of maps. A particularly egregious example of this gerrymandering is in Wisconsin, where the 2010 elections gave the GOP total control over government. Using computer software and taking advantage of the tendency of Democrats to congregate in smaller areas, Republicans enacted a map that resulted in them taking 60 of 99 seats in the Wisconsin Assembly, despite losing the popular vote to Democrats in the 2012 election cycle [1].  By Habib Olapade
Habib Olapade is a second-year law student at Yale University. Throughout the last seventy-five years, the Supreme Court has explicitly and implicitly articulated two normative models for understanding the political activity in our representative democracy: liberalism and republicanism. [1] The models differ in that each provides a unique explanation for the social basis of human interests and legal rights as well as insight into what motivates citizens to engage in political activities. Republicanism posits that in substantive conflicts each state has a common interest that is independent of its constituents’ individual interests. [2] Under this theory, social and political rights are contingent upon political consensus rather than natural law or a commitment to a certain political philosophy. [3] Republican communities seek to establish and sustain a set of rights best suited to the community’s conditions and mores. [4] On the other hand, liberalism theorizes that, outside debates on procedures designed to ensure justice, the state can have no common interest that is independent of its constituents’ diverse desires. [5] Under this theory, the state’s citizens (and perhaps those outside the state) have a core set of rights that must be respected regardless of the voting majority’s political preferences. [6] Republicanism and liberalism require its citizens to deliberate to achieve an end. Traditional deliberation requires participants to exchange ideas so that the polity can arrive at a reasonable answer to a public issue by voting. [7] Alternatively, voters can interact strategically, considering his or her own interests and then make conditional offers to others in the hopes of striking a bargain before the voting process begins. [8] This deliberation can serve one of two purposes. First, engagement may develop and refine one’s identity by forcing an individual to empathize with others and grapple with their views. In this theory, the political process provides benefits that are largely unconnected with casting a ballot. Second, deliberation may be valuable because it provides a forum for voters to assert and defend their rights and interests. These deliberative models can appear in republican and liberal states.  By Luis Bravo
Luis Bravo is a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania studying Sociology. Ten days into President Trump’s administration, Acting Attorney General Sally Yates made headlines by refusing to defend Trump’s executive order on travel and immigration which denied entry to people from seven Muslim-majority countries. [1] While progressives praised her willingness to resist orders from the executive, critics from the right claimed this as evidence of an unreigned bureaucracy. [1] Yet, bureaucratic obstruction serves a critical role in American society by serving as a check on the powers of executive. Rather than stripping away protections from the bureaucracy, the United States can best mitigate bureaucratic obstruction by bolstering existing protection programs and implementing a fast-track judicial review system for executive orders. |
|
|
