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 Frank Geng
Frank Geng is a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania and an associate editor of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal. It seems these days that we might be hard-pressed to find an issue that both Democrats and Republicans could agree on—let alone agree to co-pilot legislation. That will be the case, however, in the coming weeks as a group of three Republicans, two Democrats, and one independent prepare to introduce a piece of legislation that would reexamine the rule-making process of Wall Street regulators. Ostensibly to bring financial regulation standards more in line with the executive branch, the law will most likely create more obstacles to the already lengthy process enacting Wall Street oversight. “Reform is badly needed,” Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren noted, “but this package heads in the wrong direction, giving lobbyists and lawyers more chances to block outcomes they don’t like.” [1] On a broader conceptual level, it comes down to the fundamental differences in how we view the economic consequences of regulation. But on a more mechanical level, this regulatory package seems to be a simple helping-hand to the candidates’ biggest backers. On the specifics of the legislation, it would seem that many of the legislation’s components create unnecessary extra steps in the rulemaking process. The central theme of the bill is to mandate serious cost-benefit analyses (CBAs) to any new regulatory moves. One of the provisions, for example, would require the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to perform these CBA reviews. [2] Coincidentally, the CBO has never dealt specifically with this type of analysis or task and as such, would stand to further delay the process without any particular value-added. Another core distraction of the legislation is the provision that suggests the creation of a new commission of appointed politicians to suggest regulatory modifications or repeals. [3] The preliminary logic would suggest that it’s simply a concern regarding any regulations that currently exist. This is not to say, however, that this process does not already exist nor does it mandate the creation of an independent panel to subvert regulatory independence in these financial watchdogs. The Dodd-Frank Act, for example, was primarily an attempt to reexamine and modify rules enacted before the financial crisis.
0 Comments
 By Frank Geng
Frank Geng is a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania and an associate editor of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal. This November, the House of Representatives approved a $325 billion transportation package meant to improve the state of the nation’s highways and infrastructure. [1] The bill comes several months after the Senate had passed a similar piece of legislation in July. [2] After continued funding deliberations, Congress could potentially approve a six-year transportation program. This bill, however, would still not provide adequate funding to improve the U.S.’s crumbling infrastructure. In 2013, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave the nation’s highways and bridges a “C+” and its transit systems a “D.” [3] The U.S. Department of Transportation seems to corroborate these evaluations, estimating that at least 10% of the country’s bridges are “structurally deficient.” [4] The World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report ranked U.S. infrastructure nineteenth in the world. [5] What are we doing wrong?  By Frank Geng
Frank Geng is a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania and an associate editor of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal. On October 10th, California Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill that allows Californian Department of Motor Vehicles offices to automatically register voters. [1] The legislation received strong support from the Democrat-controlled state legislature and Democratic Governor. [2] Supporters of the California New Motor Voter Act see this as an opportunity to boost voter participation in a state that experienced a record low turnout for last November’s general election that saw only 42 percent of voters participate. [3] Opponents argue that the bill will increase the risk of voter fraud, and will effectively coerce citizens to participate in a voluntary process that some prefer to stay out of. [4] The argument that the law will constitute voter coercion is extraneous, because the law does not mandate voter registration; those registering for a driver’s license or state ID will automatically be enrolled unless they choose to opt out. The issue with this legislation is not its mechanics or implantation; it is its lateness. Low voter turnout has plagued the US polls for years, so the fact that it is only now, in 2015, that we have started a major movement towards mandatory voting speaks to the inefficiencies of our legislative processes, and more broadly to the failure of our government to instill a sense of accountability in our citizens. The lack of proactivity in our government’s response to an increasingly apathetic people has injured our democracy, so the effectiveness of this bill will be of great import to the nation. Granted, California is not the only state to have passed an automatic registration system—Oregon did so this past March, and 17 other states have introduced similar bills in their state legislatures. [5] New Jersey’s Democratic-controlled legislature would have implemented a similar law had Governor Chris Christie not vetoed the bill. [6] Governor Christie claims that low turnout is not necessarily the result of obstacles to voter registration and to voting itself, but rather that “there’s nothing on the ballot [the people] want to vote for,” which is a somewhat reasonable claim given the public’s current disillusionment with our political system. [7] Christie continues, “there’s no question in my mind that there are some advocates of this [bill] who are looking to increase the opportunity for voter fraud…I think there’s much more politics behind this than there is democracy.”[8] The fear of increased voter fraud is unfounded, but what is even more irrational is the belief that increased voter registration is primarily fueled by political machinations, as though voting were not the foundation of the democratic process. Christie’s concerns resonate with the historical, and current, Republican policies that encourage voting restrictions. Outside of the realm of New Jersey politics, leaders including Democratic Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have come out in favor of mandated voter registration. Thus, the result of the 2016 Presidential Race will have great consequences for our nation’s democratic process. The issue, however, is more deeply rooted in red states where increased voter participation has historically hurt their political success.  By Frank Geng
Frank Geng is a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania and an associate editor of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal. Last year in Blytheville, Arkansas, a group of parents attempted to transfer their children to a public school in a nearby, wealthier district in hopes of giving them a better educational environment. School officials rejected the transfer applications, citing a historical desegregation order in their district from more than 40 years ago. The lower courts quickly dismissed the parents’ litigation, and on August 31, the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirmed the decision. [1] In the opinion, Judge Lavenski R. Smith stated, “We agree with the district court that [no] relevant precedent support[s] the proposition that ‘a parent’s ability to choose where his or her child is educated within the public school system is a fundamental right or liberty.’” [2] Arkansas state law, however, allows parents to choose where to send their kids to school—except in the case of districts under federal desegregation orders. Parents in these districts have the right to choose to send their children to private schools; however, on the matter of public education, they must conform to a federal mandate from 1971 that requires racial enrollment balance and prohibits transfers. The Court of Appeals did not rule on whether or not the mandate should still have effect, but rather focused on the rationale of equal protection. |
|
|
