Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Access to information (1)
- Ambiguity (1)
- Behavior (1)
- Choices (1)
- Clapper v. Amnesty International USA (1)
-
- Coercion (1)
- Compensation (1)
- Constitution (1)
- Constitutional amendments (1)
- Constitutional interpretation (1)
- Costs (1)
- Doctors (1)
- Efficiency (1)
- Emergencies (1)
- Expected value (1)
- Fear (1)
- Federal agencies (1)
- Fifth Amendment (1)
- Formalism (1)
- Future harm (1)
- Health care (1)
- Health care reform (1)
- Health insurance (1)
- History (1)
- Industries (1)
- Injuries (1)
- Intent (1)
- Laird v. Tatum (1)
- Law reform (1)
- Markets (1)
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
Medicine As A Public Calling, Nicholas Bagley
Medicine As A Public Calling, Nicholas Bagley
Michigan Law Review
The debate over how to tame private medical spending tends to pit advocates of government-provided insurance—a single-payer scheme—against those who would prefer to harness market forces to hold down costs. When it is mentioned at all, the possibility of regulating the medical industry as a public utility is brusquely dismissed as anathema to the American regulatory tradition. This dismissiveness, however, rests on a failure to appreciate just how deeply the public utility model shaped health law in the twentieth century— and how it continues to shape health law today. Closer economic regulation of the medical industry may or may not …
A Third Theory Of Paternalism, Nicolas Cornell
A Third Theory Of Paternalism, Nicolas Cornell
Michigan Law Review
This Article examines the normative significance of paternalism. That an action, a law, or a policy is paternalistic generally counts against it. This Article considers three reasons why this might be so—that is, three theories about what gives paternalism its normative character. This Article’s claim is that the two most common explanations for paternalism’s negative character are mistaken. The first view, which underlies the recent work by Professors Thaler and Sunstein, maintains that paternalism is negatively charged because it involves coercive interference with people’s choices. This approach proves inadequate, however, because more coercive actions can be a less objectionable form …
Countersupermajoritarianism, Frederic Bloom, Nelson Tebbe
Countersupermajoritarianism, Frederic Bloom, Nelson Tebbe
Michigan Law Review
Our Constitution can change. We can amend it, update it, improve it. And so we have—twenty-seven times by one count, many more by another. Everyone recognizes this. But fewer people appreciate that the mechanics of constitutional change can change as well. A method of alteration unaddressed at the founding can grow into established practice. A procedure built into constitutional text can slip into disuse. As much as citizens can change the substance of the Constitution, they can also change the ways they change it. In Originalism and the Good Constitution, John McGinnis and Michael Rappaport make an elegant and provocative …
Standing Uncertainty: An Expected-Value Standard For Fear-Based Injury In Clapper V. Amnesty International Usa, Andrew C. Sand
Standing Uncertainty: An Expected-Value Standard For Fear-Based Injury In Clapper V. Amnesty International Usa, Andrew C. Sand
Michigan Law Review
The Supreme Court has held that a plaintiff can have Article III standing based on a fear of future harm, or fear-based injury. The Court’s approach to fear-based injury, however, has been unclear and inconsistent. This Note seeks to clarify the Court’s doctrine using principles from probability theory. It contends that fear-based injury should be governed by a substantial-risk standard that encapsulates the probability concept of expected value. This standard appears in footnote 5 of Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, a recent case in which the Court held that a group of plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of …
Forcing Patent Claims, Tun-Jen Chiang
Forcing Patent Claims, Tun-Jen Chiang
Michigan Law Review
An enormous literature has criticized patent claims for being ambiguous. In this Article, I explain that this literature misunderstands the real problem: the fundamental concern is not that patent claims are ambiguous but that they are drafted by patentees with self-serving incentives to write claims in an overbroad manner. No one has asked why the patent system gives self-interested patentees the leading role in delineating the scope of their own patents. This Article makes two contributions to the literature. First, it explicitly frames the problem with patent claims as one of patentee self-interest rather than the intrinsic ambiguity of claim …
Emergency Takings, Brian Angelo Lee
Emergency Takings, Brian Angelo Lee
Michigan Law Review
Takings law has long contained a puzzle. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires the government to pay “just compensation” to owners of private property that the government “takes.” In ordinary circumstances, this requirement applies equally whether the property is confiscated or destroyed, and it also applies to property confiscated in emergencies. Remarkably, however, courts have repeatedly held that if the government destroys property to address an emergency, then a “necessity exception” relieves the government of any obligation to compensate the owner of the property that was sacrificed for the public good. Although the roots of this startling principle …