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.

Leveraging Implementation Science in the Public Health Response to COVID-19 : Child Food Insecurity and Federal Nutrition Assistance Programs.

Abstract: Public Health Reports 2020, Vol. 135(6) 728-736 © 2020, Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health All rights reserved. Article reuse guidelines: sagepub. com/ journalspermissions DOI: 10. 1177/ 0033 3549 20959285 journals. sagepub. com/ home/ phr Leveraging Implementation Science in the Public Health Response to COVID-19: Child Food Insecurity and Federal Nutrition Assistance Programs

Impeachment and Assassination

Abstract: In 1998, the conservative provocateur Ann Coulter made waves when she wrote that President Clinton should be either impeached or assassinated. Coulter was roundly - and rightly - condemned for suggesting that the murder of the President might be justified, but her conceptual linking of presidential impeachment and assassination was not entirely unfounded. Indeed, Benjamin Franklin had made the same linkage over two hundred years earlier, when he noted at the Constitutional Convention that, historically, the removal of “obnoxious” chief executives had been accomplished by assassination. Franklin suggested that a proceduralized mechanism for removal - impeachment - would be preferable. This Article for the first time takes Franklin’s comments seriously, viewing impeachment as closely tied to assassination. The Article first unpacks Franklin’s statement by analyzing what were, for Franklin and his contemporaries, two paradigm cases of just killings of chief magistrates: those of Julius Caesar and Charles I. From these cases, it draws an understanding of the substantive law of presidential impeachment - or, put differently, it argues that we ought to understand impeachable offenses as (what might otherwise be) assassinable offenses. The Constitution’s innovation in executive removal lay in pairing this older substantive law with new procedures meant to domesticate it and to mitigate the drawbacks associated with political murder. The Article then traces the interaction of these substantive and procedural features at two key moments for the American presidency: the assassination of Abraham Lincoln followed closely by the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, and the impeachment of Bill Clinton. The Article then concludes by briefly discussing the impeachability of Richard Nixon.

Comparative approaches to constitutional history

Abstract: An historical approach to constitutional interpretation draws upon original intentions or understandings of the meaning or application of a constitutional provision. Comparing the ways in which courts in different jurisdictions use history is a complex exercise. In recent years, academic and judicial discussion of “originalism” has obscured both the global prevalence of resorting to historical materials as an interpretive resource and the impressive diversity of approaches courts may take to deploying those materials. This chapter seeks, in Section B, to develop a basic taxonomy of historical approaches. Section C explores in greater depth the practices of eight jurisdictions with constitutional courts or apex courts that engage in constitutional review: those of the United States, Canada, Germany, Australia, India, Hong Kong, Malaysia, and Singapore. Because our selection of cases aims to be illustrative rather than exhaustive, we do not attempt to draw firm conclusions about the global use of constitutional history. Still, the qualitative evidence that follows hints at what might well be universal within constitutional judging: (1) the significance of history broadly understood, and (2) the limits on history’s reach into contemporary rights conflicts.

What Should Be Disclosed in an Initial Coin Offering

Abstract: Disclosures in initial coin offerings (ICOs) have ranged widely from informative to incomplete to fraudulent. Consequently, advocates for the investing public have, understandably, called for the registration of ICOs as securities to facilitate better disclosures. As this article shows, however, the disclosures required under the 1933 Securities Act often map poorly on to crypto asset products and infrastructures and will provide limited assistance to investors. Many ICO issuances offer non-traditional, non-financial rights that require and involve different pricing considerations than traditional common equity and debt, and are embedded in technical systems unanticipated by the New Deal. ICOs thus require a reconceptualization of longstanding disclosure obligations and safeguards, as well as a revamped approach towards entities tasked with validating disclosures. This article charts key provisions in the Securities Act’s Form S-1, crowdfunding’s Form C, Form 1-A for Regulation A , and Rule 144A to provide just such a policy framework.

Personal Transformation and Advance Directives: An Experimental Bioethics Approach

Abstract: Walsh (2020) notes that dementia can inspire both personally and cognitively transformative experiences (Paul 2014), resulting in major changes to one’s beliefs, values, preferences, and overall de...