As a society, we deem healthcare decisions as some of the most private and personal information one has. We accept that it is up to the discretion of the individual and their acting physician to create a medical plan best suited for their needs. It’s easy to support these decisions knowing that the individual is doing what is best for them in light of informed medical advice, but once this private decision results in the phrase, “physician-assisted suicide” heads start to turn. Why is that? Each process essentially involves the private decision of making a medical treatment plan with your doctor. It is society’s perception of suicide, paired with the logical longstanding belief that your doctors are here to save your life, not take it away, that closes the door on the conversation. There is no fundamental right to Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS), but when applied to certain situations, doesn’t this interfere with one’s right to die with dignity, or the right to choose to refuse certain medical treatments?[1] Justice Ginsberg thought so.[2]
Read MoreAs the great Ronald Reagan once said, “All great change in America begins at the dinner table.”[1] Although current case law is vague regarding Fourth Amendment protection to social guests, the gathering of friends and family is sacrosanct and should be secured from governmental intrusion.
Read MoreOn the final day for Kentucky House Representatives to submit bills to the floor, Republican Representative Chad McCoy introduced KY House Bill 9.[1] This bill would amend the Kentucky statute governing charter schools, allowing those schools to receive public funding.[2] In essence, the bill would allow charter schools to become a reality in the Commonwealth. While charter schools have been legal in Kentucky since 2017, none have been opened due to the lack of a “permanent funding stream.”[3] House Bill 9 could potentially divert taxpayer dollars from the Kentucky public schools to charter schools, causing irreparable damage to the Kentucky public school system.
Read More“Child Support, Alimony, she’s eating steak, I’m eating baloney.”[1] This lyric from the 1990 Ray Charles song may seem a bit out of date, which of course it is, much like the Kentucky Child Support Statutes and Guidelines which were implemented the same year.[2] For several years now the family law community of Kentucky has been calling for an overhaul of the statute to elevate it to modern standards. The old guidelines had not been updated to account for the higher costs of raising a child and inflation that has occurred since 1990, nor was there a set guideline for split timesharing arrangements.[3] Finally, in 2021 the Kentucky Legislature revised the Child Support Guidelines.[4] These revised statutes raised monthly obligations and included provisions for dealing with split timesharing, however, it left some critical problems.[5] The fundamental issue with the new statute is that the amount of child support is reduced if there is any deviation from equal timesharing.[6]
Read MoreThe Supreme Court recognized a woman’s right to choose whether to terminate her pregnancy in the landmark case of Roe v. Wade.[i] The decision was grounded in the right to privacy.[ii] The Court reaffirmed Roe in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, relying on the idea that abortion is a liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[iii] This term, the Court will decide the constitutionality of Mississippi’s abortion law, passed in 2018.[iv] It is widely believed that the Court will uphold the law and might even overturn Roe.[v] This would be a mistake. Even if the Court got it wrong in Roe and Casey, Mississippi’s law is still unconstitutional under the First Amendment’s religion clauses.
Read MoreThe fastest growing and second-largest criminal enterprise in the world is the buying and selling of people — especially children.[1] The average age of entry into the sex trade is 12-14 years old for females, and it is believed to be even younger for boys and transgender youth.[2] Although no state allows for a child under the age of consent to participate in any type of sexual activity, the majority of states still criminalize children as prostitutes.[3] Safe Harbor Laws guarantee that minors are not criminalized for prostitution while also ensuring that victim services are provided to all sexually exploited youth.[4] These services can range from providing food and shelter to offering mental health counseling, substance abuse treatment, and assistance with educational opportunities and finding employment.[5]
Read More$2,035,918,948,953. Do you know what that number is? As of February 20, 2022, there are almost 20 thousand different cryptocurrencies with a market capitalization of $2 trillion.[1] To put this number into perspective, two trillion is about 7% of America’s national debt.[2] $2 trillion is equivalent to two times the market capitalization of Tesla, the sixth-largest company in the world.[3] Two trillion dollars in $100 bills stretch 5.44 times around the Earth’s equator.[4] This growth did not occur overnight.[5] So, why has the IRS just decided to ask this question on our beloved 1040 U.S. Individual Income Tax Return “…did you receive, sell, send, exchange or otherwise acquire any financial interest in any virtual currency?”[6] Well, because the technical architecture of various cryptocurrencies makes it difficult to bring it within existing tax rules.[7]
Read MoreChanting, rituals, and pledges, oh my! American Fraternities and Sororities have created a culture that speaks volumes about what young adults are willing to do to fit in. American sports teams are testing their athletes on the field and in the locker room to prove their loyalty. Although these institutions cultivate teamwork, friendship, and dedication, do they also cultivate a “do whatever it takes” mentality to impressing your peers?
The American outdoorsman[1] is an iconic figure at the heart of this country’s history. Outdoorsmen like Davey Crocket, Theodore Roosevelt Jr., and Mardy Murie were arguably as much conservationists as proponents of wildlife management (hunting, fishing, trapping, etc.).[2] Each person listed above embodied an “outdoorsman’s conflict” in balancing natural devastation and conservation.[3] While outdoorsmen have long debated the means to achieve this balance, state and federal governments have echoed similar concerns.[4] These governments not only created a renowned system of wildlife conservation, but allowed outdoorsmen to manage wildlife populations.[5] Scholars have dubbed this system the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation and Management (Model).[6] A complex history of government action has shaped the rights and privileges of outdoorsmen through the Model.[7]
Read MoreThe lockdowns that followed the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic created unprecedented economic hardship for many citizens and businesses across the nation.[1] While most of the country struggled to adapt to the new economic landscape, billionaires saw their collective net worth balloon by more than $2 trillion.[2] The increasing disparity between the upper class and the rest of the United States resurfaced a political push for a federal “wealth tax.” Progressive politicians have justified wealth tax proposals by identifying the need to restore fairness and to generate more revenue.[3] Unfortunately, it is unlikely that a wealth tax would successfully accomplish either of those goals due to the administrative difficulties, the unclear plan on allocation, and the wealthiest individual’s ability to avoid taxation.
Read MoreWhat do issues involving COVID-19, abortion, housing, and immigration, all have in common? Well, besides their controversial nature, they all have been recently dealt with on the Supreme Court’s “shadow docket.”[1] And lately, the conversation surrounding the shadow docket has been raging.[2] Many critics have been raising alarm, arguing that the Court is improperly using the “shadow docket” to subvert established appellate procedure and create new legal precedent without full transparency.[3] Those critics are correct.
Read MoreThe ubiquity of smartphones has brought about numerous changes. While some of these changes are bad (i.e., disengagement from society and the facilitation of narcissism), one particular and positive change must be noted: the ability to quickly capture quality footage. The proliferation of smartphones, most namely the iPhone, has equipped the average person with tech capabilities fit for cinema[1] and video journalism.[2] With respect to the latter, everyday citizens can place themselves at the vanguard of controversies they happen to witness. This access has led to a type of vigilante journalism, with one sect of the practice attracting significant controversy—those who film the police.
Read More“Mos Maiorium” was a concept in the Roman Republic which can be broadly defined as the “ancestral custom.”[1] This deference to tradition governed family relations, public life and—most importantly—political life.[2] Key aspects of the roles of public officials and the limits of their power in the largely unwritten roman constitution were derived from Mos Maiorium.[3] As the republic entered its terminal decline, many of the strictures of Mos Maiorium fell away; the non-reelection of Tribunes,[4] the due process rights of citizens accused of capital crimes,[5] and the strict separation of municipal politics and military power,[6] were at one time sacrosanct principles. Once these taboos were violated, however, their transgression rapidly became regular fixtures of politics and eventually saw the previously competitive oligarchy collapse into dictatorship. The stabilizing force of the republic was not the written codes of law but rather these un-codified norms.
Read MoreImagine you are a defense attorney, sent to depose a plaintiff in a simple motor vehicle accident. At the deposition, you question the plaintiff about his background, education, the circumstances of the accident, his post-accident complaints and medical care, and his damage claims. But the plaintiff feels ill, and counsel decides to continue the deposition until later in the week, at which time you intend to attack the plaintiff with your defenses: the plaintiff’s level of fault, his post-accident malingering, and convince him and his counsel that his case against your client is worth nothing.
Read MoreThere are over 82,000 executives in the United States, and these individuals generally receive as part of their compensation the option to purchase stock options from their company.[1] Depending on the company, it may be easy or difficult for the executive to buy or sell their stocks.[2] Each of these executives serves as an insider of the company and are subject to the rules promulgated by the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) for when and how these stocks can be sold.[3]
Read MoreGovernment spending has been a hot topic for many years with the government consistently running on a deficit.[1] A growing area of government spending is on government contracts, in 2020 spending in this area grew by fourteen percent.[2] Many people know the government is run on a deficit and worry about how their tax dollars are being spent. However, what many typically do not know is, there is a mechanism for everyday people to ensure that government contract expenditures are kept in check.[3] The False Claims Act (FCA) allows any individual to bring a lawsuit on behalf of the U.S. to sue an individual or group who has defrauded the U.S. by receiving more money in a government contract than they should have.[4] These types of lawsuits can range from claims for overpayment in Medicare and Medicaid to construction and procurement fraud.[5]
Read MoreImagine this: you are the defendant in a criminal case. You are facing eight charges. After a lengthy trial, the jury finds you guilty of three charges but acquits you of the remaining five. At your sentencing hearing a few months later, the judge nevertheless deviates from the probation officer’s recommended sentence, finding that the conduct underlying the charges of which you were acquitted merits a higher sentence. At first glance, does this practice seem fair, permissible, or in accordance with lay understandings of the role of the jury?
Read MoreTo prove a hostile work environment claim under Title VII, an employee must show they were subjected to harassment that is “sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.”[1] Although this definition does little to articulate a workable standard, the Supreme Court in Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. held a single use of a racial epithet is not enough for a hostile work environment claim.[2] But, subsequently noted an isolated, serious incident could be enough to constitute a hostile work environment claim if the incident is severe enough.[3] Seemingly, the Supreme Court holdings present an interesting dichotomy: whether a single use of an egregious racial epithet can constitute a “mere utterance” that fails to qualify as a hostile work environment claim or a “serious incident” that amounts to a hostile work environment claim.[4]
Read More