In Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., the Supreme Court created a new framework for judicial deference to agency interpretations of law: courts should defer to an agency interpretation unless the relevant statute is clear or the agency interpretation is unreasonable. In the past two decades, however, the doctrinal Chevron framework has come under increasing strain. We suggest an alternative, which is to cast Chevron as a judicial voting rule, thereby institutionalizing deference to administrative agencies. Our thesis is that a voting rule of this sort would capture the benefits of the doctrinal version of Chevron while generating fewer costs. The principal advantage of institutionalizing Chevron as a voting rule is that it makes agency deference an aggregate property that arises from a set of votes, rather than an internal component of the decision rules used by individual judges. A voting-rule version of Chevron would also allow more precise calibration of the level of judicial deference over time, and holding the level of deference constant, a voting rule would produce less variance in deference across courts and over time, yielding a lower level of legal uncertainty than does the doctrinal version of Chevron. We consider and respond to various objections.
{"title":"Chevron as a Voting Rule","authors":"Jacob E. Gersen, Adrian Vermeule","doi":"10.2307/20455738","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/20455738","url":null,"abstract":"In Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., the Supreme Court created a new framework for judicial deference to agency interpretations of law: courts should defer to an agency interpretation unless the relevant statute is clear or the agency interpretation is unreasonable. In the past two decades, however, the doctrinal Chevron framework has come under increasing strain. We suggest an alternative, which is to cast Chevron as a judicial voting rule, thereby institutionalizing deference to administrative agencies. Our thesis is that a voting rule of this sort would capture the benefits of the doctrinal version of Chevron while generating fewer costs. The principal advantage of institutionalizing Chevron as a voting rule is that it makes agency deference an aggregate property that arises from a set of votes, rather than an internal component of the decision rules used by individual judges. A voting-rule version of Chevron would also allow more precise calibration of the level of judicial deference over time, and holding the level of deference constant, a voting rule would produce less variance in deference across courts and over time, yielding a lower level of legal uncertainty than does the doctrinal version of Chevron. We consider and respond to various objections.","PeriodicalId":297504,"journal":{"name":"Legislation & Statutory Interpretation","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129040929","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Health insurance exchanges play an important role in pending health care reform legislation. This paper first examines the different ways in which exchanges could be designed in a reformed health care system and the different roles that they could play. The paper next briefly explores experience with exchanges and what we can learn from it. It then describes the different approaches taken by the three bills pending in Congress to exchange design and function. The following section examines the legal issues raised by exchanges as they are defined in the pending legislation. Finally, the paper concludes with policy recommendations as to how exchanges should be designed and function to play an effective role in a reformed health care system, noting in particular the strengths and weaknesses of the pending legislation.
{"title":"Health Insurance Exchanges in Health Care Reform Legal and Policy Issues","authors":"T. Jost","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1493369","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1493369","url":null,"abstract":"Health insurance exchanges play an important role in pending health care reform legislation. This paper first examines the different ways in which exchanges could be designed in a reformed health care system and the different roles that they could play. The paper next briefly explores experience with exchanges and what we can learn from it. It then describes the different approaches taken by the three bills pending in Congress to exchange design and function. The following section examines the legal issues raised by exchanges as they are defined in the pending legislation. Finally, the paper concludes with policy recommendations as to how exchanges should be designed and function to play an effective role in a reformed health care system, noting in particular the strengths and weaknesses of the pending legislation.","PeriodicalId":297504,"journal":{"name":"Legislation & Statutory Interpretation","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129726046","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Equitable Balancing in the Age of Statutes examines the application of the doctrine of equitable balancing in determining whether to issue injunctions for violations of federal statutes. For the past several decades, the Supreme Court has held that the decision whether to enjoin violations of federal laws ordinarily should be determined by “balancing the equities,” in which courts weigh the hardship that the plaintiffs would face if an injunction were denied against the hardship the defendants would face if an injunction were granted. The Court has justified the doctrine by declaring that it is a longstanding equitable practice dating back centuries, perhaps since time immemorial. The Court most recently applied the doctrine in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 129 S.Ct. 365 (2008), in which environmentalists sought to enjoin the Navy from conducting antisubmarine training exercises using a type of sonar system alleged to be harmful to whales. The Court held that, even if the Navy was acting in violation of federal law, no injunction should be issued because, as the Court saw the balance of equities, national security trumps environmental protection. The Article argues that the Supreme Court’s experiment in applying equitable balancing in statutory contexts should be abandoned because it conflicts with separation-of-powers principles. The Article seeks to debunk the Court’s premise for applying equitable balancing in statutory cases - that the doctrine has been part of equitable practice for many centuries. In fact, equitable balancing is a relatively modern phenomenon, which first appeared in state common law cases during the period of rapid industrialization following the Civil War, and it only gained general acceptance in the 1930s. It was adopted for the express purpose of expanding judicial discretion to protect industries against injunctions in nuisance actions to stop air and water pollution. History is repeating itself because the Supreme Court adopted equitable balancing in federal statutory cases, beginning in 1982, to expand judicial discretion to excuse violations of federal statutes when, in the courts’ judgment, countervailing policy interests outweigh the interests served by federal statutes. Once equitable balancing is recognized as a recent phenomenon adopted to enlarge judicial policymaking authority, it becomes apparent that applying the doctrine in federal statutory cases raises substantial unresolved separation-of-powers problems. Among other things, the doctrine allows, if not requires, that courts make ad -hoc assessments of the relative importance of apparently conflicting statutory policies.
{"title":"Equitable Balancing in the Age of Statutes","authors":"J. Goldstein","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1460924","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1460924","url":null,"abstract":"Equitable Balancing in the Age of Statutes examines the application of the doctrine of equitable balancing in determining whether to issue injunctions for violations of federal statutes. For the past several decades, the Supreme Court has held that the decision whether to enjoin violations of federal laws ordinarily should be determined by “balancing the equities,” in which courts weigh the hardship that the plaintiffs would face if an injunction were denied against the hardship the defendants would face if an injunction were granted. The Court has justified the doctrine by declaring that it is a longstanding equitable practice dating back centuries, perhaps since time immemorial. The Court most recently applied the doctrine in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 129 S.Ct. 365 (2008), in which environmentalists sought to enjoin the Navy from conducting antisubmarine training exercises using a type of sonar system alleged to be harmful to whales. The Court held that, even if the Navy was acting in violation of federal law, no injunction should be issued because, as the Court saw the balance of equities, national security trumps environmental protection. The Article argues that the Supreme Court’s experiment in applying equitable balancing in statutory contexts should be abandoned because it conflicts with separation-of-powers principles. The Article seeks to debunk the Court’s premise for applying equitable balancing in statutory cases - that the doctrine has been part of equitable practice for many centuries. In fact, equitable balancing is a relatively modern phenomenon, which first appeared in state common law cases during the period of rapid industrialization following the Civil War, and it only gained general acceptance in the 1930s. It was adopted for the express purpose of expanding judicial discretion to protect industries against injunctions in nuisance actions to stop air and water pollution. History is repeating itself because the Supreme Court adopted equitable balancing in federal statutory cases, beginning in 1982, to expand judicial discretion to excuse violations of federal statutes when, in the courts’ judgment, countervailing policy interests outweigh the interests served by federal statutes. Once equitable balancing is recognized as a recent phenomenon adopted to enlarge judicial policymaking authority, it becomes apparent that applying the doctrine in federal statutory cases raises substantial unresolved separation-of-powers problems. Among other things, the doctrine allows, if not requires, that courts make ad -hoc assessments of the relative importance of apparently conflicting statutory policies.","PeriodicalId":297504,"journal":{"name":"Legislation & Statutory Interpretation","volume":"93 4","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134005650","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The passage of the Banking Act 2009 (UK) was a major landmark in the development of legal tools for the handling of banks in financial difficulties in the United Kingdom. The Act has emerged from over a year of economic crisis and from politically charged debates and consultations that followed the collapse and nationalisation of Northern Rock plc. It is built upon ideas that were found in the temporary emergency legislation that was first enacted in the form of the Banking (Special Provisions) Act 2008 a year earlier. What is surprising about this most recent enactment is the fact that the pre-existing laws in regard to bank failure and rescue were found to be so inadequate. It is clear that self regulation had failed to protect British banks from the consequences of the liquidity crisis that struck them in September 2007. It was to take more than fifteen months to fashion some suitable legal and regulatory tools to deal with banks in financial crisis. This paper reviews some of the debates that led to the passage of the 2009 enactment and provides an overview and assessment of this new legislation. It is clear that this hurriedly passed legislation constitutes an unfinished work in progress in the midst of a world economic crisis of massive proportions and that it will inevitably be subject to further refinement and development as it is applied to the circumstances of different banking institutions in the UK. However, the legislation has at least provided a basic set of tools with which to deal with banks in crisis whilst seeking to maintain stability and confidence in the UK banking system.
2009年银行法(英国)的通过是英国处理银行财务困难的法律工具发展的一个重要里程碑。该法案是在一年多的经济危机中产生的，也是在北岩(Northern Rock plc)破产和国有化后充满政治色彩的辩论和磋商中产生的。它建立在一年前首次以《2008年银行(特别规定)法》的形式颁布的临时紧急立法的思想基础之上。最近出台的这项法案令人惊讶的是，有关银行倒闭和救助的现有法律被发现是如此不足。很明显，自我监管未能保护英国银行免受2007年9月流动性危机的影响。制定一些合适的法律和监管工具来应对金融危机中的银行，需要15个多月的时间。本文回顾了导致2009年立法通过的一些辩论，并提供了对这项新立法的概述和评估。很明显，这项匆忙通过的立法在大规模的世界经济危机中是一项未完成的工作，它将不可避免地受到进一步的完善和发展，因为它适用于英国不同银行机构的情况。然而，该立法至少提供了一套基本工具，用于处理陷入危机的银行，同时寻求维持英国银行体系的稳定和信心。
{"title":"Creating a Template for Banking Insolvency Law Reform after the Collapse of Northern Rock","authors":"R. Tomasic","doi":"10.4324/9781315092522-5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315092522-5","url":null,"abstract":"The passage of the Banking Act 2009 (UK) was a major landmark in the development of legal tools for the handling of banks in financial difficulties in the United Kingdom. The Act has emerged from over a year of economic crisis and from politically charged debates and consultations that followed the collapse and nationalisation of Northern Rock plc. It is built upon ideas that were found in the temporary emergency legislation that was first enacted in the form of the Banking (Special Provisions) Act 2008 a year earlier. What is surprising about this most recent enactment is the fact that the pre-existing laws in regard to bank failure and rescue were found to be so inadequate. It is clear that self regulation had failed to protect British banks from the consequences of the liquidity crisis that struck them in September 2007. It was to take more than fifteen months to fashion some suitable legal and regulatory tools to deal with banks in financial crisis. This paper reviews some of the debates that led to the passage of the 2009 enactment and provides an overview and assessment of this new legislation. It is clear that this hurriedly passed legislation constitutes an unfinished work in progress in the midst of a world economic crisis of massive proportions and that it will inevitably be subject to further refinement and development as it is applied to the circumstances of different banking institutions in the UK. However, the legislation has at least provided a basic set of tools with which to deal with banks in crisis whilst seeking to maintain stability and confidence in the UK banking system.","PeriodicalId":297504,"journal":{"name":"Legislation & Statutory Interpretation","volume":"294 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126732871","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Emanuela Carbonara, F. Parisi, Georg von Wangenheim
Due to a variety of circumstances, lawmakers occasionally create laws whose aims are perceived as outright unjust by the majority of the people. In other situations, the law may utilize improper means for the pursuit of a just goal. In all such cases, lawmaking processes generate rules that do not reflect the values of the underlying population. In these cases individuals may face legal commands or prohibitions that conflict with their sense of justice or fairness. Individuals can oppose unjust laws through protest. Social opposition to unjust laws may trigger social norms that can have countervailing effects on legal intervention. The dynamic effects of these phenomena are the object of this paper.
{"title":"Unjust Laws and Illegal Norms","authors":"Emanuela Carbonara, F. Parisi, Georg von Wangenheim","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1088742","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1088742","url":null,"abstract":"Due to a variety of circumstances, lawmakers occasionally create laws whose aims are perceived as outright unjust by the majority of the people. In other situations, the law may utilize improper means for the pursuit of a just goal. In all such cases, lawmaking processes generate rules that do not reflect the values of the underlying population. In these cases individuals may face legal commands or prohibitions that conflict with their sense of justice or fairness. Individuals can oppose unjust laws through protest. Social opposition to unjust laws may trigger social norms that can have countervailing effects on legal intervention. The dynamic effects of these phenomena are the object of this paper.","PeriodicalId":297504,"journal":{"name":"Legislation & Statutory Interpretation","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127676102","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
During the last decade unicameral proposals have been put forward in fourteen US states. In this paper we propose a theoretical framework casting some lights on the drawbacks of bicameral state legislatures and on the effects of the proposed constitutional reforms. In a setting where lawmakers interact with a lobby through a bargaining process and with voters by means of elections, we show that when time constraints are binding, bicameralism might lead to a decline in the legislator's bargaining power vis-a-vis the lobby and to a reduction in his electoral accountability. On the other hand, when the time constraint is not binding, bicameralism might improve electoral accountability. Hence, arguments suggesting that bicameralism is a panacea against the abuse of power by elected legislators should be taken with due caution and the proposed unicameral reforms in US states may indeed reduce corruption levels among elected representatives.
{"title":"Reforming Legislatures: Is One House Better than Two?","authors":"G. Facchini, Cecilia Testa","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1410550","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1410550","url":null,"abstract":"During the last decade unicameral proposals have been put forward in fourteen US states. In this paper we propose a theoretical framework casting some lights on the drawbacks of bicameral state legislatures and on the effects of the proposed constitutional reforms. In a setting where lawmakers interact with a lobby through a bargaining process and with voters by means of elections, we show that when time constraints are binding, bicameralism might lead to a decline in the legislator's bargaining power vis-a-vis the lobby and to a reduction in his electoral accountability. On the other hand, when the time constraint is not binding, bicameralism might improve electoral accountability. Hence, arguments suggesting that bicameralism is a panacea against the abuse of power by elected legislators should be taken with due caution and the proposed unicameral reforms in US states may indeed reduce corruption levels among elected representatives.","PeriodicalId":297504,"journal":{"name":"Legislation & Statutory Interpretation","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116425815","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The changes to the agreement-making rules were at the heart of the former Coalition Government's Work Choices reforms. The key stated objective of these changes was to 'simplify' agreement-making - by removing the no-disadvantage test (NDT) and introducing an administrative process of automatic approval of agreements on lodgement - with a view to encouraging the spread of agreements. According to the government, an increase in the use of statutory agreements would, in turn, increase productivity. These aims were reflected in the objectives of the legislation which stated that the system should encourage the parties to set their own conditions at the workplace level (through statutory agreements). However, the objective of supporting fair agreement-making was removed from the legislation, suggesting that the protection of employees was of secondary importance in the new system.
{"title":"Workplace Agreement-Making: Legal Rules and Institutional Processes","authors":"C. Sutherland","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1357869","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1357869","url":null,"abstract":"The changes to the agreement-making rules were at the heart of the former Coalition Government's Work Choices reforms. The key stated objective of these changes was to 'simplify' agreement-making - by removing the no-disadvantage test (NDT) and introducing an administrative process of automatic approval of agreements on lodgement - with a view to encouraging the spread of agreements. According to the government, an increase in the use of statutory agreements would, in turn, increase productivity. These aims were reflected in the objectives of the legislation which stated that the system should encourage the parties to set their own conditions at the workplace level (through statutory agreements). However, the objective of supporting fair agreement-making was removed from the legislation, suggesting that the protection of employees was of secondary importance in the new system.","PeriodicalId":297504,"journal":{"name":"Legislation & Statutory Interpretation","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123198035","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This posting contains the introduction and one chapter from my new book 'Failure to Protect: America's Sexual Predator Laws and the Rise of the Preventive State' (Cornell University Press 2006). Most crimes of sexual violence are committed by people known to the victim - acquaintances and family members. Yet politicians and the media overemphasize predatory strangers when legislating against and reporting on sexual violence. In this book, I seek to look beyond sensational headlines to expose the reality of the laws designed to prevent sexual crimes. I show that sexual predatory laws, which have intense public and political support, are counterproductive. I contend that measures such as civil commitment and Megan's law, which are designed to restrain sex offenders before they commit another crime, are bad policy and do little to reduce sexual violence. Further, these new laws make use of approaches such as preventative detention and actuarial profiling that violate important principles of liberty. I argue that to prevent sexual violence, policymakers must address the deep-seated societal problems that allow it to flourish. In addition to criminal sanctions, I endorse the specific efforts of some advocates, organizations, and social scientists to stop sexual violence by, for example, taking steps to change the attitudes and behaviors of school-age children and adolescents, improving public education and promoting community treatment and supervision of previous offenders. I also warn that the principles underlying the predator laws may be the harbingers of a preventive state in which the government casts nets of surveillance and intervenes to curtail liberty before crimes occur. I also show that the architecture of sexual violence that these new legal approaches nurture is at odds with the advances promoted by feminist thinkers during the last several decades. More than a critique of the status quo, this book discusses alternatives and how best to overcome the political obstacles to achieving rational policy.
{"title":"Failure to Protect: America's Sexual Predator Laws and the Rise of the Preventive State","authors":"E. Janus","doi":"10.7591/9781501731167","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7591/9781501731167","url":null,"abstract":"This posting contains the introduction and one chapter from my new book 'Failure to Protect: America's Sexual Predator Laws and the Rise of the Preventive State' (Cornell University Press 2006). Most crimes of sexual violence are committed by people known to the victim - acquaintances and family members. Yet politicians and the media overemphasize predatory strangers when legislating against and reporting on sexual violence. In this book, I seek to look beyond sensational headlines to expose the reality of the laws designed to prevent sexual crimes. I show that sexual predatory laws, which have intense public and political support, are counterproductive. I contend that measures such as civil commitment and Megan's law, which are designed to restrain sex offenders before they commit another crime, are bad policy and do little to reduce sexual violence. Further, these new laws make use of approaches such as preventative detention and actuarial profiling that violate important principles of liberty. I argue that to prevent sexual violence, policymakers must address the deep-seated societal problems that allow it to flourish. In addition to criminal sanctions, I endorse the specific efforts of some advocates, organizations, and social scientists to stop sexual violence by, for example, taking steps to change the attitudes and behaviors of school-age children and adolescents, improving public education and promoting community treatment and supervision of previous offenders. I also warn that the principles underlying the predator laws may be the harbingers of a preventive state in which the government casts nets of surveillance and intervenes to curtail liberty before crimes occur. I also show that the architecture of sexual violence that these new legal approaches nurture is at odds with the advances promoted by feminist thinkers during the last several decades. More than a critique of the status quo, this book discusses alternatives and how best to overcome the political obstacles to achieving rational policy.","PeriodicalId":297504,"journal":{"name":"Legislation & Statutory Interpretation","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132854482","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The effects of sustained high rates of foreclosure on numerous areas of Cuyahoga County have thrust land banking to the forefront of recent public policy discussions in Ohio. This Policy Discussion Paper seeks to inform those discussions by explaining the state’s current land banking system and by illustrating how the proposed system under Senate Bill 353/House Bill 602 (the Land Bank Bill) would work.
{"title":"Understanding Ohio's Land Bank Legislation","authors":"Thomas J. Fitzpatrick","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1316971","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1316971","url":null,"abstract":"The effects of sustained high rates of foreclosure on numerous areas of Cuyahoga County have thrust land banking to the forefront of recent public policy discussions in Ohio. This Policy Discussion Paper seeks to inform those discussions by explaining the state’s current land banking system and by illustrating how the proposed system under Senate Bill 353/House Bill 602 (the Land Bank Bill) would work.","PeriodicalId":297504,"journal":{"name":"Legislation & Statutory Interpretation","volume":"89 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132519379","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2009-01-11DOI: 10.21153/DLR2007VOL12NO2ART216
P. Latimer, A. Brown
Since the 1990s Australia's nine jurisdictions have passed (or, in the case of the Northern Territory, proposed to pass) public sector whistleblower legislation. The legislation, which reflects different political origins and legislative aims, is not consistent in many respects and there are few common tests across the jurisdictions. This article analyzes two issues - who the Australian whistleblower can disclose to, and who the whistleblower can make protected disclosures about. The examination of these issues indicates inconsistencies in the public law whistleblower laws enacted since the 1990s. This inconsistency is not sensible in Australia's national economy, where an employee in one State can make a protected disclosure, but an employee in another cannot make the same disclosure. This article supports the election commitment of the Rudd federal government in 2007 to introduce best practice federal whistleblowing legislation which will hopefully overcome shortcomings analyzed in this article.
{"title":"In Whose Interest? The Need for Consistency in to Whom, and About Whom, Australian Public Interest Whistleblowers Can Make Protected Disclosures","authors":"P. Latimer, A. Brown","doi":"10.21153/DLR2007VOL12NO2ART216","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21153/DLR2007VOL12NO2ART216","url":null,"abstract":"Since the 1990s Australia's nine jurisdictions have passed (or, in the case of the Northern Territory, proposed to pass) public sector whistleblower legislation. The legislation, which reflects different political origins and legislative aims, is not consistent in many respects and there are few common tests across the jurisdictions. This article analyzes two issues - who the Australian whistleblower can disclose to, and who the whistleblower can make protected disclosures about. The examination of these issues indicates inconsistencies in the public law whistleblower laws enacted since the 1990s. This inconsistency is not sensible in Australia's national economy, where an employee in one State can make a protected disclosure, but an employee in another cannot make the same disclosure. This article supports the election commitment of the Rudd federal government in 2007 to introduce best practice federal whistleblowing legislation which will hopefully overcome shortcomings analyzed in this article.","PeriodicalId":297504,"journal":{"name":"Legislation & Statutory Interpretation","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133555120","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：