What is the role of the state in mans final end? This question provides the framework for exploration in my Church & State seminar. We begin the course with the Decalogue or Ten Commandments from the Books of Exodus and Deuteronomy1 as the first legislative document that informs the people how to live for the purposes of ordering their lives with the divine. It is also the point where civil and religious governance are united in the person of Moses as judge. While this document offers no form of government, it creates a foundation for order through behavior that comports with the will of God. Accretions of laws and regulations follow for centuries, but instead of being followed to worship the one true God, they were followed for worldly gain, inspiring the prophets to preach repentance and the turning of hearts back to God. It is only with the Incarnation that we see God expressing in the person of Jesus Christ the fulfillment of the whole of the Law, making it publicly known that simply obeying the laws is not enough when the goal of compliance is not the fulfillment of a code, but eternal life.
Natural law. To some, combining these two words to describe one concept can elicit seemingly contradictory ideas. The word natural can evoke ideas of nature and the natural world, while the word law may initially conjure thoughts of the governments of man. One may, therefore, ask how these two potentially opposite worlds can be combined into one phrase. There is no singularly agreed upon answer to this potential conundrum, but the essence of natural law may be said to lie in the constant assertion that there are objective moral principles which depend upon the nature of the universe[.]
In an increasingly competitive business world, securing and maintaining an advantage over ones rivals in the marketplace is a perennial challenge. In this regard, the distinctiveness of a well-established and renowned trademark is perhaps one of the most cherished and jealously guarded assets that a modern business can possess. Yet famous trademarks are also popular targets of ridicule and satire. To what extent should trademark law in the United States allow individuals to poke fun at and lampoon well-known trade symbols that are used to sell goods or services in the marketplace? Does the existing parody provision in the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of the United States provide adequate protection to famous trademarks while striking a fair balance between intellectual property rights and the freedom of expression?
The American Bar Associations Model Rules of Professional Conduct (Rules), adopted by every state legislature except California, include a prescription for the duties and responsibilities of the legal profession. In the Preamble, the Rules begin with the well-known premise and directive that lawyers should be zealous advocates in serving their clients interests. The Rules further require that lawyers strive to prove facts and to provide legal bases in support of those interests, to abide by their clients decisions regarding the objectives of representation, and to consult with their clients on the means pursued to reach those objectives.
In the summer of 2009, Carter was a five-year-old boy with severe autism. On a daily basis, he had one to several tantrums lasting around an hour that involved kicking, screaming, and biting other people. He also suffered from pica, an eating disorder where he would eat or attempt to eat non-food items. He refused to walk peacefully with his parents in public places and often ran away from his family unprovoked, sometimes into very real danger, like on-coming traffic. He struggled to fall asleep on his own, and when he did fall asleep, he woke up nearly every hour and attempted to run out of the house. His mother had to sleep in his room to calm him down and restrain him several times a night. On one occasion, Carters mother failed to respond quickly enough, and Carter ended up outside, in a pond, in the middle of the night, in the dead of winter. Carter did not communicate with other individuals; in fact, he had never communicated effectively with another human being, or even so much as spoken an intelligible word to anyone or anything. Carter could not focus on any one task or person because he was constantly distracting himself by stimming or scripting.
The principle of subrogation1 of Medicare payments from its beneficiaries is not new, nor is it terribly complex on its face. A brief but common fact situation can be used to illustrate the circumstances to which this Comment attempts to speak. Betty, a sixty-seven-year-old retiree, is driving through an intersection when a large truck runs a stop light and collides with her vehicle. She is immediately taken to the hospital for severe injuries. Over the course of several months, she undergoes the litany of medical treatment that is associated with such trauma. Betty hires an attorney to represent her injury claim against the negligent driver on a standard contingency fee basis. The attorney proceeds to negotiate a settlement, but the extent of Bettys injuries is not yet known, and thus the value of her claim is yet to be determined. In the meantime, she needs care. Because she is an eligible beneficiary, Medicare will pay for her treatment,2 and let us assume that she successfully recovers from the liability3 insurance provider. This Comment will not simply highlight Medicares right to recover its payments when Betty recovers from the liability carrier. Rather, it is the process of that recovery and its evolving impact on the litigation of tortious injuries that calls for comment.