Research proposal posted by Elizabeth Donald.

Part One: Topic Explanation

Liberty of contract was originally introduced into U.S. constitutional jurisprudence through the case of Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905). In this case, Joseph F. Lochner challenged a provision of the New York Bakeshop Act of 1895 that prohibited bakers from working more than ten hours per day and 60 hours per week. The Supreme Court held that this regulation failed to pass constitutional muster in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so, the Court found “liberty of contract,” that is, the freedom of individuals and groups to enter into contracts, to be a fundamental right under the Fourteenth Amendment.  Other Supreme Court decisions continued to build on this idea during what is now referred to as “The Lochner Era” of cases. This includes Adkins v. Children’s Hospital, 261 U.S. 525 (1923), invalidating a minimum wage law and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 286 U.S. 510 (1925), deeming unconstitutional a regulation that led to the closing of many private Catholic schools.

Part Two: Pros and Cons

The Lochner decision was considered one of the most controversial cases of its time after being handed down in 1905. Progressive jurists, politicians, and scholars alike denounced Lochner, whether for attempting to constitutionalize laissez-faire economics or for exceeding judicial authority.[1] They believed that the conservative-leaning Lochner majority reached far beyond the scope of its powers. This is because although the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly list “liberty of contract” as a fundamental right, the court still found it to be so under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause which states, “[N]or shall any person … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. XVI, § 1. In finding a liberty of contract within the Constitution, Progressives saw the majority as an advocate of big business that attempted to adopt policy by means of judicial decision. These Progressive jurists instead encouraged a deference to the legislature on all matters, economic and personal. Since the early 20^th century, Progressive ideology has shifted, but still views liberty of contract in a negative light.

Flashing forward to today, jurists across the political spectrum remain highly critical of Lochner. Constitutional theorist Bruce Ackerman places Lochner in his “anticanon” of cases. Unlike early 20^th century Progressives, today’s Progressive jurists typically believe in using strict scrutiny to analyze laws regarding personal rights. Yet, they now isolate personal liberties from economic liberties, which are still considered unwarranting of constitutional protection.[2] Twenty-first century conservatives, likewise, do not tend to favor liberty of contract. Conservative jurists today often advocate for a deference to the legislature on both personal and economic issues. Thus, the conservative viewpoint has also significantly shifted from the Lochner Era right-wing belief that natural rights precede positive law and that liberty of contract is one of those inherent natural rights. This leaves little room for hope for the few present-day proponents of liberty of contract. However, the idea of contractual freedom as a fundamental right might not be as bad as many make it seem. In fact, liberty of contract is really a derivative of the natural law.

The natural law, according to St. Pope John Paul II, is a law that resides within the “depths of the conscience.” It is written on the hearts of all men, according to which God will be the judge. Legal theorists have found certain rights to be inherent within this natural law. The Constitution itself was founded on the idea of natural rights. James Madison, a drafter of the Constitution, believed that man “embraces everything to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to everyone else the like advantage…”[3] This idea was the bedrock of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which was eventually applied to the states through the Fourteenth. Therefore, the Court majority in Lochner simply viewed liberty of contract as one of these natural rights under due process. This reading of the Due Process Clause achieves much greater validation than suggested by Lochner’s opponents. The Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27-30, which gave way to the Fourteenth Amendment, listed liberty of contract first in the rights accorded to man. In this act, the 39^th Congress wrote that, “[a]ll persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties …” This act served the purpose of enforcing the natural rights of man. Therefore, the Lochner majority’s belief in liberty of contract as a fundamental right was not unwarranted.

Part Three: Questions of Ethics

Liberty of contract is intertwined with ethics because the very idea of ethics rests on the natural law. St. Thomas Aquinas said that the natural law “constitutes the principles of practical rationality,” which are the rules by which human action is to be judged as reasonable or unreasonable.[4] It is from this ethical theory that fundamental rights were developed. Not only that, but contractual freedom is essential to business ethics as well. The significance of liberty of contract comes through in the employment-at-will rule which gives employers unfettered power to “dismiss their employees at will for good cause, for no cause, or even for cause morally wrong, without being thereby guilty of a legal wrong.” However, because the employment-at-will theory is supported by laissez-faire economics, it too is often criticized by Progressive jurists who oppose free markets. Yet, even though early 20^th century Progressive jurists denounced the Lochner decision for its association with laissez-faire ideals, this does not invalidate the fact that liberty of contract can be viewed as a fundamental right within the natural law. Further, just because liberty of contract is an economic liberty does not mean it cannot be a fundamental liberty. Since provisions of the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 demonstrate that both the Founding Fathers and the 39^th Congress understood liberty of contract as deriving from the natural law, it is valid to not only consider this liberty as fundamental, but also ethical.

Works cited:

[1] David E. Bernstein, Rehabilitating Lochner (2012).

[2] Ibid.

[3] Colleen Sheehan, James Madison and Our First Duty, THE CENTER FOR VISION AND VALUES (Sep. 23, 2014), http://www.visionandvalues.org/2014/09/james-madison-and-our-first-duty-by-dr-colleen-sheehan/.

[4] Aquinas, ST I-II. Q94.

Under Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, the Congress has the power to “declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water[.]”  The Founders wisely thought that the Legislature is in a better position than the President to carry out the will of the people.  Congressional debate can test the arguments for and against intervention in global problems.  Every two years members of the House are kept in check by the voters, who ought to dictate what American foreign policy should be.

James Madison, commonly referred to as “Father of the Constitution,” once said:

Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.  War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.  In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds are added to those of subduing the force of the people.  The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes and the opportunities of fraud growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both.  No nation could reserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

Under the War Powers Resolution, the President can deploy U.S. forces anywhere outside the U.S. for 180 days, provided Congress is informed in writing within 48 hours.  The executive does not need Congress to declare war for the 180 days, however, that time period cannot be extended without congressional authorization.  The President has the authority to introduce American forces into hostilities only when there is:

(1) a declaration of war

(2) specific statutory authorization, or

(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

The Supreme Court has never reviewed the War Powers Resolution to see if it passes constitutional muster.  Although Congress will say that it has “the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer . . . [,]” the Court, however, has ruled in other cases that one branch of government cannot give power away to another.

Posted by Chase Mulligan.

On October 21, 2016 a coordinated distributed denial-of-service attack (DDoS) was made on internet systems operated by Domain Name Systems (DNS) provider Dyn resulting in massive disruption of internet services across the United States and Europe. Internet services along most of the east coast, west coast, and southern parts of the country were affected. The cyber-attack has been called an “historic attack”; (flashcritic.com) the first robot-based digital assault using the Internet of Things that linked millions of on-line devices in a coordinated operation. This tactic uses a novel approach of manipulating electronic devices connected to the Internet of Things for the attack capitalizing on the weak security of these devices and raising the question of responsibility and liability.

Anonymous and New World Hackers using recently released malicious software (malware) called Mirai, created a robot network for the attack. The significant aspect of the attack is the use of the Mirai botnet code to take control of devices that are used on what is called the Internet of Things. These devices are electronic devices not directly connect to computers but are connected through the internet and include such items as webcams, smart TV’s, routers, security cameras, DVRs, and similar devices. By using these electronic devices the hackers were able to take control of a virtual army of attackers. While the multiple attack across multiple directions is considered sophisticated, the actual use of the electronic devices is considered uncomplicated. Many of the compromised electronic devices are used by homes or small business and often lack security capabilities or contain elementary security that is easily compromised. The hackers had little difficulty installing the Mirai malware and taking control of the devices when needed for the attack.

Security organizations are taking measures to identify the comprised devises and developing ways to combat the Mirai command and control system. However, the cost and potential liability for placing unsecured or poorly security protected electronic devices on the Internet of Things is a looming question. If someone or a company experiences a significant loss of money, compromise of data, or destruction of assets; who is liable? Surely the hackers, but are the companies that market poorly or non-secure smart electronic devices; is the person or concern that uses the devices responsible, jointly or wholly? An area of Cyber-law is now in the making.

 Chase is a finance and marketing major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Chase Mulligan. 

On October 21, 2016 a coordinated distributed denial-of-service attack (DDoS) was made on internet systems operated by Domain Name Systems (DNS) provider Dyn resulting in massive disruption of internet services across the United States and Europe. Internet services along most of the east coast, west coast, and southern parts of the country were affected. The cyber-attack has been called an “historic attack”; (flashcritic.com) the first robot-based digital assault using the Internet of Things that linked millions of on-line devices in a coordinated operation. This tactic uses a novel approach of manipulating electronic devices connected to the Internet of Things for the attack capitalizing on the weak security of these devices and raising the question of responsibility and liability.

Anonymous and New World Hackers using recently released malicious software (malware) called Mirai, created a robot network for the attack. The significant aspect of the attack is the use of the Mirai botnet code to take control of devices that are used on what is called the Internet of Things. These devices are electronic devices not directly connect to computers but are connected through the internet and include such items as webcams, smart TV’s, routers, security cameras, DVRs, and similar devices. By using these electronic devices the hackers were able to take control of a virtual army of attackers. While the multiple attack across multiple directions is considered sophisticated, the actual use of the electronic devices is considered uncomplicated. Many of the compromised electronic devices are used by homes or small business and often lack security capabilities or contain elementary security that is easily compromised. The hackers had little difficulty installing the Mirai malware and taking control of the devices when needed for the attack.

Security organizations are taking measures to identify the comprised devises and developing ways to combat the Mirai command and control system. However, the cost and potential liability for placing unsecured or poorly security protected electronic devices on the Internet of Things is a looming question. If someone or a company experiences a significant loss of money, compromise of data, or destruction of assets; who is liable? Surely the hackers, but are the companies that market poorly or non-secure smart electronic devices; is the person or concern that uses the devices responsible, jointly or wholly? An area of Cyber-law is now in the making.

Chase is a finance and marketing major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Abigail Anaemeje. 

Yet, another automobile scandal! In September, the Environmental Protection Agency found that Volkswagen sold 482,000 cars in the U.S. that contained a “defeat device.” This type of software was used in diesel engines, “that could detect when they were being tested, changing the performance accordingly to improve results.” The result of this led to the “engines emitting nitrogen oxide pollutants 40 times above what is allowed in the US.” In addition, in November of this year, Volkswagen also found irregularities of carbon dioxide emissions levels in about 800,000 cars in Europe. In response to the emission-cheating scandal, Volkswagen has acknowledge their failure. As a result, they will have to pay a fine to the EPA of $37,500 for every vehicle that goes against the allowed standards.

This issue has not only effected the U.S. and Europe, but also France, South Korea, the UK, Italy, Canada, and Germany. In total, 500,000 cars in the U.S., 2.4 million in Germany, and 1.2 million cars in the U.K. have been recalled as a result of the emissions scandal. So far, no employees have been directly fired over the incident. However, the management board member and the head of sales and marketing, Christina Klingler is leaving the company on an unrelated issue.

Abigail is a finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2018.

Posted by Deena Khalil.

On Wednesday, November 6, 2014, there was a court hearing about big-time banks being sued for manipulating a financial benchmark, Libor, by “U.S. municipalities and financial funds who argue they suffered financial damages by receiving lower interest rates on transactions as a result of the suspected manipulation.” Libor is short for the London Interbank Offered Rate, and it’s used to set the rates on things worth trillions of dollars such as loans, credit cards, and some complex derivatives. The benchmark is calculated each business day by averaging out interest rates in which banks estimate they could borrow from each other. But these banks have to be within the London trading operations in order to be part of the benchmark. Some of the banks that are being accused are JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, and Bank of America.

Plaintiffs include U.S. municipalities and financial funds who argue they suffered financial damages by receiving lower interest rates on transactions as a result of the suspected manipulation. They allege that evidence gathered by investigators in the U.S., Europe and around the globe shows bank traders involved in the rate-setting process rigged the outcomes to boost their trading profits.

The banks accused are trying to get these cases to be dismissed There are U.S banks that have been struck with billions of dollars in penalties due to Libor manipulation. For example, JPMorgan was fined $78 million by European authorities! Some banks have settled cases, but defendant banks in the present case are seeking to dismiss due to “the lack of personal jurisdiction.” Attorneys “argued the recent Supreme Court rulings established that corporations are ‘at home’ only in their respective countries and in most cases are subject only to lawsuits filed there, not in U.S. courts.” They claim that the Libor manipulation activity occurred outside the U.S.

Deena is a business finance major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Los Angeles will pay 24 million dollars to two men who spent decades in prison for crimes they did not commit. In one case, lawyers and a team of students from Loyola Law School challenged a key witness’s testimony. In 1979, Kash Delano Register was charged with the armed robbery and murder of Jack Sasson, 78, after eyewitness testimony placed him at the scene at the time of the shooting. The witness told police she heard gunshots and she saw Register fleeing the scene. The witness selected Register out of a photo lineup, but her sisters told police that her story was untrue. No murder weapon was recovered and no fingerprints were found. Based solely on this witness’s testimony, a jury found Register guilty and he spent 34 years in prison.

The witness’s sister testified she tried to tell a detective that her sister had lied, but in response, the investigator allegedly put a finger to his lips indicating she should keep quiet about it. Her other sister told the police that she was lying, but even her pleas were ignored. Register’s attorneys claimed that the witness selected him under the threat of being prosecuted for credit card forgery and a recent theft if she failed to choose someone out of the lineup.

In the other case, Bruce Lisker was accused of murdering his mother. “At the time of the murder, Lisker, who had a reputation for fighting with his mother and a history of drug abuse, told police he saw her lying in the foyer and broke into the home to help her. They did not believe him.” During a hearing challenging the conviction, lawyers undermined or disproved key elements of the prosecution’s case, including that a bloody shoe print that could not have been made by Lisker’s shoes. His attorneys claimed “that the lead detective ignored evidence that Lisker’s friend may have been a possible suspect.”

In every arrest and criminal prosecution, someone’s liberty is at stake, and these cases illustrate the importance that prosecutors and police get it right. Money can always be replaced. But no one can ever get back all those years lost in prison, as a result of being falsely accused.

Posted by Arben Bajrami.

Sweatshops, or a workplace with unacceptable working conditions, have remained a problem up until recent years in business and in our economy.  Companies such as Nike and Adidas have workers in foreign countries sewing and producing equipment, apparel, and footwear for very little pay.  It is said that these sweatshop workers receive something called “living wage,” which is only five hundred dollars a month, or just enough money to survive.

Laborers that work in sweatshops are considered highly unethical.  Also, these items cost very little money to make but sell at outrageously high prices in retail stores.  For example, if it costs Nike four dollars and eighty cents to make a shirt, retail stores often mark up the product for eighteen dollars.

At least certain companies, such as Knights Apparel, are making a conscious effort to raise awareness to the horrors of sweatshops. Knights Apparel works closely with a program called Worker Rights Consortium.  They work “‘to combat sweatshops and protect the rights of workers who sew apparel and make other products sold in the United States.’”

Arben is a marketing major at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Research proposal posted by Jessica Page.

Topic

The principle of double effect creates a set of guidelines to “determine when it is ethically permissible for a human being to engage in conduct in pursuit of a good end with full knowledge that the conduct will also bring about bad results” (The Principle of Double Effect). Generally, the principle states that when someone is deciding a certain conduct that has both good and bad effects, the course of conduct they choose is “ethically permissible only if it is not wrong in itself and if it does not require that one directly intend the bad result” (The Principle of Double Effect). The moral criteria for the principle of double effect generally states the action in itself must be good or indifferent, the good effect cannot be obtained through the bad effect, there must be a proportion between the good and bad effects brought about, the intention of the subject must be directed towards the good effect and merely tolerate the bad effect and there does not exist another possibility or avenue (What is the Principle of Double Effect?).

Pros and Cons

The issue with the principle of double effect is that each situation where the principle applies is different. If an act is bad, it cannot become good or indifferent by a good motive or good circumstances. If it is evil in nature, this will not change. That being said, the principle “the end justifies the means” must always be rejected. The idea that needs to be applied to each issue is the fact that a human must never do evil, but they are not bound to prevent the existence of evil. One example we can apply this to is the BP oil spill that was discussed in class. By not mandating a cut-off switch because of how expensive it was, even though the safety benefits were astronomical, when an explosion happened on one of the rigs, eleven workers were killed and seventeen were injured. Not to mention the five million barrels of oil that gushed into the ocean. Had the US mandated these switches like they wanted, even though BP lobbied against them, it could have avoided the deaths, injuries and pollution caused by the exploding rig. In this case, the deaths and havoc caused by the explosion did not justify the fact that BP was trying to save money for their own personal benefit. Another example where the principle of double effect is relevant today is the controversy of euthanasia. It is used to justify the case “where a doctor gives drugs to a patient to relieve distressing symptoms even though he knows doing this may shorten the patient’s life” (BBC). The doctor’s intention is not to kill the patient, but the result of death is a side-effect of reducing patient’s pain. One problem that people argue against this doctrine is the fact that they believe we are responsible for all anticipated consequences of our actions. Another is the fact that intention is irrelevant. A third issue, specifically in the euthanasia issue, is the fact that death is not always seen as a bad thing making the double effect irrelevant. Lastly, the double effect can produce an unexpected moral result.

Ethics and Principles

When looking at the incorporation of Catholic, one of the main issues that concerns this principle and the Catholic religion is that case where a pregnancy may need to end in order to preserve the life of the mother. The example most often given is a woman with uterine cancer. By removing the uterus, it will bring death to the fetus but the death is not “directly” intended and in turn, the mother will live. It is an issue that still is debated today (Soloman). Another similar case having to do closely with Catholic ideals is when a woman has an ectopic pregnancy and must receive surgery to remove the embryo. At a Catholic hospital, it can be questioned whether that specific procedure is considered a direct abortion, going against the Catholic ideals and morals, no matter what the means of the surgery are. “The principle of double effect enables bioethicists and Catholic moralists to navigate various actions that may or may not be morally justifiable in some circumstances” (Kockler). The idea of proportionate reasoning has also been condemned by Pope John Paul II. He categorized proportionalism as a species of consequentialism. This is condemned by the Church because no Catholic moralist would agree that a desirable end justifies any means (Kockler). These are serious issues, especially when considering the principle of double effect from a Catholic standpoint.

Works Cited:

Kockler, Nicolas. The Principle of Double Effect and Proportionate Reason. http://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/2007/05/pfor2-0705.html

“The Doctrine of Double Effect”. BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/overview/doubleeffect.shtml

“The Principle of Double Effect”. http://sites.saintmarys.edu/~incandel/doubleeffect.html

“The Principle of Double Effect”. http://www83.homepage.villanova.edu/richard.jacobs/MPA%208300/theories/double%20effect.html

“What is the Principle of Double Effect?” http://ncbcenter.org/document.doc?id=132

Posted by Bridget Uribe.

During the month of March of 2014, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charged three executives: Chairman Steven Davis, Executive Director Stephen DiCarmine, and Chief Financial Officer Joel Sanders of Dewey & LeBoeuf, the international law firm, with facilitating a $150 million fraudulent bond offerings. The SEC alleged that the three charged turned to accounting fraud when the firm needed money during the economic recession and steep costs from a recent merger.  They were afraid that their declining revenues might cause the bank lenders to cut off access to the firm’s credit lines. Thus, leading Dewey & LeBoeuf’s financial professionals came up with ways to artificially inflate income and distort financial performance.

The fraud didn’t stop there. Dewey & LeBoeuf then resorted to the bond markets to raise significant amounts of cash through a private offering that seized on fake financial numbers. Dewey & LeBoeuf since have officially went out of business, and the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office charged criminal charges against Davis, DiCarmine, and Sanders. According to the SEC’s complaint, the roots of the fraud dated back to late 2008 when senior financial officers began to come up with fake revenues by manipulating various entries in Dewey & LeBoeuf’s internal accounting system. The firm’s profitability was inflated by approximately $36 million (15%) at the end of the 2008 financial results. “The improper accounting also reversed millions of dollars of uncollectible disbursements, mischaracterized millions of dollars of credit card debt owed by the firm as bogus disbursements owed by clients, and inaccurately accounted for significant lease obligations held by the firm”(SEC Press Release).

Fast forward to the present, a New York judge declared a mistrial Monday bringing an end to the trial for the biggest law firm failure in U.S. history! The decision comes on the 22nd day of deliberations by a 12-member jury, which acquitted the ex-law firm leaders on several dozen counts of falsifying business records. The jury couldn’t reach a verdict on grand larceny and remained deadlocked on more than 90 counts charges facing Steven Davis, Joel Sanders, and Stephen DiCarmine. The three could have faced up to 25 years in prison if convicted of grand larceny, the most serious of the roughly 50 counts each brought against them. The defendants also faced related civil charges brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission and a private lawsuit brought by former Dewey investors who say, “They were duped into buying debt in a 2010 bond offering.” Both of those proceedings had been on hold pending the outcome of the criminal trial. Some highlights of the trial are: prosecutors had likened Mr. Davis to a drug kingpin, overseeing a criminal enterprise. Also, the defense side thought prosecutors didn’t present enough evidence to prove their case, thus choosing not to call any witnesses. Instead, the lawyers relied on the cross-examination of government witnesses to try to distance their clients from the actions taking place in the accounting department. At times, such questioning also prompted praise for the defendants from those on the stand. Where does this lead us now? How the Department of Justice completely lost the case or can a retrial give a favorable outcome in the future? It’s too early to tell, but what I do know is that the long deliberations and mistrial will raise questions about whether the case was too complex.

Bridget is a graduate forensic accounting student at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Dan Udvari.

On December 3, 2015 Donald L. Blankenship – the CEO of Massey Energy, Co. – was convicted of a single misdemeanor for conducting a conspiracy to violate safety rules in his coal mines just before the Upper Big Branch Mine disaster that occurred on April 5, 2010.

Massey Energy was the fourth largest publicly traded coal extractor by revenue ($2.69 billion) in the United States. It was founded in 1920 by the Massey family and operated in Richmond, Virginia. The company consisted of approximately 5800 employees right before Alpha Natural Resources acquired the company for 7.1 billion dollars. Interestingly, 99% of the shareholders voted in favor of the acquisition, which shows how poorly the company was governed by management. Don Blankenship took control over the company in 1992 and created a culture that favored profits over safety. In total, the coal extractor giant had around 369 citations and orders, which totaled a staggering 10.8 million dollars.

On April 5, 2015 a massive explosion in the Upper Big Branch Mine in Montcoal, West Virginia occurred that killed 29 people. This tragedy was the worst since the 1970 Hyden disaster. Massey Energy operated the Upper Big Branch Mine and later turned out that they operated the mine in a manner that was against several rules set up by the MSHA. The investigation later determined that the ventilation system in the mine did not work properly and failed to get rid of the toxic gases that caused the explosion. Massey intentionally neglected all the safety rules and citations issued by the MSHA for the purpose of increasing profits. However, this case goes deeper than one thinks. According to reports, Massey Energy is very influential on political figures and officials in West Virginia. Using this power, they were able to bribe and manipulate MSHA regulators so they look the other way when inspecting the mines.

In November 2014, Don Blankenship, was indicted by a federal jury on four criminal counts including conspiracy to violate safety laws, securities fraud, defrauding the federal government, and making false statements to the SEC. Even though he was charged with these, he was only found guilty of one on December 3, 2015. Had he been convicted of all four, he could have been sent to prison for approximately thirty years. Now, he is only serving one year in jail.

I do not believe that Blankenship should only serve one year in jail. It seems unfair to those who had lost their lives because of profits. It baffles me that people as greedy as him get away with conspiracy and murder charges. It seems that money can literally buy your freedom in the United States. All you need is a good lawyer or lawyers.

Dan is a graduate accounting student with a certificate in forensic accounting at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Joe Zichelli.

The entrepreneurial spirit that was once a driving force in America is under attack due to egregious government overreach and licensing requirements that are putting hard-working and dynamic Americans out of work – even in some cases costing them their livelihood as well as thousands of dollars in fines. Occupational licensing – the need to secure a government permission slip to perform a specific job – is an oppressive force on small businesses and the backs of countless Americans trying to make an honest living. This unconstitutional overreach must be corrected and the government must once again recognize economic liberties as a substantive right and one that cannot changed.

Occupational licensing is a problem that is morally disturbing and a direct impediment to the success of various businesses throughout the United States. Occupational licensing can be summed up as “permission slips” from the government allowing one to work, as defined by the Institute for Justice, a libertarian law firm concerned with defending civil rights from government infringement.[1]   In addition to this simply making it harder to succeed, more often than not, poorer people as well as minorities and immigrants are more adversely impacted as a result of these licensing requirements because they are the ones who are unable to pay for the required education or even the license in order to comply with the laws promulgated by various states. Since they cannot afford the license or education requirements, they are subjected to a fine, imposing another financial burden – and yet another road bump on the path to success.

The number of industries that require licensing is absurd and only growing. These industries include but are not limited to, florists, casket builders, hair braiders, barbers, and eyebrow threaders. In analyzing something like hair braiding or eyebrow threading, many times people emigrate from other countries and work doing the aforementioned tasks as a way to earn an honest living. Quite often the state in which they work requires them to obtain a cosmetology license, even though while attending beauty school the type of braiding or eyebrow threading is not taught. This is a process that can cost thousands of dollars and consume hundreds, if not thousands, of hours. There are countless examples of professions that require licenses as an arbitrary means to protect an industry; the funeral business and florists are two that are frequently impacted as well. [2]

One of the most upsetting cases of occupational licensing happened recently in the bustling city of Memphis, Tennessee. On January 18th, 2017, Elias Zarate was cutting hair in his barber shop when “the barber police” entered and found that the license he had on display was not authentic. Although Zarate believed the license was authentic, the barber police shut his operation down and began legal proceedings against him, simply because he did not possess a piece of paper to cut hair. Eric Boehm, who published the story in an online article, describes the situation that landed Zarate in the barber shop, writing:

Zarate had dropped out of high school. He’d made it to the 12th grade, but he had a failing GPA and spent most of the school day sleeping through classes because he was exhausted from working a series of after-school and weekend jobs. His mother had died when he was just 10 and his father had left the family soon after, leaving Elias and his two younger siblings in the care of relatives. [3]

Because Elias did not complete high school or obtain a GED, under an amended law in 2017, he would be unable to attempt to get a barbering license because he did not complete high school. As frustrating as this is to lovers of liberty and entrepreneurs, Elias was equally frustrated, noting that “I don’t feel like anything in my entire schooling from grade school through senior year had anything to do with my barbering skills”[4]. The truth of the matter is neither Elias nor any other student in any public high school learned the skills necessary to be barber. For Tennessee to require a high school degree in order to obtain a “certificate of registration as a master barber” is an example of the government prohibiting someone from earning an honest living. It is wrong, unjust, and must be changed.

In addition to being inundated with fear from the barber police, Elias was not afforded any legal representation in his hearing before the administrative law judge and was left to fend for himself – much like he was left to do when his mother passed away and his father abandoned the family, – except this time it was to defend his right to earn a living. In addition to the fines, Elias could face a Class A misdemeanor, which could impose a penalty of up to 11 months and 29 days in jail – all for working without a government permission slip.

The Declaration of Independence reminds us of our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These are rights that cannot be infringed upon – and this is exactly what is happening to Elias. His rights to ensure his own happiness and to secure his own liberty, as well as his right to earn an honest living and provide for his family, are being grossly trampled upon by an overreaching government that has no business or constitutional authority to do so. It is time for a change to licensing requirements and it is imperative for states to get out of the way of small business owners and entrepreneurs. Until these changes are enacted, thousands of people like Elias will face the burden of a government that is anti-business and in favor of arbitrary “protections” that effectively monopolize industries. This is not the American way…
Joe is a political science/pre-law major at the College of Arts and Sciences, Seton Hall University, Class of 2018.

http://reason.com/archives/2018/01/19/barber-cops-bust-high-school-dropouts

[1] http://ij.org/issues/economic-liberty/occupational-licensing/

[2] http://ij.org/report/license-to-work/

[3] http://reason.com/archives/2018/01/19/barber-cops-bust-high-school-dropouts

[4] Ibid.

Posted by Stephen D’Angelo.

Just six hours after New York Attorney General placed a temporary injunction, which would stop sites like Fanduel and DraftKings from doing business in New York, an appellate court saved them by issuing an emergency temporary stay that will allow New Yorkers to continue to use Fanduel and Draft Kings until further notice. This stay will last at least till the end of the year which is likely when a permanent decision will be made, “Eventually, both sides will go before a panel of four or five appellate judges” Randy Mastro said, from an outside council for DraftKings.

The State of New York is likely to win the case because of the wording of their law on gambling. Fantasy football gambling sites commonly use the defense that they don’t take wagers, they take entry fees. In many states, this allows them to continue to do business. But, New York is stating that their penal law does not refer to “wagering” or “betting.” Instead it states that a person, “risks something of value.”

Although New York has the upper hand, the laws in place are very vague. The statement regarding risking something of value had no relation to online fantasy sports gambling when created. It was worded this general because that would include gambling bookies in a gambling law. I personally do not believe that Fantasy sports gambling will be shut down in New York. The NBA, NHL, and MLB all own equity in Fanduel and the likelihood of the 600,000 New Yorkers who play daily fantasy to not be able to in the New Year is very slim.

Stephen is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Alhanouf Almubarak.

This case discusses Tesco the Britain’s biggest retailer accounting scandal. In October 2014, the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) began a criminal investigation into accounting practices at Tesco. Chris Bush, (Tesco’s former managing director), Carl Rogberg (former finance chief), and John Scouler (former food commercial head) were charged with fraud over an accounting scandal after the company announced that it had overstated its first-half profit by approximately $420 million. At that time the company suspended many executives for accounting irregularities.

Some of the reasons why Tesco overstated the expected profits of the group at that time was mainly because it agreed on commercial deals with suppliers too early. The investigations against Rogberg, Scouler and Bush revealed that they purposely falsified Tesco’s digital accounting records and its draft interim accounts by the “inputting of and/or reliance upon commercial income figures which gave a false account of the financial position of Tesco.” (Butler,2017). The offenders’ crime by abuse their position and fraud accounting can lead to prison sentences of up to 10 and seven years respectively.