|
|
|
Welcome to the Rutgers Journal of Law & Public Policy legal blog. As one of the first law journals to provide online exclusive articles and commentaries, look to our site as a place for fresh and dynamic perspectives on the day's emerging legal and policy questions. We are always looking for contributions on current and relevant topics. If you are interested in contributing, email submissions@rutgerspolicyjournal.org.
By Emily Santoro[1]
April 21, 2013
The United States is a country rich in history and diverse in backgrounds as a result of the many different individuals who come to call America “home.” In addition to this unique culture within the United States, Americans crave an understanding of society outside its borders. To satisfy this desire for experiencing art and civilization, American museums feature exhibits with artwork and artifacts from around the world. In order for museum curators to create these exhibits, there is often a reliance on other countries to loan their artwork and cultural material. Unfortunately, in the art and archaeology sphere, ownership of works and objects are often contested publicly—e.g. the contention over Elgin’s Marbles—as well as situations where possession results from theft and plundering. With this in mind, the Foreign Cultural Exchange Jurisdictional Immunity Clarification Act (Immunity Clarification Act)[2] was introduced into the Senate during the previous congressional session, but thankfully died in committee. This article will analyze and discuss how passage of this bill would have resulted in the United States becoming a country that endorsed unlawful possession of artwork and artifacts, thereby promoting unethical actions to both its own citizens and citizens of other countries.
April 17, 2013
Editor’s Note: Last November the Health Law Society held a panel event on issues of importance in the 2012 election. Prof. Phillip Harvey spoke on unemployment and job creation. Prof. Michael Livingston discussed the differing tax policies of President Obama and Governor Romney. Prof. Sally Goldfarb considered the role that a President plays in steering the future of women’s reproductive rights. Prof. Rand Rosenblatt discussed the health insurance industry, and why medical costs are rising.
The JLPP Blog has included a transcript of the professors’ remarks below. Although the election has passed, the policies debated in it continue to have tremendous importance for the future of American society.
By Amanda Follet, Brian Block, Phil Portantino, & Greg Bergman
March 5, 2013
By Brian Block[1]
February 20, 2012
A. Trying to Walk Before You Crawl
It will undoubtedly go down as one of the worst policy rollouts in recent Garden State history, likely eclipsing former Gov. Jon Corzine’s announcement that he wanted to privatize the Turnpike.[2] Rutgers, The State University – Camden (“Rutgers”), particularly its School of Law, has suffered considerable damage as a result—a class size over 50% smaller than the year prior, as well as untold reputational damage which may linger for years.[3] It all could easily have been avoided. How? By engaging in thorough research into the legal obstacles to the proposal, undertaken prior to the rollout. Such an analysis would have uncovered the proposal’s numerous existing legal impediments, thus largely eliminating the rather disjointed statewide legal and political skirmish that ensued. Though, perhaps the chaos was inevitable. Only two years prior, Gov. Chris Christie knowingly disregarded an important statutory legal barrier when he improperly used his executive power to alter higher education by abolishing the Commission on Higher Education.[4]
By Jordan Hollander[i]
February 6, 2013
Introduction
In a referendum held in Switzerland in 2009, Swiss voters amended the Constitution of Switzerland to ban the construction of new minarets, the distinctive spires typically found on top of Islamic mosques throughout the country.[ii] Switzerland is not the only country in Europe to enact public policies targeting the Muslim community. Far-right and anti-Muslim parties and policies are becoming more and more familiar in many countries in Europe. Recently, the governments of both France and Belgium banned the public wearing of burqas, a type of headscarf that covers the face, typically worn by women. Some parties, like the Front National in France, have been around for some time, but others, like Geert Wilder’s Party for Freedom in the Netherlands, are much newer to the political arena. Wilder’s party recently formed part of the governing coalition in the Netherlands, and he has expressed support of the Swiss referendum and seeks to pose a similar initiative to Dutch voters in the near future.[iii]
by John Neckonchuk[*]
January 29, 2013
While red light cameras (hereinafter “RLC’s”) are not exactly among the ranks of profound philosophical issues, these devices, which have metastasized throughout this nation’s intersections, warrant the close attention of taxpayers of the twenty-five states where they are in use.[1] Once thought to be a life-saving revolution in traffic safety, the consensus has begun shifting out of this technology’s favor.[2]
By Lauren Martinez[1]
January 7, 2013
Autism Spectrum Disorder is a lifelong condition, and the lifetime costs associated with treating it are as high as $3.2 million for each individual.[2] The high costs of treatment and educational services, along with the growing incident rate, are placing enormous burdens on service providers and families throughout the United States. Effective autism treatment programs often require 40 hours per week of individual instruction, which adds up to annual costs exceeding tens of thousands of dollars.[3] As a result, there is a disproportionately low amount of services offered by school districts on tight budgets. Currently, a majority of the educational system fails to effectively incorporate high functioning autistic individuals into society. Additionally, families without adequate financial resources cannot afford to pay for additional therapy or petition their school district to provide necessary services. Despite many complications, there are multiple solutions to the nation’s inadequate special education system.
by Peter Fu[1]
November 30, 2012
On October 24th, 2012, the Rutgers Association for Public Interest Law[2] and Rutgers Democratic Law Students Association[3] co-hosted Voter Identification, an exploration of Pennsylvania’s voter photo identification law (“voter ID law”) by state constitutional scholar Robert F. Williams[4].
by Michael Schwartz[1]
November 17, 2012
A. Introduction
Over the past 40 years, insurance premiums in New Jersey have on average been among the highest in the nation, leading to tense debate over cost-containment strategies within the State’s Legislature and Judiciary. Although various auto insurance statutes have been enacted since this time, the Court’s interpretation of the statutory language has been inconsistent and at times contradictory. This uncertainty has caused numerous insurance providers to flee the State altogether, leading to a less competitive insurance market which in turn is causing premiums to continue to skyrocket.
First, this commentary will discuss the evolution of the State’s auto insurance policy in light of the 1998 Automobile Insurance Cost Reduction Act (AICRA) and the cases before and after the statute’s enactment. Second, by focusing on the judicial interpretation in Diprospero v. Penn and insurance statistics of out-of-state schemes comparable to New Jersey’s system, it will be demonstrated that AICRA was properly interpreted to not include a “serious life impact” requirement for plaintiffs’ ability to pierce the verbal tort threshold. Finally, this commentary will offer a simple recommendation that may lead to more consistent statutory interpretations.
|
|
|
|
