The Board of Editors is pleased to present Issue 5 of the 2012 Volume of the Illinois Law Review.
First, Professor Emens proposes using framing rules to target the moments when nondisabled people make decisions that implicate their future relationship to disability. The Article examines several domains to which the inside framing perspective could be applied—including thinking about the kind of children we want, injury prevention campaigns, and contingency planning—in which disability is frequently presented in negative terms.
Next, Professors Garoupa and Morriss argue that a focus on legal systems’ ability to cheaply identify efficient rules, restrain rent-seeking in the formulation and application of rules, adapt rules to changed conditions, reveal the law to those affected by it, and enable contracting around inefficient rules would be more appropriate than the current emphasis on labels such as Common Law and Civil Law.
Following, Professor Kar draws upon and develops contemporary findings in in a broad range of cognate fields around the understanding of human prehistory to reconstruct the most plausible genealogical shape of Western legal prehistory, and suggests a number of important but underappreciated relationships that obtain between our modern Western traditions and a range of other Eurasian traditions with which the West has typically been contrasted.
Next, Professor Pushaw demonstrates the historical evidence reveals that the Founders understood “commerce” as including only commercial interactions—voluntary sales of products and services and accompanying activities intended for the marketplace, such as manufacturing goods for sale, paid transportation, and banking.
The issue concludes with notes by Scott A. Cromar, Max H. Deleon, Megan McMillen, and Elizabeth L. Rowe.
In the January 2013 issue, the University of Illinois Law Review will be publishing Professor David Kairys’s Essay, The Contradictory Messages of the Rehnquist-Roberts Era Speech Law: Liberty and Justice for Some. In his Essay, Professor Kairys suggests that, beyond the familiar First Amendment rhetoric of self-expression, empowerment of the people, and triumphal American democracy, there are differences between the Court’s treatment of modes of speech available to people of ordinary means, and modes available to corporations and the wealthy. The Court’s curtailment of rights related to the former, and expansion of rights related to the latter, skews, corrupts, and undermines the democratic process. Because of its relevance to political speech this election season, the board of editors is pleased to make the Article available early.
Click here to download David Kairys’s Essay.
The Board of Editors is pleased to present Issue 4 of the 2012 Volume of the Illinois Law Review.
First, Professors Fisch and Roiter argue that proposals requiring a floating Net Asset Value for money market funds are misguided. Instead, they argue that the more important regulatory question is what happens if a money market fund breaks the buck. The Article proposes two procedural reforms designed to provide flexibility and predictability in these circumstances by allowing a money market fund to convert to a floating NAV and allowing investors to redeem most of their shares without awaiting completion of a fund’s liquidation.
Next, Professors Paul J. Heald and Susannah Chapman challenge the conventional wisdom that the Twentieth Century was a disaster for crop diversity. Rather, their data suggest that patent law has not reduced crop diversity, nor is it likely to have significantly contributed to the introduction of new vegetable varieties. This Article goes significantly beyond our prior three related postings of preliminary data.
Following, Professor Hillel Y. Levin introduces and explores an approach to statutory interpretation, which posits that judges interpreting ambiguous statutes are and should be constrained by the understanding and expectations of the contemporary public as to the law’s meaning and application.
Next, Professor Jessica L. Roberts identifies an unresolvable tension between the anti-discrimination approach embraced by health-care reform advocates and the current practices of the private, for-profit health-insurance industry, which the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) seeks to preserve.
The issue also includes the David C. Baum Memorial Lecture on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties by Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who argues that there is no fixed “strike zone” for judges to use and that they must rule based on the facts and circumstances of the cases before them.
The issue concludes with notes by Kerry P. Burnet, Adam A. Field, Zachary M. Johns, and Charles Gibbs.