• Book Review: Breakneck by Dan Wang

    Dan Wang’s excellent new book Breakneck: China’s Quest to Engineer the Future goes into detail about the rise of China over the past several decades and how China can learn from the United States and the United States can learn from China.

    Some surprising statistics cited in the book: From 2003 to 2013, Shanghai added as much subway track as the entire system in New York City; China now has a longer high-speed rail network than the rest of the world combined; and the 4.4 billion tons of cement that China produced from 2018-2019 nearly equals the amount of cement the United States produced over the entire twentieth century. He also talks about the dark side of China, for example it is estimated that the one-child policy resulted in as many abortions as the current United States population.

    Worth a read.

  • Is there a Duty under North Carolina law to file Child Allowance? Should there be?

    Effective March 1, 2024, there were several updates and amendments to North Carolina law regarding child allowances for decedents who died on or after that date. The amount was increased from $5,000 to $10,000. The age was set at 21, regardless of whether the child was a student. These changes were well advertised and warmly welcomed. However, one additional change to the child allowance has seemed to go unnoticed: the rewritten version of N.C.G.S. § 30-17.

    Under the previous version of N.C.G.S. § 30-17, a personal representative was under a duty to assign a child’s allowance if an eligible child was entitled to such allowance. Many times the personal representative was the parent of the child, so the filing was done without much fanfare. Sometimes, however, someone other than the parent was serving as personal representative, and that person or entity was under a statutory duty to assign the allowance. Presumably the reasoning was that the child could not file for themselves to protect their own rights, and the personal representative was in the best position to know if there was an eligible child to receive such allowance.

    That duty has now seemingly been eliminated. The statute no longer requires the personal representative to act. Instead, an eligible person such as a parent, guardian, or person with whom the child resides may file a verified petition with the clerk of superior court. But there is no statutory language imposing a duty on them to do so. In other words, they are permitted to file, but they are not required.

    That raises an important question: what happens if no one files? Suppose a parent or guardian does not know the child is entitled to the allowance, or simply does not pursue it. Can the child later sue the parent or guardian for not protecting their right? Probably not, at least not under the statute, because there is no explicit duty imposed on the parent or guardian. By contrast, under the old law, a child arguably could have brought a claim against the personal representative for failing to carry out a statutory duty.

    Previously, the answer to who is responsible was clearer. Now, it is not so sure. The margin case matters.

  • Book Review: The Pardon by Jeffrey Toobin

    Was Ford correct in pardoning Nixon? At the time, the decision was widely criticized, and many believe it cost him the 1976 election. In Jeffrey Toobin’s recent book The Pardon: The Politics of Presidential Mercy, he argues Ford was wrong, that Nixon was unlikely to be prosecuted, and the pardon carried a heavy political price.

    Critics of the pardon argue that no person is above the law, including Presidents. By pardoning Nixon, Ford seemed to place him beyond legal accountability. The move also seemed like a quid pro quo: Nixon resigns, Ford becomes president, and then the pardon. Indeed it may have created incentives for future presidents to negotiate the pardon in exchange for resignation.

    Supporters of the pardon argued that it allowed the country to move on. In 1974, Watergate consumed the national conversation. Without a pardon, a drawn-out prosecution could have dominated politics for years. Ford himself argued that his action redirected the country’s attention.  Nixon almost certainly could not have received a fair trial, and the nation faced pressing economic problems (most notably inflation) that mattered more to the average American than relitigating Watergate. The pardon power exists precisely to let a president decide who should be spared from prosecution. If one objects to the concept of a pardon, the remedy is to amend the Constitution, not to fault Ford for using the power it provides.

    Interesting book.

  • Cousin Marriages in the Bible

    Joseph Henrich in his books The Secret of Our Success and The WEIRDest People in the World, traces how the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages increasingly banned cousin marriages, beginning with Pope Gregory I. Henrich argues that these bans had tremendous effects on western society. By forcing people to marry outside their villages, they expanded trade networks, created new social ties, and had greater cultural exchange and prosperity.

    It is interesting then, to note how many cousin marriages appear in the Bible. Caleb’s daughter Achsah married her cousin Othniel after he captured Kiriath-sepher (Joshua 15:17). Isaac married Rebekah, who was the granddaughter of Nahor, Abraham’s brother (Genesis 22:20-23). Jacob married his cousins Leah and Rachel, daughters of his uncle Laban (Genesis: 29:10, 16). Even in Leviticus 18, where many close relative marriages are banned, it does not ban cousin marriage.

    The Church’s own justifications at the time are less clear. Some argue it was to weaken local clan power and redirect loyalty toward the Church. Later on, others pointed out the unintended economic and genetic effects. It’s interesting how the medieval Church, arguably going beyond scripture, reshaped the economics of the west.

  • Recent Article: Charities and Racial Discrimination

    Interesting new article by Thomas Gallanis at George Mason entitled “Is Racial Discrimination Ever Charitable?”

    Here is part of the abstract: Is racial discrimination permissible for a charity? The question is salient and timely. Our nation faces a stark choice between two competing visions of how the law should assess racial discrimination. One view, articulated by Professor Ibram X. Kendi, among others, is that racial discrimination in favor of members of minority groups is an appropriate response to society’s prior discrimination against them. A competing view, articulated by the Supreme Court in SFFA v. Harvard,  is that racial discrimination is odious tout court: eliminating racial discrimination means ending all of it.

    Recommended.

Recent Posts