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 Sandeep Suresh
Sandeep Suresh is a fourth-year law student at the National Law University in Jodhpur, India. Administrative law, which oversees activities of administrative departments of the government, has been gaining popularity as more government agencies were established to manage the augmenting complex social, economic, and political spheres of society. Natural justice principles form a substantial part of this branch of law and apply wherever an administrative decision is involved. Rights and duties in this field are not purely private and are mostly broad in nature with implications for the general public. Understanding the nature of arbitration, in addition to its legal definition, is also necessary. A truly private mechanism of dispute resolution, arbitration is based on party consensus, and only private commercial matters involving in personam rights are adjudicated. Procedural flexibility, which gives parties complete autonomy of deciding the arbitral procedures and place of hearing, provides arbitration the upper edge over court litigation.
0 Comments
By Sean Foley
On Saturday, April 19, the American Humanist Association (AHA), an organization committed to secular government,[1] filed suit in New Jersey against the Matawan-Aberdeen Regional School District on behalf of an atheist family who seeks to have the phrase “under God” removed from the Pledge of Allegiance [2]. (Ironically, this challenge to the reference to the Judeo-Christian God came in the midst of the Jewish celebration of Passover and the Christian celebration of Easter.) Congress first added the phrase to the Pledge in 1954 amidst the Cold War with the supposedly “godless” Soviet Union [3]. The AHA suit alleges that the phrase alienates and isolates atheist students, violating New Jersey’s rights and privileges clause, which forbids discrimination on the basis of religion [4]. AHA attorney David Niose argues that the inclusion of the phrase in the Pledge indicates to children that “patriotism is tied to a belief in God” [5]. He further contends that the recitation of the Pledge contributes to discrimination against atheists and marks them as “second-class citizens” [6]. The AHA has already filed a similar suit in Massachusetts, which the Massachusetts Supreme Court is in the process of deciding [7]. 
By Muskan Mumtaz
Muskan Mumtaz is a sophomore at University of Virginia. As Muslim societies began demanding social and political changes in the wake of the Arab Spring, the issue of “rape-marriage” laws in the Middle East reopened for debate. In Jordan, this law allows rapists to avoid legal prosecution if they agree to marry their victim and thus “save” the lost honor of the girl and her family. Essentially products of the Ottoman and French penal codes, these laws have been criticized for undermining Islamic shari’ah, which does not recognize retroactive reduction of criminal punishments. More importantly, these rape-marriage laws are perceived as attempts to resolve social problems—in this case, removing the stigma around the dishonored family—instead of effectively punishing a criminal. Since Egypt repealed its version of the rape-marriage law in 2002, activists in Jordan have been pressuring the government to create a new rape law that better aligns with Islamic beliefs, as well as modern notions of human rights and justice. 
By Yeonhwa Lee
Yeonhwa Lee is a senior at the University of Pennsylvania studying Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (PPE). Aby J. Rosen, a New-York real estate mogul, co-founded RFR Holding LLP, which owns the Seagram Building housing the famous Four Seasons restaurant. The New York Landmarks Conservancy, headed by president Peg Breen, owns a 19-by-20-foot theater curtain, “Le Tricorne,” painted by Pablo Picasso. What do Mr. Rosen and Ms. Breen have to do with one another? The famed painting of Ms. Breen’s conservancy hangs on the wall of Mr. Rosen’s Four Seasons restaurant. A legal battle has ensued between the two as Mr. Rosen wishes to take down the painting to make repairs on the wall while Ms. Breen claims such a move would damage a priceless Picasso.  By Dan Zhang
In Flynn v. Holder (2011), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that a common method of bone marrow donation – “peripheral blood stem cell apheresis” – did not fall under the ban on compensated organ donation under the National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA) of 1984. [1] The plaintiffs consisted of relatives of sick persons in need of bone marrow transplantation, a medical expert on bone marrow transplantation, and a non-profit seeking to launch a program offering paid incentives for bone marrow donors. Their case against the government was brought to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit after being dismissed by the District Court for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. [2] Section 301 of NOTA places a ban on compensating organ donors, defining human organs as: “the human kidney, liver, heart, lung, pancreas, bone marrow, cornea, eye, bone, and skin, and any other human organ specified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services by regulation.” [3] The regulation further adds: “[the] intestine, including the esophagus, stomach, small and/or large intestine, or any portion of the gastrointestinal tract.” [4] 
By Muskan Mumtaz
Muskan Mumtaz is a sophomore at University of Virginia. Sameer Rah was eight years old when he was beaten to death by Indian soldiers in the disputed region of Kashmir. His killing came in the height of what is dubbed the “summer bloodbath,” during which the Indian army killed around 100 minors and injured another 500. The military targets teenage protestors as a way of discouraging the next generation of Kashmiris from engaging in civil unrest, and more importantly, from restarting the independence movement within Kashmir.[1] Of course, the Indian military cannot discharge or imprison every soldier that has a hand in killing a civilian. The entire purpose of these extrajudicial killings is to make known their military presence and suppress whatever strains of resistance emerge among the youth. To provide their soldiers impunity, the Indian government uses an old law known as the “Armed Forces Special Powers Act.” (Ironically, the British government used this same law on Gandhi’s independence movement).  By Benjamin Ng'aru
Benjamin Ng'aru is a student at Catholic University of Eastern Africa & Makerere University studying law. On Monday, February 25th 2014, Uganda’s president Yoweri K. Museveni assented to the Anti Homosexuality Act, 2014 (previously referred to as Kill the Gays Bill”). [1] Interestingly, he thereafter termed Homosexuals as “disgusting and unnatural” persons.[2] The legislation has since received widespread condemnation from human rights organizations and leaders. A petition challenging the constitutionality of the legislation has been filed at Uganda’s Constitutional court.[3] Whereas Uganda’s Penal Code has always outlawed “carnal knowledge against the order of nature,” the new legislation is much broader and infringes on certain constitutionally protected rights such as human dignity, privacy and equal treatment before and under the law.[4] S. 2(2) of the Act provides for a mandatory life sentence for persons convicted of “homosexual acts”. [5] S. 1 of the Act defines homosexual acts as “the touching of another’s breast, vagina, penis or anus,…however slight….with any part of the body or through anything.” The Act also provides for a mandatory death sentence.  By Nicole Greenstein
Although prisoners forfeit their full Constitutional rights, some rights are so crucial that not even conviction can strip them away. Among these are the rights to due process, equal protection, and, according to inmate Richard Glenn Young, the right to play music behind bars. Young is no ordinary inmate. While serving a life sentence at the Pennsylvania State Correctional Institution at Graterford in 2002, he was featured in a VH-1 documentary about his independent inmate band that was formed through his prison’s program [1]. Yet after public outcry about the program, Graterford later decided to ban independent inmate bands like Young’s. Instead, inmates could play music individually in certain cells, and perform at “religious services, an annual talent show, and special events as approved by the facility manager” [2].  By Yeonhwa Lee
Yeonhwa Lee is a senior at the University of Pennsylvania studying Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (PPE). The Supreme Court decided not to hear the case petitioned by Robert Lederman, artist-activist and president of Artists' Response To Illegal State Tactics (ARTIST). The petition, submitted on December 23 last year, asked the Court to reverse the Second Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision which sided with the City of New York and its revised regulations regarding expressive-matter vendors in public spaces. On September 25, 2013, the Second Circuit upheld the City’s revised rules on unlawful vending of expressive matter. Following the revisions made in 2010, Section 1-02 of Title 56 of the Rules of the City of New York (R.C.N.Y.) was amended to include the definition of expressive matter – “materials or objects with expressive content, such as newspapers, books, or writings, or visual art such as paintings, prints, photography, or sculpture.” [1] And more importantly for street artists, Section 1-05 banned expressive-matter vendors from selling their works in the general areas of Central Park, Battery Park, Union Square Park, and elevated portions of High Line Park, except at specifically designated spots. [2] |
|
|