Suchergebnisse

Federal criminal law frequently deals with the problem of corruption in the form of purchased political influence. There appear to be two distinct bodies of federal anti-corruption law — one concerning campaign finance regulation, and one addressing corruption in the form of such crimes as bribery, extortion by public officials, and gratuities to them. The latter body of law presents primarily issues of statutory construction, but it may be desirable for courts approaching these issues to have an animating theory of what corruption is and how to deal with it. At the moment, the two bodies of law look like two ships passing in the night. The Supreme Court has rendered important decisions in both areas. However, it is only in the campaign finance cases that the Court has articulated a vision of corruption. A well-known recent example is the 2010 decision in Federal Election Commission v. Citizens United. There the Court stated that "influence" and "access" brought about through campaign support, including contributions, are not corruption. The Court appears to embrace a narrow view of what is corruption, tied closely to the concept of quid pro quo. This Article raises the question whether cases such as Citizens United and other campaign finance decisions should have generative force outside the electoral context. I contend that they should not — that preventing purchased political influence, whether generalized or particularized, is central to the federal anti-corruption enterprise. The matter is presented both on a theoretical level, and through examination of Supreme Court cases in what might be called the field of "ordinary corruption." This examination yields an unclear picture. Some cases appear to be in harmony with the campaign finance decisions, raising the possibility that the Court does hold a unified view of corruption. However, the decision in Evans v. United States embraces a broad view of corruption in construing a key federal statute: the Hobbs Act. Evans has had extraordinary generative force in the lower federal courts. In particular, they have diluted any requirement of specificity in the concept of quid pro quo by emphasizing the presence of a "stream of benefits" as a means of securing somewhat generalized influence with public officials. The lower courts have thus reached results that further broad anti-corruption goals while ignoring intimations of a narrow view in the campaign finance cases. To the extent that the Supreme Court may extend this narrow view to ordinary corruption, the result could, as it has in the past, be a major ruling reining in the lower courts. The two ships would, in effect, collide.

Abstract
Rural America is shaped by a conflicted sense of the ordinary: a place where a pastoral imagination of the countryside overlaps with, obscures, and, at times, is obscured by images of addiction and economic abandonment. This essay explores how these two senses of the ordinary are interdependent: how the possibility of a postindustrial future depends on the abjection of a deindustrial present. The essay approaches this problem through the analytic lenses of three scenes along a road known as "heroin highway" in rural New York. Tracing the ambivalence of these ordinary scenes makes it possible to see people and places excluded from the American dream as essential products of its logic.

Emphasising implicit assumptions behind our ways of seeing 'slums', this essay calls for a radical understanding of 'ordinary neighbourhoods'. Borrowing from Robinson's 'ordinary cities' concept, it conceptualises 'ordinariness' as a way of rejecting the 'absolute otherness' of slums, stressing heterogeneity within and between neighbourhoods as well as the significance of comparative empirical research. Beyond the need for alternative, less stigmatised terms, the article urges for a new territorial ethics, a radical deconstruction and de-mystification of the 'slum'. Such conceptualisation should make aware of the term 'slum' as a non-physical, spatially detached social construct that discredits marginalised people and diverts attention away from precarious living conditions and possible ways of improving them.

Best Book of 2021 -Esquire? Featured on Good Morning America "A meticulous cartography of how outer forces shape young people's inner lives." -Esquire, Best Books of 2021 In conversation with young adults and experts alike, journalist Rainesford Stauffer explores how the incessant pursuit of a "best life" has put extraordinary pressure on young adults today, across our personal and professional lives-and how ordinary, meaningful experiences may instead be the foundation of a fulfilled and contented life. Young adulthood: the time of our lives when, theoretically, anything can happen, and the pressure is on to make sure everything does. Social media has long been the scapegoat for a generation of unhappy young people, but perhaps the forces working beneath us-wage stagnation, student debt, perfectionism, and inflated costs of living-have a larger, more detrimental impact on the world we post to our feeds. An Ordinary Age puts young adults at the center as Rainesford Stauffer examines our obsessive need to live and post our #bestlife, and the culture that has defined that life on narrow, and often unattainable, terms. From the now required slate of (often unpaid) internships, to the loneliness epidemic, to the stress of "finding yourself" through school, work, and hobbies-the world is demanding more of young people these days than ever before. And worse, it's leaving little room for our generation to ask the big questions about who they want to be, and what makes a life feel meaningful. Perhaps we're losing sight of the things that fulfill us: strong relationships, real roots in a community, and the ability to question how we want our lives to look and feel, even when that's different from what we see on the 'Gram. Stauffer makes the case that many of our most formative young adult moments are the ordinary ones: finding our people and sticking with them, learning to care for ourselves on our own terms, and figuring out who we are when the other stuff-the GPAs, job titles, the filters-fall away

Translation of La Belgique héroique et vaillante. ; "Awarded the Audiffred prize by the French Academy of Moral and Political Science." ; Mode of access: Internet.

The World's second oldest system of judicial review of national legislation emerged through court practice from the very first years after the adoption of the Constitution of Norway in 1814. The review is exercised by the ordinary courts at all levels with the single Supreme Court as the last instance. No specialized constitutional court has been established. The independence of the judiciary is generally recognized as high. But what degree of legitimacy should judges appointed in order to ensure ordinary judicial business enjoy when exercising a basically political function like reviewing and possibly setting aside acts of Parliament?

This short story, written and hidden in 1953, found in 1971, remains unpublishable in Czechoslovakia Bohumil Hrabal is one of the best and most original contemporary Czech story-tellers. Unable to publish his work for many years, he was fifty when his books started coming out during the 'thaw' in the 1960s, and he was the author of Closely Observed Trains, made famous by Jiří Menzel's film of the same name. Together with the surrealist poet and musician Karel Marysko and the literary historian Professor Václav Černý, he is a character in his own story, this record of an ordinary day in the Czechoslovakia of the fifties when the Stalinist terror was at its height. On another level, the main hero of this particular story is time: although written as long ago as 1953, it has so far not appeared even in samizdat; the author himself added a postscript 18 years later, in 1971. The second postscript comes from Index on Censorship another 13 years on, 31 years after this hitherto unpublished story was written.