Archive for May 6th, 2008

May 06 2008

Profile Image of profmcs
profmcs

Practical Exercise #4

Filed under PresLawEcon

All,
I was wrong about the last email business - I wanted to send some comments about the last PrEx.

1. Re: repatriation of the artifacts and remains - yes, it is required. The key is in the statute; I’m sorry if I confused any of you with my answer regarding a “retroactive clause”. No, there is not clause that says explicitly NAGPRA is retroactive, but there doesn’t need to be. What it says is that museums have to summarize and inventory their collections at the time the law was passed and repatriate in certain conditions. That’s not retroactive per se, so I struggled to answer the question I was asked.

3. I was looking for the triggering of any or all of the following laws:

  • NHPA and NEPA - not triggered because it’s not a federal action. It doesn’t matter that it’s not federal land. One of you pointed out the tribe might be federally subsidized. If that’s true, then the subsidy might be subject to NHPA or NEPA, such as a grant to build the memory pile, but absent that fact, there’s no trigger.
  • ARPA and NAGPRA - is this Indian land?
  • I didn’t expect any of you to bring up AIRFA, as it is primarily instruction to the agencies to provide access. Here there’s really no need for the tribe to be required to give itself access, right?

    4(b). What I mean by “internal nature” is the fact that this could be said to be a civil dispute. Does Hague apply to civil (internal) disputes? Yes - any armed conflict, not just “war”. Does NHPA 402 apply if we say this is internal, or is it still 106? I don’t know. Many of these questions (#4) are to test your reasoning. This one had fewer right answers than any other practical exercise.

    4(c). Remember that the waiver has two aspects.

  • Is one party is using the resource in a way that exposes it to danger? If yes, the immunity or protection is waived, but really only if…
  • It is of unavoidable military necessity that the resource be risked (attacked). That doesn’t mean was it UMN for Naylor to use the buildings as shields; it means is it UMN for the U.S. to attack and risk or cause damage.
  • 4(d). WHL or former NR status may make a difference primarily under 402, but also under the Hague convention. How you answer this will depend largely on your previous answers.

    I hope that helps.
    All the best!

    No responses yet

    May 06 2008

    Profile Image of profmcs
    profmcs

    UP Grades

    Filed under UrbanPlng

    Hello!
    Glossary 2 grades and exam 2 grades are now posted; both should show up under My Grades, and under the assignment itself, there’s a downloadable rubric for the glossary. Two or three of you also got comments back directly on the document, so look for those.

    Re: The exam’s curve. The best score in both classes was an 88. Curving the grades so everyone got 12 extra points put the average at 72 and the median at 68. While not ideal, it is acceptable. I did bear in mind if your exam score was lower than your normal grade when making final grades.

    If you have questions, please make sure you’ve looked at all of your feedback, double checked your math, and cooled your temper before you email me.

    Have a great summer!

    No responses yet

    May 06 2008

    Profile Image of profmcs
    profmcs

    PLE Grades

    Filed under PresLawEcon

    Hello all,
    This will likely be the last post you get from me. :) Your PrEx4 and Indep Project grades are up. I also created a column for poster grades as well. Should all be viewable from My Grades. The PrEx has a rubric you can download for feedback, and the papers have comments in the grade field on the assignment itself.
    Re: Your Independent Projects, remember that your final grade for the project as a whole was the paper (the out-of-100 grade posted on WebCT) and your preliminary work (out of 10). To calculate, use this equation:
    Prelim + (Paper*.9)
    Thanks!

    No responses yet