All Categories

Ireland Defeats Restrictive Abortion Ban

7/15/2018

By Kirsten Mullin
Kirsten Mullin is a senior majoring in Political Science and minoring in Economics at Haverford College.

In a landslide victory for women’s reproductive rights, the Republic of Ireland voted in a country-wide referendum on May 26th, 2018 to overturn the country’s restrictive abortion ban. Before the vote, Irish abortion law - legislated in the 8th amendment to the constitution and the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act - was among the most restrictive in the world. The law allowed for abortion only in cases where there was a clear threat to the life of the mother and barred even cases of incest or rape [1]. The Irish electorate’s decision to repeal country’s the abortion ban leaves Malta as the only country in Europe where women are unable to access safe and legal abortions within the country’s borders [2].

Throughout its history, the Republic of Ireland has been viewed as a conservative state rooted in the values of the Catholic Church. However, the influence of the church has been waning in recent years largely as a result of a string of highly publicized sex scandals. Accompanying the decline in influence of the Catholic Church in Ireland has been a string of legislative reforms reflecting an increasingly liberal society; contraception, divorce, same-sex marriage and now abortion have all been legalized in the past 30 years [3].

Is Breastfeeding Indecent? Reflections on the Indecent Representation of Women Act in India

7/7/2018

By Sheerene Mohamed
Sheerene Mohamed is a B.A./LL.B. (Hons.) student at the National University of Advanced Legal Studies (NUALS) in Kochi, India.

An Indian regional magazine, Grihalakshmi, published their March 2018 issue, featuring an actress suckling a baby with her breast uncovered and nipple concealed by the baby’s mouth [1]. The headline reads “Mothers tell Kerala [the Indian state where the magazine circulated], ‘please don’t stare, we need to breastfeed’”.

Battle for the Skies: Boeing-Airbus WTO Trade Dispute

6/30/2018

By James Freirich
James Freirich is a guest writer for The Roundtable and a sophomore majoring in Finance at Boston College’s Carroll School of Management.

In recent weeks, the World Trade Organization (WTO) delivered a critical ruling on the Boeing-Airbus trade dispute - a dispute which bore its inception in 2004 [1]. Since the 1970 establishment of Airbus, the 2nd largest aircraft manufacturer in the world, Boeing, the world’s leading aircraft manufacturer, has faced steep competition and a challenge to its market share of the “Large Civil Aircraft” (LCA) industry [2] [3] [4]. Moreover, as the competition between these two aircraft manufacturing titans have intensified throughout the past few decades, so have their bilateral utilization of subsidies within the LCA market. Subsequently, as the United States (US) became increasingly concerned with the level of subsidies granted to Airbus by the European Communities (EC) over the decades following 1970, a bilateral Agreement on Trade in Large Civil Aircraft (TLCA) was created in July of 1992 to ensure fair trade by implementing quantitative restrictions on subsidies utilized within the LCA market [5] [6]. On October 6th, 2004 on behalf of Boeing, the US filed a trade complaint against the EC “alleging that the EC violated international trade agreements, primarily by giving launch aid to Airbus” [7]. During that same day, and on behalf of Airbus, the EC filed a trade complaint of their own against the US “alleging that Boeing received prohibited government subsidies in the form of tax breaks and preferential government contracts” [8]. (Kienstra, 571) By filing trade disputes against one another, the US and EC in turn withdrew from the TLCA.

Demystifying the Concept of Citizen’s Arrest

6/26/2018

By Georgia Ray
Georgia Ray is a rising sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania studying Cognitive Science with a minor in American Public Policy.

In a small town in Texas, something out of the ordinary happened. A motorist held another man at gunpoint, waiting for the police to arrive, after witnessing him beating a woman in a nearby car. This civilian momentarily took on the role of a police officer, and by performing a citizen’s arrest he made real change in the life of the victimized woman [1]. That said, the concept of citizen’s arrest is rarely understood and is often treated as no more than a hyperbolic plan of action.

The concept of citizen’s arrest originated in medieval Britain when police departments were understaffed and relied on citizens to help keep the peace [2]. Not only were citizens allowed to make arrests, but some citizens would even take it upon themselves to do detective work in their communities. This reliance on the general population continued even past the establishment of America where tiny towns with small police forces needed citizens to be involved in regulating their neighborhoods and friends. However, as cities grew, police departments received more funds, hired more staff, and were allocated more resources. Suddenly, a veil of anonymity settled on the population and with it, this type of neighborly accountability became almost obsolete.

Anti-Abortion Clinics and the Freedom of Speech vs. Rights to Truth and Information

5/19/2018

By Anna Schwartz
Anna Schwartz is a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania studying Political Science, French, and Economic Policy.

The Supreme Court plans to deliberate a loaded question this year: does a California law requiring anti-abortion pregnancy clinics to advertise their unlicensed status and the availability of state family planning and abortion services violate the first amendment?

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra questions the constitutionality of California’s Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act (Reproductive FACT). In 2015, this law was passed as a response to non-medical crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) which advertise themselves as reproductive health clinics. CPCs often spread misinformation and dissuade women from getting abortions.

The Development of Whistleblower Protection in the United States

4/27/2018

By Pheby Liu
Pheby Liu is a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania.

On March 29, 2017, Simon Edelman, the chief creative officer for the U.S. Department of Energy, was photographing a meeting between Energy Secretary Rick Perry and Robert Murray, the chief executive of Murray Energy Corporation - he had made political significant contributions to both Perry and Trump’s campaigns. [1] Edelman said that Murray and Perry were discussing an “action plan” for policy changes that would favor Murray Energy as well as other coal companies. His photos showed the coversheet of the confidential “action plan” as well as Perry and Murray hugging. [2] After hearing the conversations between the two men, Edelman felt that something was not right and decided to release his photos to In These Times and the Washington Post. Shortly after, his personal items were seized, and he was put on administrative leave. The Energy Department proceeded to fire him without any explanation. [3]

“The Case for Human Judges"

4/25/2018

By Connor Gallagher
Connor Gallagher is a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania studying chemical and biomolecular engineering.

Ninth Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt died on Thursday, March 29, at the age of 87. He was appointed to the federal bench in 1980 by President Carter, serving on the Ninth Circuit for nearly four decades. [1]

Considered a “liberal lion,” Reinhardt frequently found himself at odds with the conservative-leaning Supreme Courts of the past several decades. Maybe the most famous was the 2004 Supreme Court decision, Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, which overruled his holding that the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance violates the Establishment Clause. [2] Reinhardt also wrote opinions striking down a Washington State law banning physician-assisted suicide and the contentious “Prop 8” ballot proposition banning same-sex marriage in California. The former was overturned by the Supreme Court [3], the latter vacated. [4]

A Review of Current Internet Privacy Rules

4/24/2018

By Nicholas Parsons
Nicholas Parsons is a junior at the University of Pennsylvania studying Politics, Philosophy and Economics.

Facebook’s recent Cambridge Analytica scandal and the subsequent congressional hearing on Mark Zuckerberg leave us with questions as to what extent companies should be allowed to access and share the information of its users. But what is the current state of affairs in the realm of internet privacy law? Before being able to state whether any laws should be changed to accommodate an increase in individual internet privacy, the current status of internet privacy law should be reviewed.

Ignoring the Law - Is Jury Nullification a Civic Duty or Anarchy?

4/24/2018

By Saxon Bryant
Saxon Bryant is a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania and Associate Editor of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal.

When it comes to due process, we have a flawed assumption as to how a trial by jury can proceed. As commonly understood, the two options presented before the jury are guilty or not guilty. The jury is meant to deliberate on the evidence presented during the trial, and based on that reach one of the two aforementioned verdicts. While simple, this choice does not tell the full story. Jurors have another option they can use. This third option is known as jury nullification. But what exactly jury nullification is and whether or not it’s legitimate has been a subject of debate for hundreds of years.

Jury nullification is a jury's knowing and deliberate rejection of the evidence or refusal to apply the law. [1] It occurs when juries render a verdict that is contrary to the evidence and has been a staple of the American judicial and constitutional system for centuries now. The Declaration of Independence gives nullification credence in saying that a government only has legitimate power with “the consent of the governed.” [2] A law which lacks that consent is arguably an improper law. Juries also have a constitutional basis, such as the Sixth Amendment, which grants the accused an inviolable right to a jury determination of his guilt or innocence in all criminal prosecutions. Because of this right, a trial judge absolutely cannot direct a verdict in favor of the State or set aside a jury's verdict of not guilty, "no matter how overwhelming the evidence," as was reaffirmed in Sullivan v. Louisiana (1993). [3] This rule is designed to safeguard what United States v. Spock (1969) defined the jury's power as: intended "to arrive at a general verdict without having to support it by reasons or by a report of its deliberations" and to protect its historic power to nullify or temper rules of law. [4]

How AT&T Is Using Trump to Get Its Mega Merger Approved

4/20/2018

By Owen Voutsinas-Klose
Owen Voutsinas-Klose is a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania studying Politics, Philosophy and Economics and minoring in Legal Studies and History in the College of Arts and Sciences.

In 2016, Makhan Delrahim predicted that the recently announced AT&T and Time Warner merger would be approved by regulators quickly. “I don’t see this as a major antitrust problem” Delrahim, at the time a law professor, told a media outlet. Yet in 2017, almost exactly a year later, the Justice Department under Delrahim (now serving as the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division) suddenly blocked the merger weeks after it had been expected to have been approved. The question of what caused the sudden change of heart for Trump’s Justice Department and the man who leads its antitrust efforts is central to the impending trial that has far reaching implications for future antitrust policy. [1]