« November 12, 2006 - November 18, 2006 | Main | November 26, 2006 - December 2, 2006 »

November 22, 2006

Latest on Brown University's Slavery and Justice Committee

BrownuniversityYou might be interested in this article ("After Brown U.'s Report on Slavery, Silence So Far: Few other universities appear ready to investigate  their historical ties to the slave trade") from the Chronicle of Higher Ed on the aftermath of Brown University's report on slavery and also Professor James Campbell's discussion with Chronicle readers about the report.  We'll see where this all goes.  Over at blackprof, where I've been visiting for the month, I've predicted a few schools that I think will follow Brown's lead.  We'll see.  We won't be able to measure the effects for a while.

Update:  Insidehighered.com's Elizabeth Redden has a comprehensive article, "In Search of Skeletons," talking about other universities and moving from slavery to connections (sometimes rather loose) to the Nazis.

November 22, 2006 | Permalink | TrackBack

Happy Turkey Day

I love Thanksgiving.  I suppose if you wanted to overthink it, you coTurkey_piculd use the day as an occasion to review Johnson v. M'Intosh or some other historical facts.  I prefer to use the holiday to give sincere thanks for the many good things in my life, and to eat a lot.  Thanksgiving strikes me as a very traditional and conservative holiday.  In that spirit, I'd just like to share my humble opinion that all true Americans should eat turkey on Thanksgiving, just like the Pilgrims and the Indians did (in the elementary school version, at any rate).  Eating anything else strikes me as un-American.  I'll make an exception for anything you hunt and kill yourself.  But one friend of mine told me once that her family ate prime rib on Thanksgiving.  I suggested that she and her family move to Canada. 

Ben Barros

[Comments are held for approval, so there will be some delay in posting]

November 22, 2006 in Miscellaneous | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack

November 21, 2006

AEI Conference: Is There a Constitutional Right to Medical Self-Defense?

Here is the announcement from AEI:

Start:

Friday, December 8, 2006  12:15 PM

End:

Friday, December 8, 2006  2:00 PM

Location:

Wohlstetter Conference Center, Twelfth Floor, AEI
1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036
Directions to AEI

In the recent case of Abigail Alliance v. von Eschenbach, a divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that the due process clause required the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to allow terminally ill patients the opportunity to use last-hope drugs that have not received final FDA approval.

In a forthcoming Harvard Law Review article, UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh offers a new doctrine of "medical self-defense" that also justifies this ruling. Volokh suggests that the medical self-defense principle could be applied to the constitutionality of abortion rights and would provide constitutional grounds to strike down laws prohibiting financial compensation for organ donation.

Is medical self-defense a coherent legal concept that can justify constitutional intervention by courts in controversial cases regarding abortion or organ sales? Could it become a tool used by judges to substitute their policy preferences for those of legislators? Is Professor Volokh correct that litigants have a feasible chance of the doctrine finding a home in the Roberts Supreme Court?

Participants at this event will discuss these and other questions. Professor Volokh's presentation will be followed by a discussion with two other distinguished law professors, Richard Epstein of the University of Chicago and Jeffrey Rosen of George Washington University. Ted Frank, director of AEI's Liability Project, will moderate.

Here is a link if you wish to register to attend.

Rick Duncan

[Comments are held for approval, so there will be some delay in posting]

November 21, 2006 in Conferences | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

If it looks like a geoduck, and quacks like a geoduck, it must be

A clam?

Geoduck growers versus property owners

Rick Duncan

[Comments are held for approval, so there will be some delay in posting]

November 21, 2006 in In the News | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

RLUIPA in the News in Michigan

Today's Detroit Free Press has a report that includes this excerpt:

Lighthouse Community Church of God and the City of Southfield are headed to a trial in federal court over a dispute that started with an eviction order by the city.

....

The dispute started in Southfield district court after the city won an eviction order against the church for failing to have a certificate of occupancy. After Lighthouse lost its appeal in Oakland County Circuit Court, it filed in federal court, contending the city violated a 2005 federal law that prevents governments from discriminating against religious organizations in land deals.

The city's position is that the federal law is unconstitutional and shouldn't be applied to local zoning laws. It asked the court to dismiss the case.

The church's position is that Southfield would prefer a residential development on the 10 or so acres at 8 Mile and Southfield roads and has used the issue of parking as a red herring to avoid giving Lighthouse zoning approval and hence, the occupancy certificate.

Thanks to Religion Clause blog for the pointer.

Rick Duncan

[Comments are held for approval, so there will be some delay in posting]

November 21, 2006 in In the News | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 19, 2006

Marital Home a Fraud Because No Cohabitation Before Marriage?

Here is a news item that lies at the intersection of immigration law, family law, and property. It seems that in a recent Virginia case involving immigration fraud the prosecutor attempted to prove that Sofia Winkler's marriage was fraudulent by introducing evidence showing "that Winkler didn't move in with the man who would become her husband until after they were married in 2002."

As a sometime colleague of mine from another law school observed: "Perhaps it really is true that we have finally reached the point where there is something irregular and at least arguably suspicious about a married couple who claim that their love and marriage are genuine but they were not living together before the wedding. How times have changed!"

I hope someone out there who knows immigration law will comment and inform us that there is nothing suspicious about a wedding that occurs before cohabitation. Please. I am blegging!

Rick Duncan

[Comments are held for approval, so there will be some delay in posting]

 

November 19, 2006 in Recent Cases | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack