The Refusal of the President to Give Notice of Termination of Certain Treaty Provisions Under the Jones Act

1921 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-41
Author(s):  
Howard Thayer Kingsbury
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Merchant Marine ◽  
The Public ◽  
Foreign Governments ◽  
The Right

There has been much discussion, in the public press and elsewhere, of the refusal of the President to give notice, pursuant to Sec. 34 of the Merchant Marine Act of June 5, 1920, of the termination of so much of the treaties with various foreign governments as restricts the right of the United States to impose discriminating customs duties on imports in foreign vessels and discriminatory tonnage dues on foreign vessels entering the United States. So far as this discussion is concerned with the proposed policy of assisting the American merchant marine by thus discriminating against foreign shipping, it is not within the province of this comment to venture an opinion. So far, however, as criticism has been directed against this action of the President upon the ground that in thus failing or refusing to carry out this direction of Congress he has exceeded his constitutional rights, an interesting and important question of constitutional law, affecting international relations, is presented.

Driving under the influence of opioids: What prescribers should know

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (6) ◽  
pp. 415-427 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph V. Pergolizzi, Jr, MD ◽  
Robert Taylor, Jr, PhD ◽  
John Bisney, MA ◽  
Jo Ann LeQuang, BA ◽  
Robert B. Raffa, PhD ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
The United States ◽  
Driving Under The Influence ◽  
Pain Patient ◽  
Prescription Medications ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Central Nervous System ◽  
The Right

Opioids affect the central nervous system and are known to produce dizziness, sleepiness, mood changes, and other actions that in some people have a negative impact on psychomotor or mental performance. The negative effects can be exacerbated in persons who are taking other prescription medications or illegal substances. Opioid-abusing drivers clearly represent an unnecessary danger to the public; although the vast majority of patients taking prescription opioids for pain safely drive to work and other activities, a subset may be impaired, but not be aware of or recognize the problem. The majority of pain patients would likely be surprised to learn that the legal systems in most parts of the world, including most states in the United States, do not differentiate between a pain patient taking a prescribed opioid at the right dose and frequency, and an abuser taking an illegal drug. For example, in some parts of the United States, a driver may be initially stopped for a relatively minor offense and, if the officer notices that the driver is wearing a fentanyl patch, charged with driving under the influence of drugs (DUID). The present narrative review attempts to highlight the existing problem, the different legal thresholds for arrest and prosecution for DUID, and the challenge of trying to have zero-tolerance for driving under the influence of a drug used illegally, while at the same time not arresting legitimate patients who are taking pain medication as prescribed. There is a clear and present need for an integrated assessment and addressing of the current confounding situation.

The Jones Act and the Denunciation of Treaties

1921 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jesse S. Reeves
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Merchant Marine ◽  
The Right

Section 34 of the Merchant Marine Act, commonly called the Jones Act, approved by the President, June 5, 1920, is as follows: In the judgment of Congress, articles or provisions in treaties or conventions to which the United States is a party, which restrict the right of the United States to impose discriminating customs duties on imports entering the United States in foreign vessels and in vessels of the United States, and which also restrict the right of the United States to impose discriminatory tonnage dues on foreign vessels and on vessels of the United States entering the United States should be terminated, and the President is hereby authorized and directed within ninety days after this Act becomes law to give notice to the several governments, respectively, parties to such treaties or conventions, that so much thereof as imposes any such restriction on the United States will terminate on the expiration of such periods as may be required for the giving of such notice by the provisions of such treaties or conventions.

A Triad of Crisis Communication in the United States

2012 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 1-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mahmoud Eid ◽  
Jenna Bresolin Slade
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Social Change ◽  
National Level ◽  
The United States ◽  
White House ◽  
The Public ◽  
System Collapse ◽  
Right To Communicate ◽  
The Public Sphere ◽  
The Right

The United States experienced a core-shaking tumble from their pedestal of superpower at the beginning of the 21st century, facing three intertwined crises which revealed a need for change: the financial system collapse, lack of proper healthcare and government turmoil, and growing impatience with the War on Terror. This paper explores the American governments’ and citizens’ use of social network sites (SNS), namely Facebook and YouTube, to conceptualize and debate about national crises, in order to bring about social change, a notion that is synonymous with societal improvement on a national level. Drawing on democratic theories of communication, the public sphere, and emerging scholarship on the Right to Communicate, this study reveals the advantageous nature of SNS for political means: from citizen to citizen, government to citizen, and citizen to government. Furthermore, SNS promote government transparency, and provide citizens with a forum to pose questions to the White House, exchange ideas, and generate goals and strategies necessary for social change. While it remains the government’s responsibility to promote such exchanges, the onus remains with citizens to extend their participation to active engagement outside of SNS if social change is to occur. The Obama Administration’s unique affinity to SNS usage is explored to extrapolate knowledge of SNS in a political context during times of crises.

scholarly journals China – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Measures on Broiler Products from the United States: How the chickens came home to roost

2015 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 287-335 ◽  
Author(s):  
THOMAS J. PRUSA ◽  
EDWIN VERMULST
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Panel Report ◽  
The Public ◽  
Price Effects ◽  
The Right

AbstractThe WTO Panel report on China – Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duty Measures on Broiler Products from the United States was circulated to Members on 2 August 2013. In the report, the Panel examined a variety of issues challenged by the United States under various provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, the Anti-dumping Agreement and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. The Panel upheld the United States' claims on the majority of the issues, which covered certain procedural aspects of the anti-dumping and countervailing investigations such as the right to disclosure of ‘essential facts', as well as the substantive determinations including costing issues, the imposition of the ‘all others' rate on the basis of ‘facts available’, the price effects' analyses, the sufficiency of the public notices, and others. Notably the costing issues that came up in the case, although decided mostly on procedural grounds, provide food for thought, and are likely to feature again in future disputes.

The Right to Die: A Cross-National Analysis of Agenda Setting and Innovation

1995 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 479-501 ◽  
Author(s):  
J D Smith ◽  
H R Glick
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
Agenda Setting ◽  
The United States ◽  
Right To Die ◽  
Policy Entrepreneurs ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Right ◽  
National Analysis ◽  
Cross National

Through theories of agenda setting and innovation, the origin, development, and enactment of right-to-die policy in four Western nations—the United States, the Netherlands, Germany, and Great Britain—are examined. Different social and government structures produced varied right-to-die politics in each of these countries, although similar issues received more emphasis in Europe. However, it is discovered that policy entrepreneurs, organizations, and governments are important in similar ways in moving the issue from the public to the governmental agenda and to policy innovations in each country. The paper is concluded with a discussion of elements to be included in a model of agenda setting and innovation and with a proposal for the application of theory to a wider range of policies.

Current Legal Developments Climate Change and the Constitutional Obligation to Protect Natural Resources: The Pennsylvania Atmospheric Trust Litigation

Climate Law ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 209-226
Author(s):  
Samvel Varvaštian
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Natural Resources ◽  
State Government ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Public Trust ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Trust Doctrine

When it comes to climate litigation, environmental plaintiffs in the United States have demonstrated a remarkable ingenuity in terms of utilizing various legal avenues to compensate for the persisting regulatory gaps. In the last few years, the public trust doctrine and constitutional law have been present among these, in an attempt to put the risks associated with climate change on the map of human rights in relation to the environment and natural resources. However, despite a nationwide occurrence of such lawsuits, courts have been cautious in their approach to them. Similar lawsuits have emerged outside the United States, in Europe and Asia, demonstrating some viability. This analysis addresses the recent litigation in Pennsylvania, where petitioners asked the court to order the state government to take action on climate change and to declare such action a constitutional obligation under the state’s Constitution. 1

Djamel Ameziane v. U.S.A., Report No. 29/20, Case 12.865 Merits, (Inter-Am. Comm'n H.R.)

2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (6) ◽  
pp. 941-1012
Author(s):  
Christina M. Cerna
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
The United States ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Optional Protocol ◽  
International Body ◽  
The Right

On April 22, 2020, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Commission) issued its first decision on one of the Guantanamo detainees, Djamel Ameziane, an Algerian Muslim who was held at Guantanamo for almost 12 years until he was deported to Algeria in 2013, in violation, inter alia, of the principle of non-refoulement. The case was brought on Mr. Ameziane's behalf by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL), and the decision is very comprehensive and carefully written, as is to be expected of a decision totaling 70 pages. Although the United States became a party to the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1992, it never accepted the first Optional Protocol, which gives individuals the right to bring complaints against the United States before the U.N. Human Rights Committee; consequently, the only international body to which an individual can bring a complaint against the United States for a violation of international human rights law is the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, a principal organ of the Organization of American States (OAS).

The Constitutional Status of Human Dignity in Germany and Israel

2011 ◽  
Vol 44 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 25-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ariel L. Bendor ◽  
Michael Sachs
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Human Dignity ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Comparative Law ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
The Public ◽  
Comprehensive Comparison ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
The Right ◽  
Core Meaning

This article applies comparative law tools to portray eight significant aspects of the constitutional right to human dignity in Germany and Israel. The elements considered are: the constitutional status of human dignity; the nature of the right; its effect on other constitutional rights; its scope and definition; waiver of human dignity; human dignity after death; negative and positive aspects of the right; and the right to asylum. The textual foundations of the respective constitutional guarantees are as different as human dignity's core meaning. In Germany, such guarantees are held to be absolute, immune to restriction, and therefore quite narrow in scope. In Israel, the scope of the right is much broader, but it is subject to limitations when placed against the public interest. Still, based on the findings of our comprehensive comparison, similar dynamics can be identified in Germany and Israel The constitutional coverage of both absolute and relative principles is broad, as are the constitutional lacunas, which are those dimensions of constitutional law neglected by the written constitution.

scholarly journals Challenging the Carceral Imaginary in a Digital Age: Epistemic Asymmetries and the Right to Be Forgotten

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (19) ◽  
pp. 3-14
Author(s):  
Andrea J. Pitts
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Public ◽  
Collective Effort ◽  
Right To Be Forgotten ◽  
Criminal Histories ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Right ◽  
Epistemic Asymmetry ◽  
The Impact

This paper argues that debates regarding legal protections to preserve the privacy of data subjects, such as those involving the European Union’s right to be forgotten, have tended to overlook group-level forms of epistemic asymmetry and their impact on members of historically oppressed groups. In response, I develop what I consider an abolitionist approach to issues of digital justice. I begin by exploring international debates regarding digital privacy and the right to be forgotten. Then, I turn to the long history of informational asymmetries impacting racialized populations in the United States. Such asymmetries, I argue, comprise epistemic injustices that are also implicated within the patterns of racialized incarceration in the United States. The final section brings together questions regarding the impact of such epistemic injustices on incarcerated peoples and focuses specifically on the public availability of criminal histories in online search databases as a fundamental issue within conversations regarding digital justice. I thus conclude by building from the work of contemporary abolitionist writers to argue that the underlying concerns of an individualized right to be forgotten should be transformed into a collective effort to undermine societal carceral imaginaries.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document