第十四天

我想,刚刚过去的这个冬天,将永远被人们铭记。我们看见,因为突如其来的疫情,这不寻常的数十天里,被填进了太多焦虑和泪水、慌乱与等待、感动和愤怒、失去与祝福...我们看见,英雄逆流而上,而更多的普通人,只好把身体囚于寸土,情感疲于奔命。     

安乐死"合法性"的法理分析

安乐死“合法性”研究应是“合法化”研究的前导。否则后者很可能陷入盲目。从逻辑上说,“安乐死合法性”具有三种可能内涵:安乐死不违法;依法律施行安乐死;安乐死是一种权利。分析表明,第一种和第三种安乐死合法性尚不能被现代法权系统承认。各国安乐死立法主要体现了第二种安乐死合法性。第一种安乐死合法性容易被遗忘和忽视;第二种安乐死合法性目前遭到了广泛的误解;第三种安乐死合法性则是误解的产物并且超出了法律的维度。     

Conforming to the rule of law: when person and human being finally mean the same thing in Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence

The Fourteenth Amendment was intended to protect people from discrimination and harm from other people. Racism is not the only thing people need protection from. As a constitutional principle, the Fourteenth Amendment is not confined to its historical origin and purpose, but is available now to protect all human beings, including all unborn human beings. The Supreme Court can define "person" to include all human beings, born and unborn. It simply chooses not to do so. Science, history and tradition establish that unborn humans are, from the time of conception, both persons and human beings, thus strongly supporting an interpretation that the unborn meet the definition of "person" under the Fourteenth Amendment. The legal test used to extend constitutional personhood to corporations, which are artificial "persons" under the law, is more than met by the unborn, demonstrating that the unborn deserve the status of constitutional personhood. There can be no "rule of law" if the Constitution continues to be interpreted to perpetuate a discriminatory legal system of separate and unequal for unborn human beings. Relying on the reasoning of the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court may overrule Roe v. Wade solely on the grounds of equal protection. Such a result would not return the matter of abortion to the states. The Fourteenth Amendment, properly interpreted, would thereafter prohibit abortion in every state.     

安乐死"合法性"的法理分析

安乐死“合法性”研究应是“合法化”研究的前导.否则后者很可能陷入盲目.从逻辑上说,“安乐死合法性”具有三种可能内涵：安乐死不违法;依法律施行安乐死;安乐死是一种权利.分析表明,第一种和第三种安乐死合法性尚不能被现代法权系统承认.各国安乐死立法主要体现了第二种安乐死合法性.第一种安乐死合法性容易被遗忘和忽视;第二种安乐死合法性目前遭到了广泛的误解;第三种安乐死合法性则是误解的产物并且超出了法律的维度.     

The legality of employee attitude surveys in union environments

Employee attitude surveys are becoming an increasingly popular tool for employers. A host of legal implications, such as the circumstances under which they can be used, what they can ask, and whether or not they are a subject of mandatory bargaining, arise when surveys are conducted by companies that have an incumbent union or by companies that are involved in union-organizing campaigns. The following article describes the survey process, outlines some of the inherent advantages and pitfalls, and examines the legal questions raised when surveys are used by nonunion employers, by employers with incumbent unions, and by employers who are involved in union-organizing-campaigns. It concludes with recommendations for employers that undertake attitude surveys.