Oklahoma City University

About: Oklahoma City University is a education organization based out in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Supreme court & Comparative law. The organization has 240 authors who have published 421 publications receiving 6923 citations.

Estimating the New Keynesian Phillips Curve Using Expected Inflation from Financial Market Instruments

Abstract: We estimate the New Keynesian Phillips Curve for the USA from 1997 to 2017 using expected inflation from financial instruments. We use a spliced series with two sources: TIPS spread and inflation swaps. Our empirical tests find higher coefficients on backward-looking inflation than forward-looking inflation. This supports the hybrid version of the NKPC. We find positive, significant coefficients on the marginal cost proxy using ordinary least squares estimation but zero coefficients using GMM estimation. This gives mixed results for the role of real economic variables in the determination of inflation.

Modeling the Second Amendment Right to Carry Arms (I): Judicial Tradition and the Scope of ‘Bearing Arms’ for Self-Defense

Abstract: This Article sheds light on the most important constitutional question opened up by the United States Supreme Court’s landmark decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago: Does the Second Amendment “right to bear arms” include a right to carry handguns and other common weapons for self-defense outside the home? Some courts and commentators have declared that Heller held that the Second Amendment right is limited to the home, so that restrictions on handgun carrying do not even fall within the scope of the Second Amendment. Others assert that the potential applicability of the right to bear arms outside the home is simply a “vast terra incognita,” devoid of guidance, into which lower courts should hesitate to venture for prudential reasons.These courts are mistaken about Heller and mistaken about the absence of guidance. As I show, Heller and McDonald have two holdings, not just one: they adopted a particular interpretation of the right to bear arms, then applied that understanding to the bans on handgun possession that were before them. The right that Heller adopted has a long tradition in the state courts, and that tradition supports a right to carry outside the home.The centerpiece of the Article is an analysis of the past 190 years of state court constitutional precedent on arms carrying. I show that there have really been two different traditions of the individual right to bear arms: a defense-based right, under which courts construe the right to bear arms as protecting a meaningful right to carry handguns for self-protection, and a “hybrid” or civic-based right, under which gun possession is protected, but courts do not view self-defense as an important purpose of the right, and therefore uphold broad restrictions on weapons carrying. I show that Heller and McDonald embraced the first tradition and rejected the second. Once lower courts and scholars look to the correct line of precedent, they will find powerful arguments that the Second Amendment’s scope includes a right of individuals to carry handguns in public for self-defense.Part I supplies a useful vocabulary for the discussion by distinguishing three different conceptions of the relationship between self-defense and the right to carry arms; these are the three competing models of the right. Part II then examines the Heller and McDonald decisions, and what they suggest about the scope of Second Amendment carry rights. Part III is by far the longest part of the Article. It conducts a detailed review of the long history of litigation in the state courts over the carrying of weapons, and shows that courts applying a defense-based, individual right to bear arms have regularly held that it includes a right to carry weapons outside the home. This right was particularly well protected in the period between the ratification of the Second Amendment in 1791 and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, which Heller and McDonald teach is a critical period for originalist inquiry into the right to keep and bear arms. Finally, Part IV concludes by identifying lessons that the Article’s analysis implies for courts, legal scholars, and historians today.

A Monist Supremacy Clause and a Dualistic Supreme Court: The Status of Treaty Law as U.S. Law

Abstract: Hans Kelsen identified three possible relationships between the international and domestic legal orders. Dualism understands the international and domestic legal orders as separate and independent. Monism describes a single and comprehensive legal order but can operate with either domestic law or international law as a higher order law. Like many domestic legal orders, that of the United States has never fully worked out which of these three options specifies the status of international law in its domestic legal order. While the text of the United States Constitution suggests a form of monism in which international law is automatically part of the domestic legal order, the structure of the Constitution does not permit such automatic incorporation. In a 2008 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court articulated a theory that borders on dualism. The Court's decision makes sense of some recent U.S. practice, but it cannot be reconciled with either the text or the structure of the U.S. Constitution. Moreover, as a consequence of the Supreme Court's decision, the United States is in danger of re-enacting the de facto primacy of domestic law that the Constitution's Framers sought to address by according constitutional supremacy to treaty law.

An exploration of differences in auditors' and users' perceptions of key terms used to define auditors' responsibilities

Abstract: Audit policy has used numerous terms to define auditors' responsibilities over the past several decades. This study explores the structural relationship among key terms used to define auditors' responsibilities including 'misstatement' and embedded terms such as error, irregularity and fraud. Several empirical modelling techniques are used to investigate auditors' and investors' perceptions of the intended meanings of these terms and to measure consensus among such perceptions. Several important differences are detected among auditors as well as between auditors and investors. We conclude that care should be taken by auditing standard setters in issuing standards and preparing guidance to support standards related to the intended meaning and usage of the term misstatement, and its embedded component terms.