Partial Birth Act Upheld

Malla Pollack mpollack at ajsl.us
Thu Apr 19 06:55:42 PDT 2007


"When overall growth goes up, 
poverty rates go down."  I am not so sure that even this weak conclusion is
empirically supported as per the article I cited by Townsend.  Putting
positive rights in the constitution would have (or should have) blocked some
very awful Sp Ct decisions with real consequences.  Remember "Poor Joshua"
DeShaney? 


Malla Pollack
Professor, American Justice School of Law
mpollack at ajsl.us
270-744-3300 x 28
articles http://works.bepress.com/malla_pollack/

-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Cross [mailto:crossf at mail.utexas.edu] 
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 8:52 AM
To: Malla Pollack; 'Volokh, Eugene'; CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: Partial Birth Act Upheld


Well, I was talking about positive rights in constitutions.  There's 
not a lot of rigorous empirical evidence here, but Ran Hirschl's 
book, Towards Juristocracy, shows via case studies that such positive 
rights have little benefit.  I have argued that putting positive 
rights in constitutions won't help the poor but could affirmatively 
interfere with attempts at assistance at 48 UCLA LRev 857.  In the 
process, I compared states with such positive rights to those without 
and found no positive effect.

I don't argue that we should support the poor any less, just question 
whether the constitutionalization of such rights is worthwhile.
And I think the phrase "trickle down" is just jargon.  One thing that 
is empirically clear, both in the US and abroad, is that economic 
growth with help the poor somewhat.  When overall growth goes up, 
poverty rates go down.



At 08:15 AM 4/19/2007, Malla Pollack wrote:
>The fact that some countries do not live up to their commitments does not
>make the commitment unworthy. No one in the USA seriously argues that we
>should not support "Due Process" or "Freedom of speech" because other
>countires use the words differently (or to mean what we think is the
>opposite).
>
>As for your empirical claims, kindly supply your citations.  I am sure that
>some tries at some positive rights did not work out, but that does not mean
>the systematic cut backs in the USA for the last few decades are necessary,
>moral, etc.
>
>For a paper I am writing I have been trolling SSRN for recent empirical
work
>on "trickle down" v. attempts to help the poor such as raising minimum
>wages.   I have found giant fights over minimum wage, with a recent
overview
>of all literature article by one opponent of minimum wage-- the strongest
>conclusion the author finds supported is that (i) no studies are complex
>enough to deal with all variables,(ii) studes go both ways, and (iii) most
>economic effects are not very "robust."   On the other hand, I have not
>found any very recent work claiming that increase the trade or total wealth
>of a country by itself helps the poor.  The money simply does not trickle
>down.
>
>
>I recognize my lack of economic expertise and would be grateful for any
>relevant materials you can suggest.  My favorite articles for the paper so
>far are:
>
>"The Right to Social Security and National Development: Lessons  from OECD
>Experience for Low-Income Countries"
>      Issues in Social Protection Discussion Paper No. 18
>    Author:  PETER TOWNSEND
>               London School of Economics & Political Science
>               (LSE) - London School of Economics
>     Email:  p.townsend at lse.ac.uk
>Auth-Page:  http://ssrn.com/author=738613
>
>Full Text:  http://ssrn.com/abstract=958252
>
>And:
>"Minimum Wages and Employment"
>      IZA Discussion Paper No. 2570
>
>
>   Contact:  DAVID NEUMARK
>               University of California, Irvine - Department of
>               Economics, Public Policy Institute of California,
>               National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER),
>               Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA)
>     Email:  dneumark at uci.edu
>Auth-Page:  http://ssrn.com/author=501
>
>Co-Author:  WILLIAM WASCHER
>               Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System -
>               Division of Research and Statistics
>     Email:  wwascher at frb.gov
>Auth-Page:  http://ssrn.com/author=502
>
>Full Text:  http://ssrn.com/abstract=961374
>
>
>I will drop out of this discusion now becasuse I have a class to teach.
>
>
>Malla Pollack
>Professor, American Justice School of Law
>mpollack at ajsl.us
>270-744-3300 x 28
>articles http://works.bepress.com/malla_pollack/
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Frank Cross [mailto:crossf at mail.utexas.edu]
>Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 7:47 PM
>To: Malla Pollack; 'Volokh, Eugene'; CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
>Subject: RE: Partial Birth Act Upheld
>
>
>Plainly, charity cannot take care of all the needs of the
>poor.  However, it is helpful.  And it is significant that religious
>people contribute far more voluntary charity to help the poor than do
>the non-religious.
>
>And empirical studies also support the claim that positive rights do
>not work to help the poor.  Which is the best reason to oppose them.
>
>
>At 07:34 PM 4/18/2007, Malla Pollack wrote:
> >I know of no empirical studies which even come close to asserting that
the
> >poor in the US are being well taken care of by private charity. Empircal
> >studies do, however, support the claim that the "trickle down" theory of
> >economics does not work.
> >
> >Malla Pollack
> >Professor, American Justice School of Law
> >mpollack at ajsl.us
> >270-744-3300 x 28
> >articles http://works.bepress.com/malla_pollack/
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
> >[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
> >Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 7:01 PM
> >To: CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
> >Subject: RE: Partial Birth Act Upheld
> >
> >         Really?  Anyone who cares about actual people must as a logical
> >matter push for positive rights?  It's not possible that some caring
> >people might take the view that government funding for such matters is
> >counterproductive, or less effective than private funding?  It's not
> >possible that they might think that whatever the merits of such
> >programs, the Constitution does not support a "'minimum support' theory
> >of positive rights"?
> >
> >         It's one thing to argue in favor of positive rights; it's quite
> >another, it seems to me, to suggest that one's opponents must therefore
> >simply not "care about actual people."
> >
> >         Eugene
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
> > > [mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Earl Maltz
> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 4:56 PM
> > > To: Malla Pollack; medina at loyno.edu; 'Gilbert,Lauren'; 'Rick
> > > Duncan'; CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
> > > Subject: RE: Partial Birth Act Upheld
> > >
> > > This is an outright slander on those deeply-religious people
> > > who often devote substantial amounts of time on the ground
> > > working to improve the lives of poor people rather than
> > > sitting in an ivory tower pontificating about the need for
> > > some abstract constitutional theory.
> > >
> > > At 01:35 PM 4/18/2007 -0500, Malla Pollack wrote:
> > > >What I keep pointing out to my students in Con Law II is
> > > that persons
> > > >arguing for a state interest in "life per se" eg against
> > > assisted suicide,
> > > >abortion, etc, do not seem to care about actual people.   If
> > > they did, they
> > > >would push for a "minimum support" theory of positive
> > > rights.  Maybe I
> > > >am in the super minority, but I think that many abortions would not
> > > >requested if the the government acually provided affordable
> > > (i) child
> > > >day care, (ii) health care, and (iii) job training & jobs.
> > > >
> > > >I simply do not understand how caring for "life" can mean
> > > anything in
> > > >the absence of caring for people.
> > > >
> > > >Malla Pollack
> > > >Professor, American Justice School of Law mpollack at ajsl.us
> > > 270-744-3300
> > > >x 28 articles http://works.bepress.com/malla_pollack/
> > > >
> > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > >From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
> > > >[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of medina
> > > >Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 1:23 PM
> > > >To: Gilbert,Lauren; Rick Duncan; CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
> > > >Subject: RE: Partial Birth Act Upheld
> > > >
> > > >Lauren, I think it's striking how absent women are in
> > > Justice Kennedy's
> > > >opinion.  The opinion discusses the procedure extensively,
> > > physicians
> > > >and medical judgment but women appear as bystanders to the
> > > issue and to
> > > >"the abortion right."
> > > >
> > > >M. Isabel Medina
> > > >Ferris Family Professor of Law
> > > >Loyola University New Orleans
> > > >College of Law
> > > >7214 St. Charles Ave.
> > > >New Orleans, LA  70118
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >----- Original Message Follows -----
> > > >From: "Gilbert, Lauren" <lgilbert at stu.edu>
> > > >To: "Rick Duncan" <nebraskalawprof at yahoo.com>,
> > > ><CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu>
> > > >Subject: RE: Partial Birth Act Upheld
> > > >Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 14:08:15 -0400
> > > >
> > > > > How, may I ask, is this "a very good thing" for women who
> > > are denied
> > > > > the use of a medical procedure that many doctors say is often
> > > > > necessary to save their lives?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Lauren Gilbert
> > > > >
> > > > > Associate Professor of Law
> > > > >
> > > > > St. Thomas University School of Law
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > >
> > > > > From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
> > > > > [mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of
> > > Rick Duncan
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 1:28 PM
> > > > > To: CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
> > > > > Subject: RE: Partial Birth Act Upheld
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hmmm. Is this a criticism of the majority opinion? Or is
> > > the point
> > > > > that the abortion doctor does not "kill the fetus" or
> > > that the fetus
> > > > > is not a "living organism within the womb."
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > John Noonan used to write that Roe v. Wade was based upon
> > > a "mask"
> > > > > imposed by the law on the reality of abortion and the reality of
> > > > > human life in the womb.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I haven't read Justice Kennedy's opinion yet, but it
> > > sounds like he
> > > > > took the mask off abortion and focused on the reality of the
> > > > > abortion liberty.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And that is a very good thing for the Constitution, for
> > > our country,
> > > > > and for both men and women.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Rick Duncan
> > > > >
> > > > > Darren Hutchinson <dhutchinson at wcl.american.edu> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >     In the vein of law and literature, has anyone seen an
> > > abortion
> > > > > ruling that so graphically describes the procedures? Or
> > > which finds
> > > > > that the doctor "kills the fetus"?  Or that a fetus is a "living
> > > > > organism within the womb"?  Or which declares that "respect for
> > > > > human life finds an ultimate expression in the bond of love the
> > > > > mother has for her child"? The last phrase sounds a little like
> > > > > Justice Bradley in Bradwell v. Illinois.  I added the italics.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >     Darren Lenard Hutchinson
> > > > >
> > > > >     Professor of Law
> > > > >
> > > > >     American University, Washington College of Law
> > > > >
> > > > >     4801 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
> > > > >
> > > > >     Washington, D.C. 20016
> > > > >
> > > > >     Phone: (202) 274-4048
> > > > >
> > > > >     Fax: (202) 730-4587
> > > > >
> > > > >     Email: dhutchinson at wcl.american.edu
> > > > >
> > > > >     Webpage: http://wcl.american.edu/faculty/hutchinson/
> > > > >
> > > > >     -----Original Message-----
> > > > >     From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
> > > > > [mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Darren
> > > > > Hutchinson
> > > > >     Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 11:16 AM
> > > > >     To: 'Frank Cross'; 'Mark Tushnet'; 'ConLaw Prof'
> > > > >     Subject: Partial Birth Act Upheld
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >     Anyone have a copy of the opinion yet? I have
> > > searched without
> > > > > success.
> > > > >
> > > >http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/04/18/n
> > > ational/w0
> > > >7
> > > > > 5329D38.DTL&type=politics
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >     _______________________________________________
> > > > >     To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> > > > >     To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get
> > > password, see
> > > > > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
> > > > >
> > > > >     Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be
> > > > > viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read
> > > > > messages that are posted; people can read the Web
> > > archives; and list
> > > > > members can (rightly or
> > > > > wrongly) forward the messages to others.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Rick Duncan
> > > > > Welpton Professor of Law
> > > > > University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "It's a funny thing about us human beings: not many of us
> > > > > doubt God's existence and then start sinning. Most of us
> > > > > sin and then start doubting His existence."  --J.
> > > > > Budziszewski (The Revenge of Conscience)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Once again the ancient maxim is vindicated, that the
> > > > > perversion of the best is the worst." -- Id.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > >
> > > > > Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
> > > > > Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos.
> > > > >
> > > <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48245/*http:/autos.yahoo.com/n>
> > > ew_cars.html;_
> > > > > ylc=X3oDMTE1YW1jcXJ2BF9TAzk3MTA3MDc2BHNlYwNtYWlsdGFncwRzbG
> > > > > >  sDbmV3LWNhcnM-
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> > > > > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password
> > > > > , see
> > > > > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
> > > > >
> > > > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot
> > > > > be viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list
> > > > > and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web
> > > > > archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly)
> > > > > forward the messages to others.
> > > >_______________________________________________
> > > >To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> > > >To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> > > >http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
> > > >
> > > >Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
> > > >private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
> > > >posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members
> > > can (rightly or
> > > >wrongly) forward the messages to others.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >--
> > > >No virus found in this incoming message.
> > > >Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > > >Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.2/766 - Release
> > > Date: 4/18/2007
> > > >7:39 AM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >_______________________________________________
> > > >To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> > > >To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> > > >http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
> > > >
> > > >Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be
> > > viewed as
> > > >private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages
> > > that are
> > > >posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members
> > > can (rightly or
> > > >wrongly) forward the messages to others.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> > > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password,
> > > see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
> > >
> > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be
> > > viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read
> > > messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives;
> > > and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
> > > messages to others.
> > >
> >_______________________________________________
> >To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> >To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> >http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
> >
> >Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
> >private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
> >posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly
or
> >wrongly) forward the messages to others.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >No virus found in this incoming message.
> >Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.2/766 - Release Date: 4/18/2007
> >7:39 AM
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> >To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> >http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
> >
> >Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed
> >as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that
> >are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can
> >(rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
>
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.2/766 - Release Date: 4/18/2007
>7:39 AM




-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.2/766 - Release Date: 4/18/2007
7:39 AM




More information about the Conlawprof mailing list