The constitution of the World Health Organization states that “the attainment of the highest possible level of health is a fundamental human right.” This principle has consequences for government under a variety of political theories. For those who, like the framers of our Declaration ofIndependence, accept the concept of natural or “inalienable” rights, a right to the highest possible level of health suggests that government has a duty to promote and protect the health of its people. For those who do not accept the concept of natural rights but who instead embrace utilitarian principles, the promotion of the greatest good for all also suggests that the government has a responsibility to provide equitable access to health care for all its people. For those who accept John Rawls’ Theory of Justice, health care is a “primary good” that must be distributed fairly and justly, and government has a responsibility to ensure that this is done. For those who eschew theoretical constructs but who believe that modem health care should not be regarded as commodity to be bought and sold in the market-place because of its unprecedented ability to relieve suffering and to pre-serve life and health, government has a responsibility to ensure that the highest quality health care is equitably accessible.
Experts discuss legal developments and related ramifications one year after President Trump declared a national emergency at the U.S. Southern Border with Mexico in order to build a wall.
We reject the view that prosecution will ever be the solution to the crisis of mass incarceration.
"It's important to note that scholars have long observed that political discourse and political events can contribute to the frequency of bias incidents. In fact, this phenomenon has a name today. It's called the Trump Effect."
Scholars discuss the most significant immigration-related cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, their ramifications, and what to expect in 2020.