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 Nicholas Parsons
Nicholas Parsons is a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania studying Politics, Philosophy, and Economics. Many businesses intentionally utilize tactics of psychological manipulation on their consumers. However, in recent years some companies have experimented with using these same tactics to incentivize their employees where monetary incentives are lacking. With the growing popularity of what is sometimes termed the “gig economy,” in which workers are contracted as freelance employees for a short period of time, companies must get creative in order to compel their workers to work in certain locations, in order to maximize profits. [1] Uber, like many blossoming companies in our modern economy, can be considered a part of this growing “gig economy.” [2] As such, they are not subject to the same employee regulations. Uber in particular has been criticized for taking advantage of this freedom, utilizing numerous tactics of psychological manipulation and exploitation to motivate drivers while being legally allowed to pay less than minimum wage. With the rise in the popularity of employers which capitalize on the gig economy, we must ask ourselves - should these companies be subject to the same regulations as traditional businesses?
0 Comments
 By Jonathan Lahdo
Jonathan Lahdo is a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania studying business and international studies. On Tuesday, April 4th, the world was taken aback by news of a chemical attack in Syria that killed scores of innocent civilians. It has now been estimated that over 80 were killed in the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun in the north-west of the country by exposure to deadly chemical weapons. [1] According to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), at least two different chemical weapons were used, one of which caused symptoms very similar to those of sarin gas, though their tests remain inconclusive and the exact chemicals used have not yet been determined. [2] Aside from the details of the horrific events, one main question remained: Who was responsible for these attacks?  By Habib Olapade Habib Olapade is a first-year law student at Yale University. The perfect crime has preoccupied man’s mind for eons. Clytemnestra secretly slayed her husband, Agamemnon, with nary a scintilla of contrition. Othello privately smothered Desdemona in her uneasy slumber. And Massachusetts-native Lizzy Borden became an American pariah after she slaughtered her father and stepmother with an axe. These tales are as popular as they are gruesome. The United States Code, however, contains an unknown but interesting natural parks statute that is more sensational than any of these tragedies. It involves a careful mélange of forestry and forgotten constitutional commands. The Constitution imposes requirements on where a criminal jury trial can be held and the places where the government can draw jurors from. Article III § 2 states that the trial must take place in the state where the crime was committed. [1] The Sixth Amendment goes even further and declares that the jury must be drawn from the state and judicial district where the crime was committed. [2] What happens, though, when a crime is committed in a place that is inside the boundary of one state and the government can only procure jurors from judicial districts outside the state? A thin sliver of land in Wyoming’s Yellowstone National Park fits this hypothetical. Nine percent of the Park is actually in Montana and Idaho. [3] According to the latest census, this portion of the reserve is uninhabited. [4] Yellowstone was created in 1872 before Congress admitted Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming into the union. [5] Each state, however, transferred its authority over Yellowstone to the federal government upon obtaining statehood – which means that only federal criminal statutes can be enforced in the reserve. [6] When Congress established a federal district court in Wyoming, the incorporating statute purported to give the court territorial jurisdiction over the entire Yellowstone area. [7] This means that if someone were to commit a federal crime in the Idaho (or Montana) Yellowstone area, she would have to be tried in Idaho (or Montana) because of Article III § 2. However, the government would be unable to gather jurors for the case because the Idaho and Montana portions, the exclusive area from which the government can recruit jurors, are unpopulated. The result? Our criminal receives a free walk.
Don’t go on a crime spree just yet, though. There are other ways the federal government could hand you your just deserts. Some arguments are more persuasive than others, however. First, Congress could redraw the Wyoming district following public exposure of the loophole. It is questionable, though, whether this correction would allow prosecutors to pursue an offender who acted before the relevant changes were made because such a move would violate the constitution’s prohibition on retroactive punishment. [8] Indeed, two federal circuit courts have confirmed this observation. [9] Second, the federal government could argue that the Montana and Idaho park area is a federal enclave like the District of Columbia. This argument would make the Sixth Amendment restrictions on where the government can draw jurors inapplicable because the amendment’s reference to “states” would be beside the point. It is clear, though, that the Montana and Idaho park areas are still a part of Montana and Idaho respectively. Indeed, a federal statute explicitly states that some parts of “Yellowstone National Park [are] situated in Montana and Idaho.” [10] This argument falls flat as a result. Third, the government might be able to charge you with an offense with multiple elements. For instance, if one conspires with her friend in California before committing the crime in the park, she has committed part of the offense in a state where jurors can be drawn. [11] The government could also try someone with a petty crime that carries a maximum sentence of less than six months in prison – The Supreme Court has held that these crimes do not require a jury trial. [12] Finally, assuming the government did not give chase, the victim’s family could sue the criminal in tort for wrongful death. In short, there are several ways to botch the job but thanks in part to poor congressional drafting and historical accidents the possibility of a perfect crime is still on the table. Needless to say, this brief foray into criminal law is not a call to illicit action. [1] U.S. Const. Art. III § 2. [2] U.S. Const. Amend. VI. [3] 16 U.S.C. § 21. [4] http://factfinder.census.gov. [5] Supra note 3. [6] 16 U.S.C. § 24. [7] 28 U.S.C. § 131. [8] U.S. Const. Art. I § 10. [9] United States v. Louwsma, 970 F.2d 797 (11th Cir. 1992). Zicarelli v. Dietz, 633 F.2d 312 (3rd Cir. 1980). [10] 28 U.S.C. § 131 (2000). [11] 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (1948). [12] Callan v. Wilson, 127 U.S. 540 (1888). Photo Credit: Yellowstone National Park The opinions and views expressed through this publication are the opinions of the designated authors and do not reflect the opinions or views of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, our staff, or our clients.  By Habib Olapade
Habib Olapade is a first-year law student at Yale University. One way to measure whether an individual is an equal community member is to ask whether that person is eligible to serve in the community’s highest office. The gratuitous burdens that non-white and female presidential candidates must endure regardless of their talent is a testament to our society’s continuing struggle with racism and sexism. [1] Our unconscious prejudice, however, is not a formal legal barrier to the presidency because “there is no superior, dominant, or ruling class” in this country. [2] Indeed, any thirty-five year old who has lived in the United States for fourteen years can technically run for the highest office in the land. [3] And it is a fundamental proposition of American life that every child can conceivably grow up to be our commander-in-chief. But, is this narrative flawless? Not exactly. Article II § 1 of the U.S. Constitution states that “no person except a natural-born citizen…shall be eligible to the Office of President.” [3] The Framers were not trying to fence out babies born through Caesarian sections. Instead, this provision targets infants who were born to non-citizen couples outside American territory. [4] The natural-born citizen requirement is an exclusive outlier in an otherwise inclusive document, because it assumes that some citizens are more authentic and trustworthy than others. Nearly twenty-six million U.S. residents, some of whom have invested their all in, and risked everything for, this nation, can never lead the country because they were born abroad to non-naturalized parents.  By Justin Yang
Justin Yang is a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania studying Politics, Philosophy, and Economics. On November 8th, 2016, in a referendum overshadowed by the presidential election, voters in the District of Columbia voted overwhelmingly in support of statehood for the District. The topic of D.C. statehood has been debated for decades, with strong arguments on both sides. However, one important thing that must be considered is the potential constitutional problems that might arise if the District does move towards statehood; after all, the District of Columbia has always been a unique situation in the nation’s history, and has been specially created and treated by the Constitution and the laws of our country. The District of Columbia was created in 1790 as the seat of government of the United States, carved from land ceded by Maryland and Virginia. A special federal district was needed to prevent the federal government from being beholden to any particular state government for its everyday needs. [1] As such, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress exclusive jurisdiction over the district. [2] As the population of Washington grew, calls for voting rights led to the passage of the Twenty-Third Amendment, which specifically gave D.C. residents the right to vote in presidential elections. It is in this context that proponents of D.C. statehood will have to navigate in order to achieve their goals.  By Gabriel Maliha
Gabriel Maliha is a senior at the University of Pennsylvania studying criminology. The recent consideration by the Senate of Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch and other important priorities by the new administration has brought to the fore a renewed debate about the Senate filibuster. The procedure was originally conceived as an opportunity for the upper chamber and its members to entertain open and unlimited debate on a particular bill or nominee to convince colleagues of the validity of a particular view. Over the years, it has become a parliamentary obstructive device used by minorities in the Senate to prevent votes and ultimately decisions on specific business before the chamber. [1] The filibuster was not part of the original 1789 Senate rules but became so shortly thereafter in 1806. Former Vice President Aaron Burr suggested eliminating limits on debate as would be worthy of a “great deliberative body” and the Senate obliged. [2] The dilatory process was used sparingly until a Democratic minority tried to block a banking bill in 1841. The sponsors threatened but failed to eliminate the filibuster. In 1917, a Republican minority blocked a bill supported by President Wilson to arm merchant marine vessels during WWI. The Senate, under popular pressure, created rule 22, the cloture motion, which allows ending debates if 2/3 of Senators present and voting concur. [3] The 1960’s witnessed a number of highly charged filibusters by Senate Democrats, including attempts to block the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In 1975, the Senate lowered cloture requirements to 3/5 of Senate membership. [4,5]  By Cary Holley
Cary Holley is a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania studying Political Science. Our country’s founding document proclaims certain inalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. [1] While access to fair housing may not be explicitly guaranteed, the principles that lie at the heart of the subject relate to such rights. Moreover, philosopher John Locke’s lesser-known proclamation, which inspired that of the Founding Fathers, specifically addresses housing by declaring a right to ‘life, liberty, and estate’. [2] Although legislators have made efforts to advance fair access to housing, lingering discrimination makes it hard to say that the government is fulfilling its Lockean obligations.  By Natasha Darlington
Natasha Darlington is a third year at the University of Warwick studying Law. It’s an issue that many countries are facing, but in France, overcrowding in prisons is at an all time high. On March 1, it was recorded that 69,430 people were incarcerated, and that the prisons were working at a capacity of 113%. Since, a penal law named ‘Taubira’ was signed in 2014. As a result of this law, it has been said that 3000 more people have been incarcerated, only exacerbating the issue. This has lead to increasing tensions within the prisons as well as calls for penal reforms to try and settle the problem, an incentive particularly important during the 2017 French presidential cycle.  By Nicholas Parsons
Nicholas Parsons is a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania studying Politics, Philosophy, and Economics. Should a set of adults be allowed to name their child whatever they desire? Our First Amendment right to free speech is a fundamental, inalienable freedom which extends to numerous external applications. But how much liberty do we have when it comes to naming ourselves, or our children? There, the answer is less clear. Here in America, numerous states have regulations that add limits to the types of names that can be given, for a variety of reasons. However, oftentimes the lines are blurred. In some states, the law is vague; in others, seemingly arbitrary; and in a few others, simply nonexistent. Take, for instance, a very recent case of a child in Georgia. Two parents, Elizabeth Handy and Bilal Walk, wanted to give their daughter the surname “Allah”, because to them, it is “noble.” Despite the fact that the state of Georgia accepted that surname for their two other children, they said that this particular child would not be allowed to have that as a last name. Georgia contended that the girl’s last name “must match one of the parents - or be a combination of the two.” [1] This presents several very real problems for the daughter. Because of the state’s refusal to issue a birth certificate, the child cannot receive a Social Security number, is unable to enroll in school, and is barred from numerous other privileges as a result of Georgia’s decision. |
|
|
