Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons^™

The Federal Protective Power And Targeted Killing Of U.S. Citizens, Greg Mcneal

Greg McNeal

In this responsive essay I argue that the Constitution envisions circumstances when the president may order U.S. citizens to be killed. It may be akin to the facts in al-Awlaki, where one is actively making war against the United States, or it may be in lesser circumstances that threaten the instruments of federal power. A settled example where a killing was authorized to protect the federal government was in Cunningham v. Neagle, 135 U.S. 1 (1890), there the Court addressed the killing of a U.S. citizen by Neagle, a federal marshal who was dispatched to protect Justice Field from an …

The Status And Evolution Of Laws And Policies Regulating Privately Owned Tigers In The United States, Philip J. Nyhus, Michael Ambrogi, Caitlin Dufraine, Alan Shoemaker, Ronald L. Tilson

Philip J. Nyhus

No abstract provided.

Judgments Of The United States Supreme Court And The South African Constitutional Court As A Basis For A Universal Method To Resolve Conflicts Between Fundamental Rights, Daniel H. Erskine

Daniel H. Erskine

This article describes the methods utilized by the United States Supreme Court to resolve specific cases involving conflicts between federal constitutional rights, a federal constitutional right and a state constitutional or statutory right, and an international treaty right and a federal constitutional right. Consideration of particular decisions representative of the manner the Court resolves conflicts between rights in the three typologies described above, illustrates how the Court views such conflicts and the rationales employed to resolve apparent conflicting rights. The rationales used by the United States Supreme Court are compared to the South African Constitutional Court’s decisions in the Soobramoney, …

The Dirty War Index: A Public Health And Human Rights Tool For Examining And Monitoring Armed Conflict Outcomes., M Hicks, M Spagat

Madelyn Hsiao-Rei Hicks

War, a major public health problem, is a situation where the interests of public health, human rights, and humanitarian law intersect.

The DWI is a data-driven public health tool that identifies rates of particularly undesirable or prohibited, i.e., “dirty,” outcomes inflicted on populations during war (e.g., civilian death, child injury, or torture).

A DWI is calculated as: (Number of “dirty,” i.e., undesirable or prohibited cases/Total number of cases) × 100.

DWIs are designed for direct, easy translation of war's public health outcomes into the human rights, policy, and interdisciplinary work needed to address war's practice.

DWIs support monitoring, deterrence, and …