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.

Rescission of a Previously Designated National Monument: A Bad Idea Whose Time has Not Come

Abstract: Presidents cancel or modify executive orders and proclamations issued by prior Presidents all the time. What is not so clear is whether this presidential discretion applies to orders or proclamations issued at the direction of Congress, as is the case with national monuments designated by presidential proclamation under the authority of the Antiquities Act. Section 431 of that Act authorizes the President to declare by public proclamation “historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures and other object of historic or scientific interest” on public land and to reserve sufficient public land to properly care for and manage the protected objects. While over the law’s 111 years, disgruntled states, interest groups, and individuals have challenged some of these proclamations, no President has ever rescinded a designation made by a prior President, let alone even threatened it, until President Trump proposed doing so this year. This Article suggest that the fact that Congress has placed its imprimatur on the designation process shields it from whimsical actions by later Presidents seeking to rescind or shrink the size of previously designated national monuments. To conclude otherwise would contradict the plain language of the statute, which would give Congress plenary power over the designation process and would aggregate to the President powers he does not have, thus creating separation of powers concerns. Nor can Presidents simply elect not to enforce a law because it is not to their liking. Allowing Presidents to revoke prior monument designations would create substantial uncertainty about the legal force and effects of such proclamations once made. This uncertainty, in turn, would affect expectations about how the designated land should be managed and inhibit future designations. It would also adversely affect local economic growth and regional adjustments in response to designations.

Banks and Governments: An Arial View

Abstract: Financial systems and public treasuries are communicating vessels: strength or weakness in one flows to the other, and back. This chapter considers the implications of this insight using case studies from Europe, Asia, and Latin America. The connection is not unique to Europe, although it does not always result in feedback effects, or the 'doom loop' that has made headlines since 2010. Events now known as banking or government debt crises often have had elements of both, and could have gone either way. Policy and political choices determined their path. In all cases, governments were as indispensable for resolving banking crises as banks were for resolving sovereign debt crises. As capital movements have become more rapid and global, the bank-government link has turned more destructive, prompting proposals to break it for good. Some of these proposals may adjust, elaborate, or displace the link. None would break it. Instead of chasing the fantasy of total separation, the policy goal should be to reduce destruction and harness the link in the name of financial stability.

Obligaciones estatales en el contexto de dietas no saludables: allanando el camino dentro del sistema interamericano de derechos humanos

Abstract: Noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) are the leading cause of morbidity, mortality, and disability in the Americas. NCDs are largely preventable because of the modifiable nature of their risk factors, including the elevated consumption of processed and ultra-processed products that can be traced to the recurrent practices of the food and beverage industry. This article explores diet-related risk factors to NCDs as a human rights issue that can and should be addressed within the Inter-American Human Rights System (IAHRS). In particular, we argue that States can potentially be held responsible for their failure to comply with the obligation to guarantee human rights; specifically, by not acting with due diligence through the regulation of the food and beverage industry. Moreover, we argue that States can also potentially be held responsible for failing to comply with the obligation to respect human rights, considering its complicity with the food and beverage industry.

Implementation of judicial independence in Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan in the rule of law context

Abstract: Proposes this research is seeking to combine the theory and practice of judicial independence based in Western notions of the “Rule of Law”, modern developments of this doctrine in the documents and laws of both Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan.

Restoring the Lost Constitution, Not the Constitution in Exile

Abstract: The Constitution we have now is redacted. Any practicing lawyer will tell you that you cannot go into court and argue the Ninth Amendment. You cannot go into court and argue the Privileges or Immunities Clause. Until United States v. Lopez you could not argue the Commerce Clause; after Gonzales v. Raich, it is not clear you can argue the Commerce Clause anymore. You cannot argue the Necessary and Proper Clause. You cannot argue the Republican Guarantee Clause. You cannot argue the Second Amendment outside the Fifth Circuit. Whole sections of the Constitution are now gone. This is the lost Constitution. It is not a set of pre-1937 results; it is a set of post-1789 provisions of the Constitution that are, for all practical purposes, dead letters. Identifying the original meaning of these lost clauses and how their restoration would affect the Constitution as a whole is what Restoring the Lost Constitution is about. However it is labeled, this is a substantially different project than the one that is characterized - mischaracterized - as the Constitution in exile movement.