6 Matching Annotations
  1. Mar 2020
    1. Historically, the communitarian bases of the American legal system supported the subordination of individual rights when necessary for the preservation of common good. Quarantine measures were subjected to a deferential review supporting the states' right to substantially limit individual rights for the community's benefit.
    2. The treatment of quarantine reflects the latter. Courts and academics rarely expressed doubt about the validity of quarantine regulations, since the courts presumed that actions taken under the police power were constitutional.10,11 Challenges to the Fourteenth Amendment, usually successful when governmental intervention interfered with individual liberties, were not well received by the courts when communicable disease regulations, including quarantine, were involved.
    3. quarantine was already a well established form of public health regulation, and was considered proper exercise of the police power of the states; the Supreme Court, in its affirmation of this power, noted that the state had the power to quarantine “to provide for the health of the citizens.”10,11 The uncontrollable nature of epidemic diseases moved the Supreme Court to uphold such extreme measures on the basis of the defense of the common good.8
  2. Aug 2017
  3. Mar 2016
    1. Hochberg, M. E., Chase, J. M., Gotelli, N. J., Hastings, A., & Naeem, S. (2009). The tragedy of the reviewercommons.Ecology Letters, 12, 2–4
  4. Feb 2014
    1. Property Status Conclusions and Implications Intellectual property is neither ‘scarce,’ nor does the taking of it leave “enough, and as good, left in comm on for others” (the Lockean proviso) (Long, 1995, n. pag.; Locke, 1690, Chap. V, Sect. 27).

      Intellectual property is neither scarce nor leaves enough for the common good. It is not property in the Lockean sense.