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 & Global health. The organization has 585 authors who have published 2488 publications receiving 36650 citations. The organization is also known as: Georgetown Law & GULC.

New Evidence of the Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause

Abstract: In this paper, the author advances the debate on the original meaning, interpretation, and usage of the word "commerce" in the context of the Commerce Clause. First, he distinguishes between terms that are vague and those that are ambiguous. He contends that realizing the dispute is over the ambiguity rather than the vagueness of "commerce" helps resolve the conflict between interpretations. Second, he presents the results of new empirical research into the original public meaning of "commerce" that extends well beyond the sources immediately surrounding the Constitution. Finally, the author reports the results of a similar survey of the use of the terms "regulate" and "regulation."

Privatization and The Definition of Subsidy: A Critical Study of Appellate Body Texturalism

Abstract: Analysis of the Appellate Body's (AB) treatment of a particular legal question often provides insight into issues of more general importance. In this article, examination of the AB's treatment of a particular subsidy issue is used to explore the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures’ (SCM Agreement) definition of subsidy and to question the efficacy of the AB's reliance on texturalism. The legal question analyzed arose when European governments challenged the US's imposition of countervailing duties (CVDs) on steel manufactured by ‘privatized’ steel companies. The US claimed the CVDs were proper since subsidies provided prior to privatization had ‘passed through’ to the privatized companies. The AB, relying heavily on the meaning of words rather than on consideration of ‘object and purpose’, found that the US had violated its obligations under the SCM Agreement. An analysis of the AB's logic and the authorities cited demonstrates that neither justifies the AB's conclusion. A heuristic model of the definition of subsidy is used to show that the question raised by privatization implicates issues of causation, overlooked by the AB, that are important in correctly interpreting the SCM Agreement. The problems arising from AB texturalism are contrasted with the justifications given for that approach, suggesting that a change in approach may be warranted.

Presidential Immigration Policies: Endangering Health and Well-being?

Abstract: President Trump has issued executive orders transforming US immigration policy, potentially harming patient health and well-being. Are the president’s orders lawful and ethical, and what are the effects on the health system? The president has authorized construction of a barrier along the 2000-mile US-Mexico border, but Congress must first appropriate $12.6 billion to $21.6 billion. The executive order envisions Mexico paying for the barrier by reducing foreign assistance or imposing a 20% import tax. The latter is incompatible with international trade rules proscribing discrimination among trading partners. The federal government has constitutional power to appropriate private property with just compensation, but litigation from landowners and Native American tribes will incur major delays.