World-Sheet Supersymmetry Without Contact Terms

Green and Seiberg showed that, in simple treatments of fermionic string theory, it is necessary to introduce contact interactions when vertex operators collide. Otherwise, certain superconformal Ward identities would be violated. In this note, we show how these contact terms arise naturally when proper account is taken of the superconformal geometry involved when punctures collide. More precisely, we show that there is no contact term at all! Rather, corrections arise to the ``na\"\i ve" formula when the boundary of moduli space is described correctly.Comment: 14pp., 2 figures (included

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to The United States Court of Appeals for The Eighth Circuit, Brief of Law Professors Paul F. Rothstein, et. al., Office of the President v. Office of Independent Counsel

This Court should grant review not only because this is a case of national importance and prominence, but also because the decision below is a conspicuous departure from settled principles of evidence law. The panel majority concluded that communications between government lawyers and government officials are not protected by the attorney-client privilege, at least when those communications are sought by a federal grand jury. That conclusion conflicts with the predominant common-law understanding that the attorney-client privilege applies to government entities and that where the privilege applies, it is absolute (i.e., it protects against disclosure in all types of legal and investigative proceedings). In particular, the Court of Appeals\u27 decision rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of this Court\u27s decisions in Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981), and United States v. Nixon, 418 U.s. 683 (1974). Moreover, this case warrants further review because the decision below has profound implications beyond the parties to this dispute. The Court of Appeals\u27 ruling, if allowed to stand, will create widespread uncertainty among federal, state, and local officials concerning the extent to which their communications with their agency lawyers, for the purpose of seeking legal advice in the conduct of governmental affairs, are protected by the attorney-client privilege. Unless this Court grants review and resolves this uncertainty, the decision below will likely have an adverse effect on the current and future operation of not only the Office of the President of the United States, but also government at all levels. At the very least, a decision of such vast implications (as in the present case) should be made by the highest court in the land. We accordingly urge the Court to grant the petition for review

Administrative Searches and Seizures: What Happened to Camara and See?

In recent years the Government\u27s efforts in promoting health, safety and welfare have necessitated an increased number of administrative inspections of commercial and noncommercial premises. Although such inspections were previously held to be excluded from the fourth amendment\u27s ban on unreasonable searches and seizures, the Supreme Court held in Camara v. Municipal Court and See v. Seattle that administrative inspections must comply with the warrant provision of the fourth amendment. Since those decisions, the Court has emphasized the exceptions to, rather than the strictures of, the warrant requirement. This article analyzes developments in the law concerning administrative searches and seizures and offers some observations on future trends

Conscience Clauses and Institutional Policies: Applicability of Employment Law and Medical Ethics

This article explores the possibility of using employment law-based tort actions for wrongful discharge to permit healthcare professionals to invoke a positive right to provide medically appropriate, institutionally prohibited care. Although the scope and implications of conscience clauses and policies are extremely broad, the article focuses on the role of physicians in the provision of abortion-related services, which raises the central issues in their sharpest and most controversial context. Part II of the article considers legislative and institutional policies on conscience clauses and some of the scenarios in which they arise. Part III reviews federal legislation and regulations on conscience clauses. Part IV discusses how a physician’s exercise of conscience is considered by leading codes of medical ethics. Part V reviews the elements and contours of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy when an employee reasonably and in good faith believes that certain conduct is required by an established principle of “professional conduct” in furtherance of the public interest. Part VI addresses the civic responsibilities of religiously affiliated hospitals. Part VII concludes with some observations about employment-based challenges to institutional conscience policies and notes some unanswered questions

The Use of Genetic Information for Nonmedical Purposes

When one thinks about the use of genetic information by third parties for nonmedical purposes, one of the first things that comes to mind is the question of how the third party can gain access to the information. There are three main ways. First, and most importantly, the third party may obtain records developed in the clinical setting. In other words, if someone wants a job or insurance, that person may be required to sign a release authorizing the third party to access those records. Second, the genetic records might be obtained through a genetic data bank. Third, the third party may actually perform genetic testing itself or ask questions that elicit genetic information indirectly through family histories. I will address the following eight nonmedical uses of genetic information: (1) identification, (2) employment, (3) insurance, (4) commercial transactions, (5) domestic relations, (6) education, (7) criminal justice, and (8) tort litigation