Contents: (1) Intro.; (2) Competing Approaches: Direct Popular Election v. Electoral College Reform; (3) Direct Popular Election: Pro and Con; (4) Electoral College Reform: Pro and Con; (5) Electoral College Amendments Proposed in the 111th Congress; (6) Contemporary Activity in the States; (7) 2004: Colorado Amendment 36; (8) 2007-2008: The Presidential Reform Act (California Counts); (9) 2006-Present: National Popular Vote -- Direct Popular Election Through an Interstate Compact; Origins; The Plan; National Popular Vote, Inc.; Action in the State Legislatures; States That Have Approved NPV; National Popular Vote; (10) Prospects for Change -- An Analysis; (11) State Action -- A Viable Reform Alternative?; (12) Concluding Observations.
At 5:30 p.m. on May 6, 1970, an embattled Ohio State University President Novice G. Fawcett took the unprecedented step of closing down the university. Despite the presence of more than 1,500 armed highway patrol officers, Ohio National Guardsmen, deputy sheriffs, and Columbus city police, university and state officials feared they could not maintain order in the face of growing student protests. Students, faculty, and staff were ordered to leave; administrative offices, classrooms, and laboratories were closed. The campus was sealed off. Never in the first one hundred years of the university's existence had such a drastic step been necessary. Just a year earlier the campus seemed immune to such disruptions. President Nixon considered it safe enough to plan an address at commencement. Yet a year later the campus erupted into a spasm of violent protest exceeding even that of traditional hot spots like Berkeley and Wisconsin. How could conditions have changed so dramatically in just a few short months? Using contemporary news stories, long overlooked archival materials, and first-person interviews, The Ohio State University in the Sixties explores how these tensions built up over years, why they converged when they did and how they forever changed the university.
Abraham Lincoln worried that the "walls" of the constitution would ultimately be leveled by the "silent artillery of time." His fears materialized with the 1913 ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment, which, by eliminating federalism's structural protection, altered the very nature and meaning of federalism. Ralph A. Rossum's provocative new book considers the forces unleashed by an amendment to install the direct election of U.S. Senators. Far from expecting federalism to be protected by an activist court, the Framers, Rossum argues, expected the constitutional structure, particularly the election of the Senate by state legislatures, to sustain it. In Federalism, the Supreme Court, and the Seventeenth Amendment Rossum challenges the fundamental jurisprudential assumptions about federalism. He also provides a powerful indictment of the controversial federalist decisions recently handed down by an activist U.S. Supreme Court seeking to fill the gap created by the Seventeenth Amendment's ratification and protect the original federal design. Rossum's masterful handling of the development of federalism restores the true significance to an amendment previously consigned to the footnotes of history. It demonstrates how the original federal design has been amended out of existence; the interests of states as states abandoned and federalism left unprotected, both structurally and democratically. It highlights the ultimate irony of constitutional democracy: that an amendment intended to promote democracy, even at the expense of federalism, has been undermined by an activist court intent on protecting federalism, at the expense of democracy.
This book demonstrates that nineteenth-century electoral politics were the product of institutions that prescribed how votes were cast and were converted into political offices.
Since the first edition of this invaluable book in 2012, third-party funding has become more mainstream in international arbitration practice. However, since even the existence of a third-party funding agreement in a dispute is often kept secret, it can be difficult to glean the specifics of successful funding agreements. This welcome book, now updated, expertly reveals the nuances of third-party funding in international arbitration, examines the phenomenon in key jurisdictions, and provides a reliable resource for users and potential users that may wish to tap into and make use of this distinctive funding tool. Focusing on Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States, Germany, the Netherlands, Canada, and South Africa, the authors analyze and assess the legal regime based upon legislation, judicial opinions, ethics opinions, and practitioner anecdotes describing the state of third-party funding in each jurisdiction. In addition to updating summaries of the law of the various jurisdictions, the second edition includes a new chapter addressing third-party funding in investor-state arbitration. Among the issues raised and examined are the following: · payment of adverse costs; · “Before-the-Event” (BTE) and “After-the-Event” (ATE) insurance; · attorney financing: pro bono representation, contingency representation, conditional fee arrangements; · loans; · ethical doctrines affecting the third-party funding industry; · possible future bundling, securitization, and trading of legal claims; · risk that the funder may put its own interests ahead of the client’s interests; and · whether the existence of a funding agreement must or should be disclosed to the decision maker. The second edition also includes discussion of recent institutional developments as they relate to third-party funding, including the work of the ICCA-Queen Mary Task Force on Third-Party Funding and how third-party funding is being incorporated into arbitral rules and investment treaties. Ably providing a thorough understanding of what third-party funding entails and what legal parameters exist, this book will be of compelling interest to parties aiming to take advantage of the high values, speed, reduced evidentiary costs, outcome predictability, industry expertise, and high award enforceability characteristic of the third-party funding arrangements available in international arbitration.
