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 Luis Bravo
Luis Bravo is a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania studying sociology. Donald Trump - reality star, businessman, Whartonite, and future president? Trump’s rise to political fame has left many wondering, “What else could go wrong in the 2016 presidential race?” In a nutshell- many things! Through a series of completely realistic scenarios, I will explore the laws that act as our government’s crisis control center to learn just how off the rails this election season can potentially get. What would happen if either candidate drops out of the race? This has been a question that has been raised about both candidates and is addressed by their respective party committees. On one hand, we have Donald Trump. Shortly after Ted Cruz lost Indiana and Trump became the (informal) Republican nominee, various rumors began to swirl on the internet hinting at Trump’s potential withdrawal. Though these rumors died down throughout the summer months, they experienced a resurgence shortly after the Republican National Convention. Citing widening poll margins strongly favoring Hillary Clinton, many believed Donald Trump would bail. [1] This could have happened one of two ways. If Donald Trump were to formally withdraw from the race, the Republican National Committee would have the power to fill the vacancy by appointing a new candidate. This person would not become the official nominee until state delegates recast their votes in another national convention and the individual received a clear majority. In contrast, if Trump were to simply suspend his campaign, he would still legally be the Republican nominee and would retain his delegates. The Republican Convention would also have the power to contribute “in-kind aid, “essentially continuing his campaign on his behalf. [2]
0 Comments
 By Rachel Pomerantz Rachel Pomerantz is a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania studying mathematical economics. For anyone who grew up learning about the legislative process through the Schoolhouse Rock! song “I’m Just a Bill,” it might seem that contention over whether certain policies should be implemented and how they should be enforced in American society ends with the president’s decision to sign or veto the bill (save for the possible veto override vote or legal action in court). However, the action has just begun once a bill becomes a law. Though little understood, the current way in which regulatory processes are created in effect disincentivizes citizen participation while favoring interest groups that do not represent the general population. First, a primer on what happens after a bill becomes a law: Agencies will initially submit an“Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” and a “Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,” which are then open to the public to comment upon for a specified amount of time. [1] Then, the agency will decide on the rules they wish to implement. The Office of the Federal Register (OFR) dictates what factors and interests an agency may consider in creating a rule.  By Tanner Bowen
Tanner Bowen is a junior at the University of Pennsylvania studying business. Aside from dreading taxes, drivers of automobiles have always faced another unpleasant reality of life: accidents. Whether this involves rear-ending another driver or slamming into that pole in the parking lot, we are subjected to the headache of who is liable for the accident and how our insurance will cover it. Flash forward to the present, and the development of autonomous vehicles is well within our grasp as a society. Numerous car companies have enabled assisted driving features such as automatic brakes that activate if the car senses an object that is too close. On the other end of the spectrum is Tesla Motors Inc., which in 2015 activated its autopilot mode (which allows autonomous steering, braking, lane switching, and a host of other features). But this summer, a Tesla Model S using autopilot struck a big rig while traveling on a divided highway in Florida, killing the driver. [1]  By Dan Spinelli
Dan Spinelli is a junior at the University of Pennsylvania studying English. It seems surprising that Democratic Governor Tom Wolf and the Republican-heavy Pennsylvania state legislature could ever land on the same side of an issue involving education funding, but a recent lawsuit has done just that. In mid-September, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania heard oral arguments in the case of William Penn School District v. Pennsylvania Department of Education, a reprise of sorts of a similar case dismissed by a Pennsylvania appellate court in April of 2015. [1] Over a year ago, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania dismissed the case, which accused the state’s education funding system — determined in amounts voted on and allotted by state legislators — in a move Wolf and his opponents supported. While the Democratic governor and his Republican legislature went 267 days without a budget, the longest time the state has ever gone without one, both sides were unwilling to cede ground for political debate to the high court. [2] |
|
|
