Georgetown University Law Center

About: Georgetown University Law Center is a based out in . It is known for research contribution in the topics: Supreme court & Public health. The organization has 585 authors who have published 2488 publications receiving 36650 citations. The organization is also known as: Georgetown Law & GULC.

The Field of Evidence and the Field of Knowledge

Abstract: The trial is fundamentally an epistemological event. We want jurors and judges to know. And we want to know that they know. And we also want to know the conditions when they know, and when, if at all, these conditions obtain. In this article I explore the relationship between epistemological theory and evidence law. Despite recent denials of the relevance of such theory, I show its relevance and importance by demonstrating how current conceptual issues in epistemology intersect with, explain, and clarify conceptual issues in the law of evidence. Part I provides general background on the field of knowledge. Next, Part II discusses in depth recent philosophical work of Laurence BonJour, Alvin Goldman, and Robert Brandom. Finally, Part III applies insights from the first two parts to illuminate the law's epistemology with regard to factual decisionmaking, the nature of probative value, and a puzzle regarding the review of First Amendment facts.

Securitization: Cause or Remedy of the Financial Crisis?

Abstract: This article describes the causes of the boom and bust in the U.S. housing market, which brought down not just the U.S. financial system but the global economy. How did this vicious cycle begin? How did home prices appreciate so far and so fast? Why did rational investors not recognize and stop mispricing and investing in these loans on Wall Street? We offer a supply-side explanation of the mortgage crisis. At the root of the crisis was a new class of specialized mortgage lenders and securitizers unrestricted by regulations governing traditional lending and securitization. Eager to take profits in an originate-to-distribute lending model, aggressive lenders piled in by offering loans with low upfront costs, attracting first-time home buyers previously unable to afford houses, repeat buyers buying pricier homes and second homes, as well as speculators. These practices drove prices particularly high in Arizona, California, Florida, and Nevada, which had significant land-use regulations and environmental controls that reduced supply elasticity, leading increases in demand to trigger mostly higher prices instead of a greater supply of housing.

Assessing Laws and Legal Authorities for Obesity Prevention and Control

Abstract: This paper is one of four interrelated action papers resulting from the 2008 National Summit on Legal Preparedness for Obesity Prevention and Control. Summit participants engaged in discussions on the current state of the law with respect to obesity, nutrition and food policy, physical activity, and physical education. Participants also identified gaps in the law at all jurisdictional levels and relevant to numerous sectors and disciplines that have a stake in obesity prevention and control. The companion paper, “Assessment of Laws and Legal Authorities for Obesity Prevention and Control,”identified numerous laws and policies enacted to target the three domains of healthy lifestyles, healthy places, and healthy societies. That paper identified several gaps in the law that require attention and action. This paper addresses those gaps and presents applicable laws and legal authorities that public health professionals and lawyers can consider to implement to close the gaps.

Ebola and War in the Democratic Republic of Congo: Avoiding Failure and Thinking Ahead

Abstract: The Ebola epidemic in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is exceptionally dangerous, occurring within active armed conflict and geopolitical volatility, including a million displaced persons. With 421 cases, 240 deaths, and the numbers increasing, this Ebola outbreak is the second deadliest in history.1 Recent spread to Butembo, home to 1.2 million people, raised concerns. The DRC, World Health Organization (WHO), and partners are leading a vigorous international response, yet despite deploying an experimental vaccine, cases doubled in October 2018 and many cases had unknown origin. Uncontrolled Ebola outbreaks can expand quickly, as occurred in West Africa in 2014. Averting that outcome in the DRC requires rapid action including a strengthened public health response, security, and community outreach. If violence escalates, it could compromise a fragile response. Yet resources are insufficient. The United States and other countries are not permitting personnel deployment to the epicenter, including from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and US Agency for International Development (USAID). In this Viewpoint, we review recommendations of experts convened by Georgetown University and listed at the end of this article. The United States and international community should launch high-level political mobilization, with diplomatic, human, and economic resources. It is critical to recognize that future health crises will occur in fragile, insecure settings. To prepare, the international community needs long-term planning and enhanced capacities to improve the safety and effectiveness of epidemic response operations.

How does corporate mobility affect lawmaking? A comparative analysis

Abstract: This paper examines the impact of increased corporate mobility on corporate lawmaking in the European Union (EU). More specifically, we seek an answer to a simple question: Has the increased mobility which arose from the implementation of the Societas Europaea (SE) and the path-breaking decisions of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) led to an outbreak of regulatory competition and the emergence of a Delaware-like member state in Europe? Two types of corporate mobility are distinguished: (1) the incorporation mobility of start up firms and (2) the reincorporation mobility of established firms. As to incorporation mobility, the Centros triad of cases makes it possible for start-up firms to incorporate in a foreign jurisdiction. Many entrepreneurs have taken advantage of this new freedom of establishment. However, recent data from Germany and The Netherlands indicate declining numbers of such foreign incorporations over time. Moreover, Centros-based incorporation mobility is a rather trivial phenomenon, economically speaking. The actors in question seek only to minimize costs of incorporation. National lawmakers have been responding, amending their statutes to lower these costs. But, because out of pocket cost minimization at the organization stage operates as only a secondary motivation of 'choice-of-business-form' decisions, there arise no competitive pressures that cause national legislatures to engage in thorough-going reform addressed to corporate governance more generally. As to reincorporation mobility, which concerns the migration of the statutory seat of a firm incorporated in one member state to another member state, the SE has opened the door, but not widely enough to serve as a catalyst for company law arbitrage. Reincorporation mobility is still far from generally available in the EU. As a result, competitive pressures do not yet motivate changes in the fundamental governance provisions of national corporate law regimes.