Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Is Today The Day We Free Electroconvulsive Therapy?, Mike Jorgensen
Is Today The Day We Free Electroconvulsive Therapy?, Mike Jorgensen
Mike Jorgensen
ABSTRACT IS TODAY THE DAY WE FREE ELECTROCONVULSIVE THERAPY? By Mike E Jorgensen Electroconvulsive Therapy, or “ECT,” has become increasingly more popular to treat certain mental illnesses, especially severe depression and pseudo dementia. The stigma it suffered due to prior barbaric type applications in the past are largely historic, and most medical professionals will agree that ECT is safe today, has very minimal side effects, not inherently abusive, and no long- term detriments. Yet, with the increase in popularity and the safe applications, ECT is still treated archaically under the law and the legislative restraints are causing an indigent, elderly …
The Sovereign Nation Of Baseball: Why Federal Law Does Not Apply To "America's Game" And How It Got That Way, Mitchell J. Nathanson
The Sovereign Nation Of Baseball: Why Federal Law Does Not Apply To "America's Game" And How It Got That Way, Mitchell J. Nathanson
Mitchell J Nathanson
This article examines the relationship between Major League Baseball (MLB) and the law and discusses how it has evolved that MLB has become unofficially exempt from federal law on a wide range of issues due to its unique status within American society. Although its antitrust exemption is well-known, MLB has, in practice, not been subject to the forces of federal law in many other contexts as well, setting it apart from most other corporations and organizations – even other professional sports leagues such as the NFL, NHL and NBA. As a result of the wide berth provided to MLB by …
‘Move On’ Orders As Fourth Amendment Seizures, Stephen E. Henderson
‘Move On’ Orders As Fourth Amendment Seizures, Stephen E. Henderson
Stephen E Henderson
If a police officer orders one to move on, must the recipient comply? This article analyzes whether there is a federal constitutional right to remain, and in particular whether a police command to move on constitutes a seizure of the person for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. Although it is a close question, I conclude that the Fourth Amendment typically does not restrict a move on (MO) order, and that substantive due process only prohibits the most egregious such orders. It is a question of broad significance given the many legitimate reasons police might order persons to move on, as …