An Automated System for Argument Invention in Law Using Argumentation and Heuristic Search Procedures*

Abstract. A heuristic search procedure for inventing legal arguments is built on two tools already widely in use in argumentation. Argumentation schemes are forms of argument representing premise‐conclusion and inference structures of common types of arguments. Schemes especially useful in law represent defeasible arguments, like argument from expert opinion. Argument diagramming is a visualization tool used to display a chain of connected arguments linked together. One such tool, Araucaria, available free at http://araucaria.computing.dundee.ac.uk/ , helps a user display an argument on the computer screen as an inverted tree structure with an ultimate conclusion as the root of the tree. These argumentation tools are applicable to analyzing a mass of evidence in a case at trial, in a manner already known in law using heuristic methods ( Schum 1994 ) and Wigmore diagrams ( Wigmore 1931 ). In this paper it is shown how they can be automated and applied to the task of inventing legal arguments. One important application is to proof construction in trial preparation ( Palmer 2003 ).     

Business Management Reform in the Department of Defense in Anticipation of Declining Budgets

Business management reform efforts have been part of the U.S. Defense Department agenda for decades. Current reform efforts have explicitly established the goal of generating, harvesting, and reinvesting savings from business management reform to buy more capital items; that is, they have focused on a measurable reallocation from operating and support costs to investment within a given budget top line. Recent increases in the defense top line, largely related to the war on terrorism, are not likely to persist; in addition, an examination of the factors affecting the top line suggests that a decline in the near term is likely. An examination of current and past defense management reforms suggests that efficiency‐seeking business management reforms are not likely to generate sufficient resources to cover a budget decline. Instead, management reform should be sustained for reasons of stewardship and accountability.     

Argument from Expert Opinion as Legal Evidence: Critical Questions and Admissibility Criteria of Expert Testimony in the American Legal System*

Abstract. While courts depend on expert opinions in reaching sound judgments, the role of the expert witness in legal proceedings is associated with a litany of problems. Perhaps most prevalent is the question of under what circumstances should testimony be admitted as expert opinion. We review the changing policies adopted by American courts in an attempt to ensure the reliability and usefulness of the scientific and technical information admitted as evidence. We argue that these admissibility criteria are best seen in a dialectical context as a set of critical questions of the kind commonly used in models of argumentation.     

Africa’s Initial Encounter with Texas: The Significance of Afro‐Tejanos in Colonial Tejas, 1528–1821*

The topic of African slavery and the role of Afro‐Tejanos in Texas during the period of Spanish colonial rule has been totally neglected. Primary sources used in this study discuss Afro‐Tejano family life, economic activities, military duties, and their experiences both as slaves and as individuals who gained their freedom. Hispanic treatment of Africans gradually became more enlightened by the eighteenth century to the point that Afro‐Tejanos suffered a decline in their overall standard of living after Texas became an independent republic in 1836. The relationship of Afro‐Tejanos to Mexico’s current total of 500,000 Afro‐Mexicans is an issue of contemporary relevance because of recent efforts in Mexico to highlight its African heritage.     

Divided Government and Congressional Investigations

This article explores the political determinants of congressional investigatory activity. Using Mayhew's list of high‐profile probes updated through 2006, we developed five measures of the frequency and intensity of investigative oversight. Contra Mayhew, we found that divided government spurs congressional investigatory activity. A shift from unified to divided government yields a five‐fold increase in the number of hearings held and quadruples their duration. Conditional party government models also offer explanatory leverage because homogeneous majorities are more likely to investigate the president in divided government and less likely to do so in unified government. This dynamic is strongest in the House, but analyses of the Senate also afford consistent, if muted, evidence of partisan agenda control.     

Spending Stabilization Rules: A Solution to Recurring State Budget Crises?

Recurring state fiscal crises raise a fundamental question: Is it possible to stabilize budgets over the business cycle? This paper examines spending stabilization rules, an alternative to the inaccurate process of budget forecasting. Under two spending rules, we assess how state budget situations would compare with actual experience. Our analysis reconstructs recent aggregate state budget patterns assuming states had adopted a rule and then takes a closer look at California and South Carolina. With surpluses partially invested in a rainy‐day fund, a spending rule resulted in stable growth of state budgets throughout the recession and sluggish recovery of the early 2000s.