By Abby Newman The recent death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has left the country wondering who will fill the vacant seat on the bench. Perhaps the more pressing question here is who will choose the holder of that seat. Strict constitutional conservatives, left-wing liberals and everyone in between have been debating this issue since early February because of the implicit impact it could have on the conservative/liberal sway of future decisions made by the Court. Whether the predecessor is chosen by President Obama or one of the seven remaining hopeful candidates, this decision will very well change the course of history. It may seem indisputably simple that the decision rests in the hands of President Obama when looking at the wording of the Constitution. Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 states: “The President...shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law....” (1). However, there rests a precedent that a nominee should not be appointed during an election year. While this unwritten rule has been broken multiple times throughout history by Presidents such as Eisenhower and Reagan, the current Republican-dominated Senate has elicited notions that it will do anything necessary to uphold this precedent. Those on the other end of the political spectrum do not hold the same views, seeing as Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has made the point that leaving the seat vacant for over a year, which is a generous understatement to the actual amount of time it would take for the new President to successfully appoint a new justice, is breaking another precedent in itself (2). Many people believe that this is a partisan issue, arguing that the reason the Republican Party wants to withhold the nomination until the election of a new President is for the purpose of diverting the potential of a liberal majority on the bench, yet there is no guarantee that the next President will be Republican. The issue goes much deeper than partisan divide. Senator Ted Cruz, a Republican from Texas, has been known to be a strict conservative. However, in his statement during a CNN town hall, he voiced a more moderate opinion, saying that a hearing for President Obama’s nominee, "… would end up very politicized. And [he does not] think it would be fair to the nominee”, which has little to do with party affiliation and more to do with the fairness of the system (3). In addition to this view, Joe Biden, a Democrat, recited a speech in 1992 that mirrors the cries of the Republican party, saying, "It is my view that if a Supreme Court justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President [George H.W.] Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed" (4). A complete recitation of this speech can be seen at this link (5). Another vindication against blocking the potential nominee is that it is unconstitutional. On February 15, Senator Bernie Sanders’s campaign tweeted, “It would be a nice idea for Republicans to read the Constitution of the United States” in regards to the promises to block any of President Obama’s choices (6). However, looking at the selection process, the Senate’s actions are not necessarily unconstitutional. In the event of a vacancy on the bench, the current President would carefully consider potential nominees, and send his or her choice to the Senate, who would provide the advice and consent mentioned in the Appointments Clause. In simpler terms, the Senate holds a power similar to the President’s “veto” when it comes to appointing justices. While it may be unorthodox, unprecedented or even considerably immature, it is in no way unconstitutional to block the President’s nominee (1). With all of this in mind, it is hard to say in whose hands the decision should lie. When look at the Constitution, it could go either way, depending on the timeline of events. The same is true in the realm of precedents. This touchy subject in many ways brings to light an even deeper question that the American people must ask themselves, and that is the position precedents hold in society. While they are not written in stone, precedents tend to guide the governing process, and in the case of filling Justice Scalia’s vacant position on the Supreme Court, it is unmistakable that precedents will be held in the highest regard. Works Cited
0 Comments
By Olivia Worthington Militaries around the globe typically function as a separate institution with their own court system and justice laws that slightly differ from the civilian population. This is because military crimes are different from day-to-day crimes, and the punishment system is supposed to reflect this difference. Military justice systems have also come under a lot of scrutiny recently, especially when it comes to the topic of sexual assault. Women in the military have been sexually assaulted by men they are working with, but their reports are often not given the proper legal consideration. This can be because the accused man is high-ranking, or simply because sexual assault is not given the necessary legal attention and justice this serious subject requires under the system of military justice. This reoccurring problem has led to scrutiny of the military justice systems, and the United States Congress conducted an extensive research report of countries around the world in June of 2015 in an effort to correct this ongoing problem. 20,300 service members were sexually assaulted in 2014 alone, and injustice over sexual assault in the military still persists today (1). The Uniform Code of Military Justice is the legal code for all members of each branch of the military in the United States (2). Sexual assault is considered a crime under these laws, but this has not helped to curb the sexual assault problem in the military. When on-duty military personnel are accused of sexual assault, they typically face charges via the court-martial process. Sexual assaulters have rights to a defense with a lawyer, just as civilian trials do, and an inquiry is conducted on the incident. Punishment if an assaulter is convicted ranges from dismissal to a prison sentence. However, a popular defense to sexual assault charges is to claim the victim consented to the action (3). Other defenses include inventing an alibi, mistaken identity, alcohol consumption, and denying the victim’s accusation. There have been times the defendant will convince others in the military to help create an alibi in an attempt to remain innocent. Sexual assault cases can turn into a battle of the victim’s word against the defendant, which typically results in the defendant not being charged. Statistics found on sexual assault within the military of the United States in 2014 back up the claim that military justice systems do not properly deal with sexual assault. 44% of sexual harassment victims who reported the issue were encouraged to drop it (4). 41% were told no action would be taken when they told a commanding officer of the situation (5). Victims are also unlikely to report sexual assault because of the fear of retaliation, as 86% of victims did not report their crimes, likely and 62% of those who did report sexual assault faced retaliation (7). Retaliation can include continued harassment by other military members, and disrespect from officers because they came forward with a sexual assault claim that brought supposed “dishonor” to that section of the military. Sexual assault in the military has received more attention globally, and many countries are enacting legislation to alter the justice system for military sexual assault. In Canada, the role of commanders in the justice systems has been significantly reduced, and sexual assault cases are handled by impartial military service tribunals (8). Germany made the decision to have these offenses tried in civilian courts, which leads to less bias and personal motivations from the military. In the United Kingdom, a military complaints commissioner can hear sexual assault cases instead of the chain-of-command, so those who are assaulted are more likely to report the incident. These advancements have helped to stop cases of sexual assault from going unheard because of retaliation fears and have led to more justice for the victims of these assaults in the military courts. The United States military knows that sexual assault and the justice surrounding it is a major problem, and has been working to fix it. Under the current system, commanders are legally obligated to refer all cases of sexual assault that are reported to the court-martial system (9). The chain-of-command concept does not always work, as commanders can be the ones accused of sexual assault or willing to cover-up the crime to protect another military serviceman. Many have called for commanders to be removed from the chain of reporting sexual assault, which has been done to much success in Canada and the United Kingdom. However, removing authority from the commander can undermine his ability to enforce good order and discipline across the armed forces (10). Not all commanders let sexual assault go unreported or retaliate against the victims who report it, and some are advocates of complete justice for sexual assault victims no matter what the circumstances. The United States is currently working on new legislation to prevent sexual assault from being improperly handled in military justice situations. Just as in civilian courts, justice should be properly served for the victims of sexual assault, and the military institution is bound to do this by the same constitutional laws that govern the entire United States of America. Works Cited:
Interview with Brandon Sadowsky and Wil Sharon, two law school students and former editors-in-chief2/22/2016 By Lisa Hamant I interviewed Brandon Sadowsky and Wil Sharon, the two former editors-in-chief for the law review and current first-year students in law school. I asked about their experiences in law school and how their time at OSU helped to prepare them. This is part one of the interview, with part two to be continued later.
Q: Outside of being a top law school, what were other points of interest that brought you to Yale? B: YLS was kind of my dream school from the beginning. There are a few factors that appealed to me so much. First, it has a relatively small number of students. So it has the benefit of small class sizes—which in turn means good opportunities for class discussion and also access to professors. Second, I think YLS opens up some unique employment opportunities. For example, a disproportionately large number of law professors attended YLS. This was especially appealing to me, because I am interested in academia. Finally, I think there were just other intangibles, like being close to where my family is and having a relatively friendly, non-competitive atmosphere. YLS also only has one semester of required classes and uses a pass/fail grading system over the first semester (both features are pretty unique and awesome). Q: Outside of being a top law school, what were other points of interest that brought you to Columbia? W: Columbia is in NYC, which is a major selling point. Many people go to private law firms in New York after graduating. That is something I will probably end up doing, and NY is the best legal market in the world. Q: What areas of law are you most interested in? B: I’m very much still figuring out what areas of law I’m most interested in. Luckily, in law school, you really have the opportunity to take a bunch of different classes and see what you like. W: People ask me this frequently, and my answer remains disappointing; I do not have a preferred field at this point. I have narrowed the possibilities since being at Columbia, but there is nothing that I’m positive is my favorite. Q: What is your favorite class you have taken so far? B: That’s a difficult question! I’ll go with two classes that I’ve really liked so far: Constitutional Law and Property. Constitutional Law is interesting because much of it involves grappling with really complex moral problems—from what kinds of speech we should tolerate to what private conduct the government should be able to prohibit. As a former philosophy major, property just appeals to me. A lot of it is about promoting utility and setting the right incentives—so the opinions tend to be fairly pragmatic. W: In law school (and undergrad as well, I suppose) the professor is often as important as the subject. I enjoyed my Contracts class the most last semester because the professor was very engaging and funny (I believe he went to OSU and then Yale Law). I would not have expected to enjoy Contracts the most, but ultimately I did. Q: What is the adjustment like from undergraduate at OSU to law school? What are the biggest differences you notice between law school and undergraduate? B: Another great question. I would say it can be a difficult adjustment at times. It can be overwhelming at first to be around so many brilliant people who have already accomplished so much. So for a while, it’s hard to feel like you belong. I’d say another big adjustment is getting used to cold calling. At OSU, there was ample class participation, but it’s different from being put on the spot. And finally, everything feels very fast-paced. There’s always a lot going on. So those are some differences. At the end of the day though it’s just more school. So as much as there are differences, I wouldn’t say the differences are super drastic! W: The biggest difference as far as schoolwork is concerned is not necessarily the amount (although there is a lot more work in law school), but the degree of effort required. That is, you need to make sure you understand and retain every piece of reading. There is little room for skimming. I went to English classes in undergrad with a good sense of what I had read the night before. I would usually think through a few points that I knew I could talk about. In law school, getting the gist of a case and having a few interesting mental notes is insufficient. You need to know details, understand the nuances of arguments, and be able to remember doctrine from previous cases as you advance. In undergrad, I could spend a day or a weekend and finish all of my work for the week. In law school, I am never finished, because professors assign new material daily. Q: Did your work with the law review help you prepare for law school? If so, how? B: Editing is important. When you submit any legal document, you want it to be edited well. Mistakes can cut away at your credibility. So I think that having editing experience can help. Another aspect is that through the law review, you can engage with other people’s ideas and critically evaluate them—especially when deciding which papers make the cut. I think this skill transfers well to law school. Also, at the end of the day, law involves a lot of writing. For every ten minutes of oral arguments, you can be sure there were hours of writing briefs that came before it. Finally, cool people are in the group, and getting to know cool people is good prep for anything! W: The OSULR helped me both with my application process, and with my understanding of what law school would be like. It was great to work with other people applying to law school, because we could discuss the process and help each other with things like personal statements. Sometimes we needed to make decisions (like whether to write additional letters to admissions committees), and it was useful to have multiple perspectives.The OSULR was substantively helpful in that it gave me a sense of what legal cases are like. I had to look over case law when writing and editing articles. Most law schoolwork is reading cases. Being able to understand complex legal arguments is important, and OSULR gave me an initial look at that process. Q: What was your major at Ohio State? What were the benefits of that major when considering the prep work you needed to do for law school and how does it help you at law school now? B: As I alluded to earlier, I was a philosophy major. I absolutely loved my major, and I think it was excellent prep for the LSAT and for law school. Philosophy largely revolves around thinking logically and critically about ideas. It also gives you the opportunity to read (sometimes overly) complex readings and to try to ascertain the author’s main point. Logical reasoning and reading comprehension are two important skills to have when going in to take the LSAT (and to have while you’re in law school). Regardless of your major though, a solid 3-4 months of studying is more or less required to max out your LSAT potential. Also, a pragmatic point for fellow Buckeyes is that the philosophy department at OSU has amazing professors. This will help you do well in classes and can help with things like letters of recommendation. W: I was an English major at OSU. Most law school work is reading. English majors are typically well prepared to handle the amount of reading (although, it is larger in law school). The difference is the content. In undergrad I could lazily read a novel in the Oval. In law school, I take notes on every page and frequently type up additional notes as I am reading. In undergrad I could finish a 300 page novel over a weekend and still have a lot of free time. Now, 30 pages of Property cases might take me three hours. By Samuel Huryn The Bar exam is the final, final exam for many law students, certifying that the individual is qualified to practice law. However, in the United States, each state administers a different bar exam. Because of this, a lawyer who passes the bar in one state would have to get re-certified if they wish to practice law in a different state. Obviously, this situation is often inconvenient for many attorneys. However, the American Bar Association recently passed a movement encouraging states to adopt the Uniform Bar Examination. The movement itself, Resolution 109, states that “the American Bar Association urges the bar admission authorities in each state and territory to adopt expeditiously the Uniform Bar Examination” 1. The Uniform Bar Exam would replace the state-specific exams currently given. The Uniform Bar Exam “is a combination of the Multistate Bar Exam, the Multistate Essay Examination and the Multistate Performance Test, and it is coordinated by the National Conference of Bar Examiners” 2. The primary motivation for such a movement stems from the growing issue of student debt. Additionally, such a movement would improve efficiency in the legal area, and in a time where many law schools are facing record lows in enrollment numbers, would perhaps help to entice students who are considering law school. On the same day, the American Bar Association also passed Resolution 117, which asks that “bar admission authorities to consider the impact on minorities of adopting the UBE” 3. The two resolutions are complementary. Works Cited
1 http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/images/abanews/2016mymres/109.pdf 2 http://www.abajournal.com/mobile/article/could_uniform_bar_exam_help_law_grads_mobility_aba_house_asks_states_to_ado 3 http://www.abajournal.com/mobile/article/could_uniform_bar_exam_help_law_grads_mobility_aba_house_asks_states_to_ado By Adam Scheps One month ago, Americans around the country tuned in to hear the president speak about his administration’s plan to confront the gun violence that has been plaguing the country. Gun control advocates were hopeful that this call from the nation’s highest office would bring about meaningful change. Others were fearful that Obama’s actions were the first step down a path ending in gun confiscation. This fear was voiced by a few of those who spoke during the town hall, asking the president why he would want to take guns away from good people even after he patiently explained that no one was going to take away the guns of mentally healthy, law-abiding citizens. In reality, however, not much has changed. Essentially, President Obama’s plan is an education campaign to make it clear who qualifies as a gun dealer and thus is legally responsible for conducting background checks on buyers. To accomplish this goal, the plan makes two changes. First, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) will be updating its website with the clearer definition of a gun dealer. Second, the federal agency will be handing out 10,000 pamphlets at gun shows to sellers so that they can be aware of whether or not they qualify as a dealer. Obama’s administration chose an education policy because, according to Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, they “believe there are a lot of folks out there who want to obey the law.” It is also likely that the administration took this modest route to avoid engaging in yet another lengthy legal battle that would threaten to push the issue over into the term of the next president, who could be a Republican. Either way, the two poles in the gun violence debate seem to agree on one thing: nothing has changed. According to former ATF Administrator Joe Vince, “the president had much more authority than to do what he did.” On the exact opposite side of the issue, a spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation said, “Nothing, from what we can see, has changed.” Additionally, the National Rifle Association, always eager to stoke fears that the government is coming to take away citizens’ guns, has remained relatively quiet following the president’s push for more gun control. The group has expressed no concern and has not tried to sue or block the plan. This response by the Obama Administration to the shootings in Oregon and California are reminiscent of its response to other mass shootings in the past seven years. A lot of noise is made, but when the dust settles, little has changed. Few doubt that President Obama, after his emotional response to the Sandy Hook shooting, truly wants to curb gun violence. What is in doubt, however, is the ability of the Obama Administration to take the strong stance on gun violence that many Americans expected of it when the Obama-Biden ticket was first voted into office. Works Cited
Lichtblau, Eric, and Michael Shear. "Obama's Lofty Plans on Gun Violence Amount to Little Action." The New York Times 7 Feb. 2016: Web. 8 Feb. 2016. By Abby Newman Countless cases of differing interpretations occur daily due to the loosely constructed “Law of the Land” we call the United States Constitution. Whether the Founding Father’s envisioned argument over every single little issue and considered it part of the living document, or they truly believed they were being clear and concise, the former stands on account of their imprecision. Due to the upcoming 2016 presidential election, the controversial topic of citizenship is being brought back from the dead and argued over by many legal scholars. While one may think that this issue should have been put to rest with the 2008 election, it seems as though Senator Ted Cruz remains the topic of discussion. Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” (1). Simply read, this excerpt tells of the necessary preliminaries in order to be President of the United States. However, the point of discussion lives within the term “natural born Citizen”. In the United States, there are two ways to be granted citizenship on the day of birth: jus sanguinis, meaning right of blood, and jus soli, meaning right of soil. The question at hand is, which of these rights grants someone natural born citizenship. Senator Ted Cruz, a Republican presidential candidate from Texas, was born in Canada. His mother is a citizen of the United States, so under jus sanguinis, Cruz is a United States citizen- but is he a natural born citizen? Some legal scholars and historians say no to this question, stating that English Common Law, which is the basis of the citizenship clause, is clear and unambiguous and should be interpreted as so. Citing a portion of English Common Law, 18th Century jurist, William Blackstone stated, that natural born citizens “…are born within the dominions of the crown of England”, and those not within are aliens. That being said, Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen. Another supporting argument comes from a quote made by James Madison in the House of Representatives on May 22, 1789, which reads, “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance...[And] place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.” This quote shows that James Madison would not consider Ted Cruz to be a natural born citizen of the United States, because even though he may have automatically been naturalized as a citizen by the blood of his mother, he was not born within the boundaries of the United States, which is the most important criterion. While other parts of the Constitution may allow for Congress to bestow rights upon non-natural born citizens, it would never allow for a non-natural born citizen to hold presidential office. That would necessitate an amendment to the Constitution (2). Some more philosophical approaches to this argument settle on the fact that natural born and naturalized are exclusive terms. Just because someone has been naturalized as a citizen does not mean that they were naturally born. The word natural implies that it is not man-made, and Ted Cruz’s citizenship was indisputably man-made. Citizenship is not heritable, and man-made statutes are not reliable in the case of citizenship (3). While the above arguments are based upon strict interpretations of the law, other professionals rely on a more loosely interpreted stance on the issue of citizenship. They believe that being a citizen at birth equates to being a natural born citizen, because of the surrounding circumstances of the men creating the laws. For example, John Jay, the first chief justice of the United States, contributed to creating the Naturalization Act of 1790, but his children were born overseas while he was on diplomatic business, and it is unrealistic to believe that he would purposely deny his own children citizenship. Surely, his intention was for all naturalized citizens, whether it was by blood or soil, to be considered natural born citizens (4). Lastly, supporters of the Senator’s citizenship believe that things change over time. The Founding Fathers may have at the time intended for citizens to be considered natural born only by soil, but now the law is interpreted in a completely different way. The Constitution is open for interpretation, and if the founding fathers meant for natural born citizenship to be determined solely by location, they would have said so in the first place (5). It is clear that this issue is a matter of interpretation. Opposing arguments sometimes use the same sources as justifications for their stances, but interpret them in different ways. That being said, the final interpretation should always be left up to those who are elected to make such decisions. In the mean time, as voters all we can do is focus on choosing the candidate that will do the best for America in the long run, and not worry about an arbitrary facet that is to be decided by a governing body. Works Cited
By Adam Scheps On January 23rd, 2016, in Renton, Washington, Dane Gallion brought a gun into a movie theater. The reason? He was afraid of people carrying guns into movie theaters. Gallion was arrested after his gun accidentally discharged, shooting the woman seated in front of him through the shoulder. He gave conflicting stories of why his gun went off; one claiming that a man reached toward him and he became startled, and the other that the gun fell out of his pocket. This incident raises a few questions about gun control on campus. Many believe that allowing students to carry firearms on campus would decrease the amount of gun violence. The argument goes that laws allowing students to carry weapons on campus would reduce gun violence because they could deter a would-be shooter from going on a shooting spree. Shooters aim for gun-free zones to meet as little resistance as possible. One problem with this argument is that it does not take into account the amount of gun accidents that might result from a policy allowing students to carry firearms on campus. Allowing people to carry firearms into places like movie theaters or on college campuses would necessarily result in an increase in gun accidents. If a gun is accidentally dropped, as Gallion claimed happened in his case, or if a student becomes startled while holding the firearm, as Gallion also claimed happened in his case, injury or even death could result. The deterrent effect of a campus carry policy must be weighed against the likely steep rise in gun accidents if these laws are to be enacted. Another aspect of Gallion’s story can shed light on the campus carry and the deterrence debate. As mentioned, Gallion brought the gun into the theater because he was afraid. If universities allow students to have firearms on campus, how many students will purchase a gun merely because they are afraid of a campus shooter? How many parents will want their daughter to carry a gun to protect herself? If more campus carry laws are enacted, it is possible that many college students will purchase and carry guns without any real experience, besides the mandatory safety classes. In short, many of these new gun owners may be amateurs, prone to errors – fatal errors. There is no way to be certain that the accidents that might result from campus carry laws would be worse than the effects of a campus shooter. Indeed, this debate is as much about values as it is about statistics. But the incident in Washington presents a few important points that need to be considered before any campus carry laws are enacted. Works Cited
Gonzalez, Angel. "Man Who Says He Feared Mass Shootings Accidentally Shoots Stranger in Movie Theater, Police Say." The Seattle Times. N.p., 23 Jan. 2016. Web. 25 Jan. 2016. By Olivia Worthington Terrorism has become a prominent threat across the world in recent years, and this spread of asymmetrical warfare has led to an abundance of legal measures to combat terrorism and fight extremism on a global scale. Recent tragic terrorist events such as the shooting in San Bernardino, California make laws regarding terrorism important in defining these attacks while attempting to prevent terrorism from taking place in the future. Recently, extremist laws in other countries have come under deeper consideration, as many countries across the globe have not developed comprehensive counterterrorism laws. The U.S. Congress discussed this concern in November 2015 and conducted a research study on other countries’ terrorist laws felt to be most at risk for future attacks (1). The comparison between the vast laws covering counterrorism in the United States and the loose regulations in many other important countries is significant.
China, widely considered to be the second greatest power in the world behind the U.S., has yet to pass a comprehensive counterterrorism law. Criminal law in China does not provide clear definitions for “terrorism” or “extremism”, and extremism itself is only addressed in very limited domestic legislation (2). China has entered into the Shanghai Convention on combatting terrorism, and passed a new anti-terrorist law in response to criticism about their terrorist policies in late December 2015 (3). However, the new law is widely criticized as being too broad and has the capability of using force to target persecuted religious minorities with no terrorist connections. Human rights concerns are already an issue between the United States and China, and the Human Rights Watch group said the law is “not in line with international standards” (4). Furthermore, the new law does not seem to be progressive in combating the terrorism threats. In Pakistan, an Anti-Terrorist Act was passed in 1997, but critics say this law has been unsuccessful in rooting out terrorism within the country (5). After their terrorist laws were criticized, Pakistan has become increasingly militarized in an attempt to combat terrorism, which critics say is also not the answer. Tajikistan’s anti-terrorism laws are mainly used to combat extremism, but are also an excuse to persecute minorities and restrict religious freedoms. Russia has strict anti-extremist laws, but the government’s procedure of prosecuting extremists is seen as illegal and biased (6). All three of these countries have anti-terrorist legislation in place, but the U.S. is highly critical of the laws actually working to combat terrorism. This is important in these countries specifically because they are strategically important in the global fight against terrorism, as well as relatively powerful countries who are not doing much to legally combat extremism within their own borders. The difference between the legislation within the previous countries and the United States is vast, and it is the ultimate goal of the United States that all of their allies will have comprehensive anti-terrorism laws. Some examples of terrorist legislation covered extensively by the Department of Homeland Security include travel restrictions, chemical terrorism, bioterrorism, and infrastructure protection, along with many other categories (7). Major allies of the United States such as the United Kingdom and France also have comprehensive laws protecting against terrorism, which is what both the United States and the United Nations want for all countries around the globe. The terrorist attacks in Paris in November 2015 were tragic and showed that all countries are vulnerable to massive terrorist attacks on their home soil. The research report from Congress on other countries’ terrorist legislation was in direct response to these attacks, as the United States is taking clear efforts to protect against another tragedy due to terrorism in another country. Many of the Paris attack perpetrators infiltrated France from the neighboring nation of Belgium, and this concern of terrorists crossing borders from other countries was already a large issue (8). The Syrian Refugee Crisis also has led to many concerns that terrorists will pose as refugees to come into another country and carry out a large attack. The United States has the legislation in place to guard against this, but some other countries do not. This is a large part of why the United Nations is working to crack down on anti-terrorist laws, and why the United States is helping to ensure other countries produce comprehensive legislation that guards against terrorism in an attempt to ensure tragic terrorist acts do not continue to occur. Works Cited
By Lisa Hamant I’m here today with Micah Berman, a professor at our own Moritz College of Law.
Q: Hi Professor Berman, thank you for making time to talk with me today. Q: I understand that your fields of expertise include Health Law, Public Health, and Tobacco Law and Policy. What originally drew you to become interested in these specific subjects? A: I was a public policy major as an undergraduate so I’ve always been interested in thinking about policy solutions and how the government can work to address specific challenges. That’s what drew me to to go to law school and following law school I worked as an attorney. However, I wanted to get back to working on policy issues and when I was working in the Department of Justice, they were suing the tobacco industry. I had an opportunity starting in 2005 to create and establish a policy center here in Ohio that worked on tobacco policy issues supporting tobacco control efforts for the state of Ohio. That’s what drew me to working on tobacco issues. Q: You said you started a policy center in the state of Ohio. What was the name of that center and what kind of work did you do with it? A: It was called the Tobacco Public Policy center. At the time, Ohio had taken a great sum of money from the settlement agreement between major states and tobacco countries and used this money to start a foundation that would support tobacco control efforts in Ohio. The foundation funded local efforts around the states to deal with tobacco issues locally. The major issue at the time was that communities were working on developing and passing smoke free laws (in work places, bars, restaurants, etc.) and there were a lot of legal questions that were coming up about how exactly we can do that, so the policy center was created to provide support for those types of issues. Q: It also said on Moritz’s website that you established and directed the Center for Public Health and Tobacco Policy at New England Law- Boston. What was your motivation behind starting this and are you still involved with the center today? A: In 2008, with the downturn of the economy in Ohio, the legislature here decided to abolish the foundation it had set up to work on tobacco efforts to work on other priorities that it saw as more immediate. Unfortunately, the tobacco control infrastructure in Ohio was basically decimated. I ended up moving to Boston to take a teaching position there, starting connecting with other state tobacco programs, and ended up creating this new center, which worked primarily with the state of New York and the state of Vermont. It was largely focused on tobacco control issues, but also dealt with other public health issues as well. Both of those states already had statewide smoke free laws in place, so that was a really fun opportunity to think about what the next generation of tobacco control policies could be and to think creatively about new opportunities in this field. We worked with Vermont and New York on prohibiting pharmacies from selling tobacco products, limiting where tobacco products can be sold, and other things like that. Q: I know OSU is a smoke-free school, but how difficult was it to get to that point here at OSU? Has it become easier to get more places designated as smoke-free? A: It’s been a movement that’s been spreading around the country. Ohio State has its own issues obviously, because its so much larger than other schools, but this is something that a lot of other campuses did previously and of course what Ohio State’s doing is creating a lot of momentum for other schools to become smoke free campuses. I wasn’t a part of the effort to make Ohio State a smoke-free campus because that was before I got here, but it took a lot of coordination, effort, and outreach. I think the trick with smoke-free policies is that they work really well if everyone is aware of them, so they take a lot of investment and communication to make campuses like Ohio State aware of the new policies and then to keep reminding people of it. I think most people will obey the policies as long as they’re aware of them. Q: On the federal side, is it more difficult for smoke-free policies such as these to come into place considering all the cross currents of the pro-tobacco lobbies? A: Tobacco control policy as a general rule is easier to at the local level than the state level and it’s easier to get things done at the state level than it is the federal level. Basically, the higher up you go in the governmental system, the more influence the tobacco industry and tobacco lobbies tend to have. A lot of time and money is spent there, lobbying members of Congress but the tobacco industry can’t be there all the time lobbying every city council member in every city. City council members tend to care less about what the tobacco industry thinks, so it’s a lot easier to get things done at the local level. Traditionally, that’s where change begins, it starts at the local level and builds up to the federal level. Q: Besides tobacco, what are a few outstanding health issues affecting college campuses today? How close are we getting to establishing laws that address those issues? A: The major health challenges, not just for college campuses, but for the country as a whole are sometimes referred to as behavioral health issues. Tobacco use and smoking are some of those, but alcohol use is always an issue on college campuses, as well as issues of nutrition and physical activity. There’s been a massive rise in obesity rates over the last couple decades. The challenges used to be more focused on issues of infectious disease. We still see those come up a little bit, with last year’s mumps outbreak and obviously concern about Ebola last year, so those are still important issues to still be aware of and track, but it’s really the issues that lead to chronic disease and injuries that are the bigger health threats now in general. Q: Focusing back on your teaching, what are some of your favorite classes you teach? A: I teach at both the College of Public Health and at the Law School. At the Law School, I usually teach public health law, which I really enjoy, and it’s an overview of legal approaches to addressing public health challenges. We cover a wide array of topics on the infectious disease side and the crime disease side, including injury prevention and so forth. It’s the second year in a row where that class has been working closely with the Franklin County Health Department. It’s an opportunity for the students to see what goes on day to day in the Health Department and work on legal projects that are immediately useful and relevant to public health relations that are happening right now, so that’s been a lot of fun. In the College of Public Health Law, I also teach a class called health care law that is more focused on the health care system. The classes sort of sound the same, but they are really different. Public health law is focused on population level prevention whereas health care law is really focused on the law of the medical system, such as the doctor/patient relationship, the organization of hospitals and medical practices, and other issues like that. Q: Are there any specific projects your students are involved with at the Health Department that you think are particularly interesting? A: Sure, this year they’re working on helping the health department to prepare for infectious disease outbreaks. One of the issues the class last year identified is that there are emergency plans in place to deal with an infectious disease outbreak, but one of the parts of the plan that could use a little more development is the legal side. For example, if there’s an infectious disease outbreak and a quarantine order is issued to require a person to stay in their home, what is the process for someone appealing that order: do they have a right to appeal that order immediately, how do they contact an attorney? There are a number of physical challenges: if you’re quarantined in your house how do you even talk to your attorney, how do you appear in court, and that sort of thing. Q: It’s obviously beneficial for your students to be so close to a big city like Columbus. Are there are other advantages you can think of that stem from being so close to the city? A: Absolutely, on the legal side, I certainly have gone numerous times to testify at the state legislature and I’ve had students come along to view that process of policy development. If you want to see how law is made, it’s a really good place to be. Q: In closing, what do you hope students take from your classes and that others take from this interview? A: On the public health side, I think the important thing is that we as a country spend a lot of money on health care, but we tend to neglect the public health side. We spend a lot on treating illness, but not as much on preventing illness, so there’s a lot more that can be done on the policy side in that respect. I think when people think about law they think about law suits or legal advisors, but there’s that other more structural piece that everything we do in life is governed by. There are laws that set up how the health care system operates, how the public health system operates, and basically everything the government does tends to have some sort of influence on health. If you want to get a grasp on both health law and public law, you have to think of law more systemically. The great part of being here at Ohio State is that we have terrific researches to work with and actually study the impacts of law and health and try to use science to think about what types of policy interventions would be most effective. |
Archives
March 2018
Categories |