Federal Preemption of State Regulation of Insurance: End of a 200-Year Era?

This article examines state regulation of insurance, focusingon congressional and judicial attempts to displace state regulatoryprimacy over insurance. After describing the early period ofstate insurance regulation from the U.S. Supreme Court's decisionin Paul v. Virginia to the Court's overruling of that decision,the article examines the McCarran-Ferguson Act and the post-McCarranenvironment, including examples of judicial preemption of stateinsurance laws. Finally, the article considers the system ofinsurance regulation envisioned in H.R. 1290, the most recentcongressional attempt to displace state insurance regulation,and state initiatives to counter federal regulation. AlthoughH.R.1290 purports to setup a dual regulatory scheme, the broadpreemption language in the bill would allow federal regulatorsto preempt virtually all state insurance laws. Moreover, thedecisions of the Supreme Court in Garcia v. San Antonio MetropolitanTransit Authority and Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Councilwould leave no political or judicial forum for states to debatethe extent and impact of federal preemption     

The Changing Paradigm of Pacific Regional Politics

Abstract

Analyses of recent developments in Pacific regional politics have emphasized the role of ideas and new thinking about how the Pacific should engage in global and regional diplomacy (the so-called ‘paradigm shift’). These ideas include the call for regional self-determination, the claim that Pacific island states need to engage more assertively in global diplomacy, the call for a ‘genuine Pacific voice’ to be heard in global forums, recognition that a ‘one region approach’ need not be the best approach, the reconfiguring of diplomatic alliances to leverage Pacific island positions better in global forums, and embracing non-state actors as equal partners. The importance of this paradigm shift is that it challenges many prevailing stereotypes and assumptions about Pacific islands diplomacy. It recognizes and facilitates choices and alternatives. It emphasizes the imperative of being proactive and of taking responsibility for the challenges facing the Pacific islands; and being creative in finding solutions. This is a fundamentally empowering transformation. But in order to understand where this might lead, it is necessary to explore where this transformation has so far played out. Case studies at the national, regional and global levels give insights into the impact and potential of the new Pacific diplomacy.     

Alternatives to incarceration: Commnity-based alternatives for juveniles

This research deals with the problems associated with the juvenile rehabilitative efforts in the United States today. Using the recidivism rates for juveniles, the studies by Zingraff on resocialization, and Zimbardo’s Stanford House experiment, this paper seeks to show that the present form of institutionalization and treatment is not conducive to rehabilitating the juvenile offenders. Communitybased corrections is suggested as alternatives to the failing present system. The alternatives discussed include diversion strategies such as Project Crossroads in Washington, B.C. and the Sacramento 601 Diversion Process in California. Other alternatives given include group homes such as the Highfields Project and the Silverlake Experiment, foster homes, and family homes. Correctional day care centers are also a viable alternative to incarceration. The GUIDE Program in California, and the Parkland Project in Kentucky, and the Utah Pinehills Experiment are examples of this type of Program. Halfway houses are also used to help juveniles adjust to society and to prevent them from having to submit to total incarceration. Advantages and disadvantages to each of these alternatives are provided. Although some of these experiments have failed, these efforts appear to be less costly, more effective, and less damaging than institutionalization of offenders.     

Tullock on motivated inquiry: expert-induced uncertainty disguised as risk

Gordon Tullock denied scientific status to economics because economists can trade results with the subject of our analysis. We suppose this trading to be the fate of all disciplines in which the results have consequences for well-being of those studied. Non-transparent trading in a statistical context gives no reason to believe that the sampling distribution of the estimates will be what it is believed to be. This false belief turns risk to uncertainty. Taking trading between experts and subjects as inevitable, we ask if the trade is fair. When scientific unanimity fails, can Rawlsian unanimity replace it?