DOCSLIB.ORG

Galatasaray Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 2018/2

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Galatasaray Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 2018/2 Galatasaray Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 2018/2 TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Hakemli Dergi Galatasaray Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi - 2009/2 Baş Galatasaray Üniversitesi Yayını No : 91 Galatasaray Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi No : 70 Galatasaray Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Bilimsel Hakemli Dergidir. Bu esere ilişkin olarak Fikir ve Sanat Eserleri Kanunu’ndan doğan haklar saklıdır. Burada yer alan makalelerde ileri sürülen görüşler yazarlarına aittir. Yayın Kurulu, makalelerde ileri sürülen görüşlerden dolayı herhangi bir sorumluluk üstlenmemektedir. YAYIN KURULU DANIŞMA KURULU Prof. Dr. Necmi YÜZBAŞIOĞLU (Başkan) Prof. Dr. Baki İlkay ENGİN (İstanbul Üni.) Doç. Dr. E. Eylem AKSOY RETORNAZ Prof. Dr. Cemal Bâli AKAL (İstanbul Bilgi Üni.) Doç. Dr. Tuba AKÇURA KARAMAN Prof. Osman Korkut KANADOĞLU (Girne Üni.) Arş. Gör. Dr. Ali Cenk KESKİN Prof. Dr. M. Turgut ÖZ (Kültür Üni.) Arş. Gör. Dilşad KUĞUOĞLU Prof. Dr. Oktay UYGUN (Yeditepe Üni.) HAKEM KURULU Prof. Dr. Ekrem Ali AKARTÜRK Doç. Dr. Anlam ALTAY Prof. Dr. Mouloud BOUMGHAR Doç. Dr. Serap AMASYA Prof. Dr. Erdoğan BÜLBÜL Doç. Dr. Ebru CEYLAN Prof. Dr. Murat DEVELİOĞLU Doç. Dr. Zeynel KANGAL Prof. Dr. Osman Korkut KANADOĞLU Doç. Dr. Ecehan YEŞİLOVA ARAS Prof. Dr. Emre ÖKTEM Doç. Dr. Didem YILMAZ Prof. Dr. Şule ÖZSOY BOYUNSUZ Doç. Dr. Fülürya YUSUFOĞLU Prof. Dr. Ahmet Ulvi TÜRKBAĞ Doç. Dr. Saadet YÜKSEL Prof. Dr. Oktay UYGUN Dr. Öğr. Üyesi H. Bige AÇIMUZ Prof. Dr. Samim ÜNAN Dr. Öğr. Üyesi Özge AKSOYLU Prof. Dr. Zeynep Özlem ÜSKÜL ENGİN Dr. Öğr. Üyesi Nur BOLAYIR Doç. Dr. Olgun AKBULUT Dr. Öğr. Üyesi H. Ali DURAL Doç. Dr. Tuba AKÇURA KARAMAN Dr. Öğr. Üyesi Mehtap İPEK İŞLETEN Doç. Dr. Güçlü AKYÜREK Dr. Öğr. Üyesi Beril ÖZCANLI Galatasaray Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi’nin bu sayısı 2018 yılının Aralık ayında yayımlanmıştır. ISSN : 1303-6556 Dizgi/Mizanpaj : Beta Basım A.Ş. / Veysel Coşkun Bask›-Cilt : Birlik Fotokopi Baskı Ozalit Gıda San. Tic. Ltd. Şti. Nispetiye Mah. Birlik Sokak No: 2 Nevin Arıcan Plaza 1. Levent/Beşiktaş/İst. Tel: (0212) 269 30 00 (Sertifika No: 20179) Kapak Tasarımı: Veysel Coşkun Beta BASIM YAYIM DAĞITIM A.Ş. Narlıbahçe Sokak No: 11 (Sertifika No. 16136) Cağaloğlu - İSTANBUL Tel : (0-212) 511 54 32 - 519 01 77 Fax: (0-212) 511 36 50 www.betayayincilik.com GALATASARAY ÜNİVERSİTESİ HUKUK FAKÜLTESİ Çırağan Caddesi, No. 36, Ortaköy 34357 İSTANBUL e-posta: [email protected] İçindekiler KAMU HUKUKU Dr. Öğr. Üyesi H. Bige AÇIMUZ ..................................................................................3 Doğal Risklerin Değerlendirilmesi Çerçevesinde İdare Hukuku ve Bilim Arasındaki İlişki Üzerine Düşünceler Reflexions on the Relation Between Administrative Law and Science in the Context of Natural Hazard Assessment Dr. Öğr. Üyesi Gülşah BOSTANCI BOZBAYINDIR ................................................51 Avrupa Birliği Ceza Hukuku’nda Polis ve Ceza Adaleti Otoritelerine Yönelik 2018/680 Sayılı Direktif: Kişisel Verilerin Ceza Adalet Mekanizmalarında Korunmasına Getirilen Standartlar ve Direktife Yönelik Eleştiriler The Police and Criminal Justice Authorities 2018/680 Directive: Data Protection Standarts with regard to the Processing of Personal Data by Component Authorities and Critics Against the Directive Dr. Öğr. Üyesi Aslan DELİCE...................................................................................105 Değerler Hiyerarşisi Olarak Temel Norm: Anayasa Hierarchy of Values As a Basic Norm: Constitution Dr. Öğr. Üyesi Berke ÖZENÇ ...................................................................................129 The Impact of the European Convention on Human Rights on the Legal Order of Turkey: Achievements and Problems İnsan Hakları Avrupa Sözleşmesi’nin Türkiye’nin Hukuk Düzenine Etkisi: Kazanımlar ve Sorunlar Dr. Öğr. Üyesi Serkan YOLCU .................................................................................157 Siyasetin Yargısallaşmasının Hükümet Sistemine Etkisi Üzerine Bir İnceleme: Moldova’nın Anayasal Zaman Yolculuğu A Review on the Impact of Judicialization of Politics on Government System: Constitutio- nal Time Travel of Moldova Dr. Gonca EROL ........................................................................................................201 Hakimlerin Belirlenmesinde “Merit Selection” Yöntemi “Merit Selection” of Judges Arş. Gör. Nuray SÜMER ...........................................................................................267 Şartlı Feragate İlişkin Danıştay Kararının Düşündürdükleri Considerations of the Council of the State’s decision on Retraxit Conditionally Av. Mehmet Faruk KOÇAK ......................................................................................285 Fikri Mülkiyet Haklarının AİHM Kararlarına Göre Korunması The Protection for Intellectual Property Rights Before the ECHR ÖZEL HUKUK Dr. Öğr. Üyesi Ece BAŞ SÜZEL ................................................................................339 Mesafeli Sözleşmelerde Tüketicinin Sözleşmenin Kurulmasından Önce Korunması: Ön Bilgilendirme Yükümlülüğü Pre-Contractual Information Duties in Distance Contracts Arş. Gör. Mehmet Emin ALPASLAN ......................................................................371 Anayasa Mahkemesi’nin Sıra Cetveline İlişkin Bir Kararının Değerlendirilmesi Evaluation of a Constitutional Court Decision About the Collocation Plan Arş. Gör. Doğan KARA .............................................................................................401 İnternette Linkler Yoluyla Umuma İletim Hakkına Müdahale: Avrupa Birliği Adalet Divanı’nın 13 Şubat 2014 Tarihli Svensson ve Diğerleri, Retriever Sverige AB’ye Karşı Kararının İncelenmesi Violations of the Rights of Communication to the Public on the Internet via Linking: Examination of the Decision dated 13 February 2014 “Nils Svensson, Sten Sjögren, Madelaine Sahlman and Pia Gadd v. Retriever Sverige AB” of the Court of Justice of the European Union Arş. Gör. Zeynep Damla TAŞKIN ............................................................................429 İfasına Başlanmış Sürekli Edimli Sözleşmelerde Borçlu Temerrüdü ve Sonuçları Debtor’s Default and Its Consequences in Contınuous Contracts Where Performance Has Already Begun Arş. Gör. Kübra YILDIZ ..........................................................................................425 Kambiyo Hukukuna Özgü Bir Kişisel Güvence Türü: Aval A Type of Personal Guarantee Pertaining to Law of Exchange: Aval Av. Ali Ergin ÇELEBİ................................................................................................517 Şirketler Topluluğunda Hâkim Şirket Pay Sahiplerinin Bağlı Şirketler Hakkında Bilgi Alma Hakkı Right to Obtaın Information of Parent Company’s Shareholders Regarding Subsıdıaries in the Group of Companies PROF. DR. ERDOĞAN TEZİÇ’İ ANMA GÜNÜ: TÜRKİYE’NİN GÜNCEL ANAYASA HUKUKU SORUNLARI Prof. Dr. Sultan TAHMAZOĞLU ÜZELTÜRK .....................................................583 Parlemento İşlemleri ve Kanun Kavramı Doç.Dr. Didem YILMAZ ...........................................................................................603 Olağanüstü Halde Yasamanın Düzenleyici İşlemlerinin Hukuki Rejimi Doç. Dr. Özen ÜLGEN ...............................................................................................620 Cumhurbaşkanlığı Kararnameleri: İlk Gözlemler Prof. Dr. Korkut Kanadoğlu .....................................................................................637 Cumhurbaşkanlığı Kararnamesi Prof. Dr. Necmi YÜZBAŞIOĞLU.............................................................................651 Türkiye’de Yapılan Seçimler (1950-2018) ve Seçim Sonuçlarının Demokrasimize Yansımaları Prof. Dr. Şule ÖZSOY BOYUNSUZ .........................................................................671 Başkanlık Sistemlerin Seçim Sistemi Hükümet Sistemi Etkileşimi Prof. Dr. Ekrem Ali AKARTÜRK ............................................................................687 Siyasal Partiler Hukukunun Güncel Sorunları Prof. Dr. Oktay UYGUN ...........................................................................................703 Egemenlik Teorisi ve Anayasayı Değiştirme Sorunu Doç. Dr. Demirhan Burak Çelik ...............................................................................725 Erdoğan Teziç’in Gözünden Kuruluş Dönemi Anayasacılığımız Arş. Gör. Burcu Alkış ................................................................................................741 Egemenliği Kullanan Bir Organ Olarak Anayasa Mahkemesi GALATASARAY ÜNİVERSİTESİ HUKUK FAKÜLTESİ DERGİSİ YAYIN İLKELERİ 1. Galatasaray Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, hakemli ulusal bir dergidir; Haziran ve Aralık aylarında olmak üzere yılda iki kez ya- yımlanmakta olup, 2016 yılından beri TÜBİTAK-ULAKBİM Hukuk Veri Tabanında dizinlenmektedir. 2. Dergiye gönderilen yazılar, başka bir yerde yayımlanmamış ya da yayımlanmak üzere gönderilmemiş olmalıdır. 3. Yazılar, [email protected] e-posta adresine Word formatında gönderilmelidir. Gönderilen metin yazarın kimliğini belirleyecek herhangi bir ifade içermemelidir. Yazar, gönderdiği e-posta içinde, adını-soyadını, (varsa) akademik unvanını, orcid.org adresinden ala- cağı araştırmacı kimlik numarasını, çalıştığı kurumu, iletişim adresi- ni, telefon numarasını ve e-posta adresini bildirmelidir. 4. Derginin yayın dili Türkçe, İngilizce, Fransızca, Almanca ve İtal- yanca dilleridir. Bu dillerin dışındaki eserlerin kabulü Yayın Kurulu kararına bağlıdır. Her yazı, en az 100 en fazla 200 sözcükten oluşan Türkçe ve İngilizce kısa öz (abstract), her iki dilde başlık ve beşer
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Wuomivg LAW REVIEW
    University of Wyoming College of Law WYOMING LAW REVIEW VOLUME 8 2008 NUMBER 2 Published semiannually under the auspices of the University of Wyoming College of Law and the Wyoming State Bar. WYOMING LAW REVIEW Copyright © 2008 by the University of Wyoming All rights reserved. Cover and text printed on acid-free paper manufactured from recycled fiber. To Be Cited As: WYO. L. REV. MEMBER: NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON LAW REVIEWS SUBSCRIPTION TERMS: United States ............................................................................................................. $18 per year Elsewhere .................................................................................................................. $19 per year Wyoming State Bar Members .................................................................................... $15 per year Single Issues .............................................................................................................. $10 per issue Back Issues ................................................................................................................ $12 per issue NOTE: There will be an extra charge of 30 cents per issue on single and back orders for subscribers outside the North American Continent. The WYOMING LAW REVIEW follows the custom of other law reviews in automatically billing subscribers in advance for a new year unless notified to the contrary. Subscribers who move or change their mailing address should notify the Law Review office promptly. Issues returned because of an incorrect mailing
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States
    No. 137, Original IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ———— October Term 2014 ———— STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF WYOMING and STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA, Defendants. ———— SECOND INTERIM REPORT OF THE SPECIAL MASTER (LIABILITY ISSUES) ———— BARTON H. THOMPSON, JR. Special Master Stanford, California December 29, 2014 WILSON-EPES PRINTING CO., INC. – (202) 789-0096 – WASHINGTON, D. C. 20002 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................ viii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................... xxi I. INTRODUCTION ..................................... 1 II. THE RECORD .......................................... 3 III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ..................... 4 A. The Tongue River ................................ 4 B. Tongue River Water Use ..................... 8 1. Wyoming’s use of the Tongue River ............................................... 9 2. Montana’s use of the Tongue River ........................................................ 10 C. The Tongue River Reservoir ............... 12 IV. LEGAL BACKGROUND .......................... 14 A. The Yellowstone River Compact ......... 14 1. Key provisions of the Compact ...... 14 2. Difficulties in administering the Compact .......................................... 18 B. Western Water Law ............................ 18 C. The Northern Cheyenne Compact ...... 22 V. PROCEDURAL HISTORY ....................... 24 A. Montana v. Wyoming, 131 S. Ct. 1765 (2011) ................................................... 25 B. Subsequent Pre-Trial Proceedings ....
    [Show full text]
  • Wyoming Rules of Evidence 701-706: Opinions and Expert Testimony
    Land & Water Law Review Volume 13 Issue 3 Article 7 1978 Wyoming Rules of Evidence 701-706: Opinions and Expert Testimony Margaret E. Plumb Mary Kay Lundwall Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.uwyo.edu/land_water Recommended Citation Plumb, Margaret E. and Lundwall, Mary Kay (1978) "Wyoming Rules of Evidence 701-706: Opinions and Expert Testimony," Land & Water Law Review: Vol. 13 : Iss. 3 , pp. 975 - 995. Available at: https://scholarship.law.uwyo.edu/land_water/vol13/iss3/7 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by Law Archive of Wyoming Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Land & Water Law Review by an authorized editor of Law Archive of Wyoming Scholarship. Plumb and Lundwall: Wyoming Rules of Evidence 701-706: Opinions and Expert Testimony WYOMING RULES OF EVIDENCE 701-706: OPINIONS AND EXPERT TESTIMONY In April 1977, the Wyoming Supreme Court adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence as the Wyoming Rules of Evidence, to become effective January 1, 1978. Article VII was adopted without any substantial changes' and the purpose of this Comment is to explore the six rules and their probable ap- plication in Wyoming courts. 2 RULE 701: OPINION TESTIMONY BY LAY WITNESSES Rule 701 provides the standard for opinion testimony by a lay witness. To be admissible, the lay opinion must be "ra- tionally based on the perception of the witness" and it must be "helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony or the determination of a fact in issue." The first requirement of Rule 701 restricts the witness's testimony to matters within his personal knowledge and observation, hence requiring that a competent foundation be laid for the testimony.3 The sec- ond requirement guards against the admission of superfluous opinion testimony and is comparable to a relevancy require- ment.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Apportionment Open Educational Resources and Data
    Humboldt State University Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University Congressional Apportionment Open Educational Resources and Data 9-2016 Congressional Apportionment: A Liberal Arts Perspective Charles M. Biles Humboldt State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/apportionment Recommended Citation Biles, Charles M., "Congressional Apportionment: A Liberal Arts Perspective" (2016). Congressional Apportionment. 24. http://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/apportionment/24 This Articles and Essays is brought to you for free and open access by the Open Educational Resources and Data at Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Congressional Apportionment by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Congressional Apportionment: A Liberal Arts Perspective Charles M. Biles, Ph.D. Professor of Mathematics, Emeritus Humboldt State University Arcata, CA 20 September 2016 Preface Congressional apportionment of the United States House of Representatives is a popular topic in several liberal arts or general education mathematics textbooks. This work is produced in the belief that any illustrative applications of mathematics should be presented at the same high level as the mathematics. Since congressional apportionment is such a mainstay as a principle example of a mathematical, fixed resource problem, we believe that a more thorough presentation of the topic as it unfolded in American history is in order. Accordingly we dedicate five individual topics under the general heading of apportionment: averages and rounding, the basic divisor method, the quota method, the modified divisor method, and priority computational techniques. This work is intended as an open source endeavor.
    [Show full text]
  • Article VII of the Wyoming Rules of Evidence Witnesses
    Land & Water Law Review Volume 13 Issue 3 Article 6 1978 Article VII of the Wyoming Rules of Evidence Witnesses Steven M. Leigh Richard R. Wilking Richard E. Hopper, Jr. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.uwyo.edu/land_water Recommended Citation Leigh, Steven M.; Wilking, Richard R.; and Hopper, Jr., Richard E. (1978) "Article VII of the Wyoming Rules of Evidence Witnesses," Land & Water Law Review: Vol. 13 : Iss. 3 , pp. 910 - 974. Available at: https://scholarship.law.uwyo.edu/land_water/vol13/iss3/6 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by Law Archive of Wyoming Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Land & Water Law Review by an authorized editor of Law Archive of Wyoming Scholarship. Leigh et al.: Article VII of the Wyoming Rules of Evidence Witnesses COMMENTS ARTICLE VI OF THE WYOMING RULES OF EVIDENCE: WITNESSES Article VI of the recently adopted Wyoming Rules of Evi- dence deals with the subject of witnesses and the evidentiary rules and procedures which govern witnesses at trials and hear- ings. It is patterned after and largely follows Article VI of the Federal Rules of Evidence. However, several changes have been made from the Federal Rules for use in Wyoming. One of the purposes of this Comment is to explore and analyze those changes. This Comment also relates the practice in Wyoming prior to the adoption of Article VI and attempts to show how that practice will be different under the new rules and how significant the changes are likely to be. RULE 601: GENERAL RULE OF COMPETENCY 1 Introduction and Scope The purpose of Rule 601 is to eliminate all grounds ren- dering persons incompetent to testify not specifically recog- nized in the other rules.
    [Show full text]
  • Offerof Judgment
    Offerof Judg ment COMPEN DIU M OF LAW Offer of Judgment Compendium of Law This Compendium focuses on the state and federal application of Offer of Judgments in each of the states. We found that many of the states differ in the manner in which they apply the concept of offers of judgment. We hope this is beneficial to you in your analysis of cases and claims throughout the nation. Table of Contents Alabama ...........................................................................................................................................1 Alaska ..............................................................................................................................................2 Arizona .............................................................................................................................................3 Arkansas ...........................................................................................................................................4 California .........................................................................................................................................5 Colorado ...........................................................................................................................................7 Connecticut ......................................................................................................................................9 Florida ............................................................................................................................................10
    [Show full text]
  • Montana's Exception and Brief to the Special Master's Report
    No. 137, Original ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF WYOMING and STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA, Defendants. --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- On Exceptions To The First Interim Report Of The Special Master --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- MONTANA’S EXCEPTION AND BRIEF --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- STEVE BULLOCK Attorney General of Montana CHRISTIAN D. TWEETEN Chief Civil Counsel JENNIFER ANDERS Assistant Attorney General JOHN B. DRAPER* JEFFREY J. WECHSLER Special Assistant Attorneys General MONTGOMERY & ANDREWS, P.A. Post Office Box 2307 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-2307 (505) 982-3873 [email protected] *Counsel of Record May 2010 ================================================================ COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO. (800) 225-6964 OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831 1 MONTANA’S EXCEPTION The State of Montana excepts to the First Interim Report of the Special Master with respect to the fol- lowing conclusions on Wyoming’s Motion to Dismiss: 1. That Montana has no claim under the Yellow- stone River Compact for Wyoming’s depletion of flows on which Montana depended at the time of the Com- pact, where those depletions result from new con- sumption of irrigation water on lands in Wyoming that were being irrigated at the time of the Compact; and 2. That Wyoming’s Compact obligations are con- tingent upon Montana’s actions. Respectfully submitted, STEVE BULLOCK Attorney General of Montana CHRISTIAN D. TWEETEN Chief Civil Counsel JENNIFER ANDERS Assistant Attorney General JOHN B. DRAPER* JEFFREY J. WECHSLER Special Assistant Attorneys General MONTGOMERY & ANDREWS, P.A. Post Office Box 2307 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-2307 (505) 982-3873 [email protected] *Counsel of Record May 2010 No.
    [Show full text]
  • Page 347 TITLE 28, APPENDIX—RULES of EVIDENCE Rule 409 Rule 409. Payment of Medical and Similar Ex
    Page 347 TITLE 28, APPENDIX—RULES OF EVIDENCE Rule 409 against the defendant as an admission of fault. In that statement or offer, this could itself reveal the fact that case, the predicate for the evidence would be that the the adversary entered into settlement negotiations. defendant, by compromising with the government The protections of Rule 408 cannot be waived unilater- agency, has admitted the validity and amount of the ally because the Rule, by definition, protects both par- civil claim, and that this admission has sufficient pro- ties from having the fact of negotiation disclosed to the bative value to be considered as evidence of guilt. But jury. Moreover, proof of statements and offers made in unlike a direct statement of fault, an offer or accept- settlement would often have to be made through the ance of a compromise is not very probative of the de- testimony of attorneys, leading to the risks and costs fendant’s guilt. Moreover, admitting such an offer or of disqualification. See generally Pierce v. F.R. Tripler & acceptance could deter a defendant from settling a civil Co., 955 F.2d 820, 828 (2d Cir. 1992) (settlement offers are regulatory action, for fear of evidentiary use in a sub- excluded under Rule 408 even if it is the offeror who sequent criminal action. See, e.g., Fishman, Jones on seeks to admit them; noting that the ‘‘widespread ad- Evidence, Civil and Criminal, § 22:16 at 199, n.83 (7th ed. missibility of the substance of settlement offers could 2000) (‘‘A target of a potential criminal investigation bring with it a rash of motions for disqualification of may be unwilling to settle civil claims against him if a party’s chosen counsel who would likely become a by doing so he increases the risk of prosecution and witness at trial’’).
    [Show full text]
  • Pack the Union: a Proposal to Admit New States for the Purpose of Amending the Constitution to Ensure Equal Representation
    NOTE PACK THE UNION: A PROPOSAL TO ADMIT NEW STATES FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION TO ENSURE EQUAL REPRESENTATION For most of the twenty-first century, the world’s oldest surviving de- mocracy has been led by a chief executive who received fewer votes than his opponent in an election for the position.1 The first of these execu- tives started a war based on false pretenses that killed hundreds of thou- sands of civilians.2 The second — a serial abuser of women3 who hired as his campaign manager a lobbyist for violent dictatorships4 — author- ized an immigration policy that forcibly separated migrant children from their families and indefinitely detained them in facilities described as “concentration camps.”5 Democracy, as they say, is messy. 6 But even when democracy is messy, a society’s commitment to the endeavor rests on the belief that giving power to the people is appropri- ate and fair.7 Recent events have highlighted some of the ways in which federal elections in the United States are profoundly undemocratic and, thus, profoundly unfair.8 The Electoral College — when it contravenes the popular vote — is an obvious example of this unfairness. But it is just one of the mathematically undemocratic features in the Constitution. Equal representation of states in the Senate, for example, gives citizens of low-population states undue influence in Congress. Conversely, Amer- ican citizens residing in U.S. territories have no meaningful representation in Congress or the Electoral College. ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 1 See DENNIS W. JOHNSON, CAMPAIGNS AND ELECTIONS 70 (2020). 2 See Rebecca Adelman & Sherifa Zuhur, Iraqi Freedom, Operation, Casualties Of, in THE IRAQ WAR ENCYCLOPEDIA 199, 201 (Thomas R.
    [Show full text]
  • Vol. 81 Tuesday, No. 216 November 8, 2016 Pages 78497–78700
    Vol. 81 Tuesday, No. 216 November 8, 2016 Pages 78497–78700 OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL REGISTER VerDate Sep 11 2014 20:10 Nov 07, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\08NOWS.LOC 08NOWS mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with FED-WS II Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 8, 2016 The FEDERAL REGISTER (ISSN 0097–6326) is published daily, SUBSCRIPTIONS AND COPIES Monday through Friday, except official holidays, by the Office PUBLIC of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC 20408, under the Federal Register Subscriptions: Act (44 U.S.C. Ch. 15) and the regulations of the Administrative Paper or fiche 202–512–1800 Committee of the Federal Register (1 CFR Ch. I). The Assistance with public subscriptions 202–512–1806 Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20402 is the exclusive distributor of the official General online information 202–512–1530; 1–888–293–6498 edition. Periodicals postage is paid at Washington, DC. Single copies/back copies: The FEDERAL REGISTER provides a uniform system for making Paper or fiche 202–512–1800 available to the public regulations and legal notices issued by Assistance with public single copies 1–866–512–1800 Federal agencies. These include Presidential proclamations and (Toll-Free) Executive Orders, Federal agency documents having general FEDERAL AGENCIES applicability and legal effect, documents required to be published Subscriptions: by act of Congress, and other Federal agency documents of public interest. Assistance with Federal agency subscriptions: Documents are on file for public inspection in the Office of the Email [email protected] Federal Register the day before they are published, unless the Phone 202–741–6000 issuing agency requests earlier filing.
    [Show full text]
  • The History of the Congressional Apportionment Problem Through a Mathematical Lens
    Humboldt State University Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University Congressional Apportionment Open Educational Resources and Data 2017 The iH story of the Congressional Apportionment Problem through a Mathematical Lens Shannon Guerrero Northern Arizona University, [email protected] Charles M. Biles Humboldt State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/apportionment Recommended Citation Guerrero, Shannon and Biles, Charles M., "The iH story of the Congressional Apportionment Problem through a Mathematical Lens" (2017). Congressional Apportionment. 27. http://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/apportionment/27 This Articles and Essays is brought to you for free and open access by the Open Educational Resources and Data at Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Congressional Apportionment by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The History of the Congressional Apportionment Problem through a Mathematical Lens Shannon Guerrero, PhD Department of Mathematics & Statistics Northern Arizona University Flagstaff, AZ 86011-5717 [email protected] 928-523-6893 Charles Biles, PhD Department of Mathematics Humboldt State University Arcata, CA 95521 [email protected] Abstract: Since the celebrated work of Balinski and Young, the mathematics community has worked to incorporate the Congressional Apportionment Problem (CAP) into a variety of university courses ranging from general education to mathematics education to mathematics in democracy courses. The CAP represents a fascinating historical and political topic with overtones of mathematical thinking. This paper gives a modern perspective to the mathematics while retaining the historical nature of events as they evolved.
    [Show full text]
  • Original No. 137 Montana V. Wyoming and North Dakota
    No. 137, Original IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ———— October Term 2014 ———— STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF WYOMING and STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA, Defendants. ———— SECOND INTERIM REPORT OF THE SPECIAL MASTER (LIABILITY ISSUES) ———— BARTON H. THOMPSON, JR. Special Master Stanford, California December 29, 2014 WILSON-EPES PRINTING CO., INC. – (202) 789-0096 – WASHINGTON, D. C. 20002 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................ viii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................... xxi I. INTRODUCTION ..................................... 1 II. THE RECORD .......................................... 3 III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ..................... 4 A. The Tongue River ................................ 4 B. Tongue River Water Use ..................... 8 1. Wyoming’s use of the Tongue River ............................................... 9 2. Montana’s use of the Tongue River ........................................................ 10 C. The Tongue River Reservoir ............... 12 IV. LEGAL BACKGROUND .......................... 14 A. The Yellowstone River Compact......... 14 1. Key provisions of the Compact ...... 14 2. Difficulties in administering the Compact.......................................... 18 B. Western Water Law ............................ 18 C. The Northern Cheyenne Compact ...... 22 V. PROCEDURAL HISTORY ....................... 24 A. Montana v. Wyoming, 131 S. Ct. 1765 (2011) ................................................... 25 B. Subsequent Pre-Trial Proceedings ....
    [Show full text]