Federal Defense Research Articles

Conceptual approaches of the organization of physical training of officers of the Federal Defence Forces of Germany

The article focuses on conceptual approaches of the organization of physical training of officers of the Federal Defence Forces of Germany. Modern strategies and methods used to ensure a high level of physical readiness of the officer corps are considered. The importance of the integration of physical activity into the process of professional training is highlighted, and the principles affecting the successful implementation of these concepts are also analyzed. The article may be useful for military specialists, trainers, and researchers that are interested in improving the effectiveness of officer physical training in Federal Defence Forces of Germany and the conditions for integrating this phenomenon into the process of training specialists in the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
 As part of the research, special attention is paid to innovative approaches that contribute to the optimization of training, ensuring not only physical endurance, but also the development of leadership qualities and strategic thinking of officers. Military- pedagogical methods of using technologies and psychological aspects that take into account the peculiarities of military service are considered. The challenges and opportunities associated with the introduction of modern approaches to physical training in military environment are highlighted. The results of the study can be used as a basis for further improvements of the system of physical training of officers of the Federal Defence Forces of Germany and for comparison with the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

More on “good faith” prescribing: It doesn't exist in Ruan

Regardless of what they have read or heard, or of lower court decisions, doctors should not think they can use “good faith” as a federal defense for opioid prescribing, based on Ruan (see story, page 1). Michael C. Barnes, J.D., explains below.

Rethinking Supervised Release Discovery with an Eye Toward Real “Fundamental Fairness”

Supervised release revocation hearings result in the imprisonment of thousands of people per year. But unlike people facing substantive charges, those confronting revocation are not entitled to robust discovery protections. Instead, courts across the country have interpreted the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Morrisey v. Brewer and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1 to require the defense receive comparatively little and sometimes exclude plainly exculpatory and mitigating evidence from their terms entirely. The core of the problem centers around the fact that the investigating agency in supervised release cases—the U.S. Probation Office—is not considered an agent of the prosecution, but rather an arm of the Court. Federal defense lawyers across the country lament the difficulties that limited discovery production creates in defending against revocation and how fundamentally unfair the process can become without guaranteed access to exculpatory and mitigating evidence. Reform is needed. And as the relatively new supervised-release discovery practices of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina demonstrate, reform is possible.

Assessment of KAP Towards Oral Health of Under Five Children Among Mothers Visiting Federal Defense Force “Torhayiloch” Hospital, Maternal and Child Health Clinic, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2017

Oral health is defined by the World Health Organization as “a state of being free from any pain originated from mouth and face, oral and throat cancer, oral infection and sores, periodontal disease, tooth decay, tooth loss, and other diseases and disorders that limit an individual’s capacity in biting, chewing, smiling, speaking, and psychosocial wellbeingâ€

Cultural Nationalism, Anti-Americanism, and the Federal Defense of the Canadian Football League

ABSTRACTDuring the 1960s nationalism flourished in Canada as did American influence, both cultural and economically, as well as separatist sentiment in Quebec. The Canadian federal government became more interventionist to combat threats to Canadian sovereignty: internal threats from Quebec and external threats from the United States. The federal government used sport as a nation-building tool and eventually acted to protect the Canadian Football League (CFL) as a display of resistance to Americanization and in an attempt to unite French and English. Canadian football had become a symbol of the nation and therefore could be used by the government in a symbolic way to resist cultural imperialism and promote national unity. On two occasions the federal government acted to ensure the CFL preserved its Canadian identity; first, to prevent Canadian-based football teams from joining an American professional football league, and second, to prevent American-based teams from joining the CFL. John Munro was the key Canadian politician who formulated policy to protect Canadian football.

From broken windows to broken bonds: Militarized police and social fragmentation

Expansion of police militarization in the U.S. raises questions about how such policing affects society and minority communities. We estimate the impact of one particular aspect of police militarization—the Department of Defense’s Excess Property Program 1033—on civic engagement—which we capture primarily by examining charitable giving among households—via an instrumental variables approach. The instrument stems from plausibly exogenous variation in federal defense spending, which affects awareness of military culture and capabilities, and thus encourages the adoption of military equipment and tactics by local police departments. Estimates show that the 1033 Program has a fragmenting effect on society: As the transfer of surplus military equipment to local law enforcement increases, black households reduce their total charitable donations more than all other households.

A Love Song for All of Us?: Macklemore's “Same Love” and the Myth of Black Homophobia

AbstractAccording to theNew York Times, white rapper Macklemore and his DJ partner Ryan Lewis's “Same Love” was “the first song to explicitly embrace and promote gay marriage that has made it into the Top 40.”1In 2013, as the Supreme Court of the United States prepared to rule on challenges to the Federal Defense of Marriage Act and California's Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage, the track quickly climbed the charts and became a nationally recognized anthem for marriage equality. Despite this generally positive reception, however, the song does not reflect all queer-identified listeners. Macklemore raps, “If I were gay, I would think hip hop hates me,” an assertion that positions black communities as a significant threat to (white) LGBTQ rights. Much like the backlash against black voters following the 2008 passing of Proposition 8, this claim relies on an invented black pathology that locates homophobia in black American culture specifically rather than American culture at large. This article offers a close reading and contextualization of “Same Love” and demonstrates that, rather than combating homophobia in hip hop, Macklemore's lyrical claims actually bolster his strategic performance as a socially and politically aware white rapper, while erasing queer and trans hip hop artists of color from the discourse.

A Conversation with Edie Windsor

Suzanne Goldberg [SG): It is not often that a law school gets to welcome a rock star. But in our world, Edie Windsor is a rock star. She is one of the major civil rights plaintiffs of our lifetime, whose lawsuit challenged--and triumphed over--the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Her victory in that suit has been vital to changing the landscape of marriage equality for all Americans. It is a tremendous honor, Edie, to have you here at Columbia Law School, and we welcome you. Edie Windsor [EW]: Thank you so much. SG: I will start off by asking the first question in our conversation this afternoon, and then Andrew Chesley and Madeline Gomez, who are both Columbia Law School students, will be following up with questions we have collected from students throughout the law school. Edie, you have shown courage in every imaginable way: entering the computer science field as a young woman at a time where there were few women computer scientists--in fact, there were barely computer scientists; making the decision to get divorced and then coming to New York City to find other lesbians; and then coming out in so many ways. So when Time Magazine called you the "unlikely activist," it was not quite right because in so many ways, for so many years, you have been an activist, and you have been willing to challenge conventions. (1) Let's start the conversation by you just talking about how it was as a young lesbian coming to New York and confronting this world, and then also about some of the activism that you've done along the way before you filed your lawsuit against the United States government. EW: First of all, I came out late enough in life that I missed a lot of the pain of adolescence when you're gay and don't belong. I first had any kind of real relationship with a woman when I was a first-year student in college. And I didn't fall in love seriously with a woman until I was in my third year in college. Meanwhile I had become engaged to be married to a great guy, who was my big brother's best friend. He and I did get married, but when I saw two women together on a Saturday night, I was jealous. I had never been out with a girlfriend even on a Saturday night. I went out with boyfriends. So it was a whole different world. I told my husband, "Honey, you deserve more and I need something else." But as I said, I missed most of the pain. I came to New York and there was nothing but bars, and 1 didn't even know how to find them. The first time I went to a bar, I really wasn't living in New York yet. I came in for a wedding, and then I got on the Fifth Avenue bus and I went downtown. I stopped a woman on the street who had on a trenchcoat. And I said, "Do you know a bar where only women go?" She sent me to Thompson Street, L's Bar. I sat down at the bar, and I ordered a drink; I had never paid for a drink myself in my life until then. And nobody talked to me. I was dressed to the T, and nobody said hello, nobody said anything. I sat there for two hours and then I left. Okay. I thought, this is not going to be easy. My first real experience with being afraid of being gay came when I worked on the UNIVAC at NYU, which was mostly subsidized by the government and used primarily by the Atomic Energy Commission. (2) We had to have security clearances. I got a notice from the FBI inviting me to a meeting and saying I did not need a lawyer at this point. I got a book to get ready--and the book was the first time I saw the word gay. (3) It also had an appendix with the states and what was illegal in each state. It said that as far as women were concerned, that in New York, as long as you weren't imitating a man or pretending you were a man, you were safe. And in the bars, everybody said that so long as you were wearing two pieces of women's underwear, you would be safe if the police raided. So I didn't want to lie. If they asked me, I wanted to say, "I am gay." I'll probably lose my job, but I won't be arrested. …

Dignity and Social Meaning: Obergefell, Windsor, and Lawrence as Constitutional Dialogue

The Supreme Court’s three most important gay and lesbian rights decisions – Obergefell v. Hodges, United States v. Windsor, and Lawrence v. Texas – are united by the principle that gays and lesbians are entitled to dignity. Beyond their tangible consequences, the common constitutional evil of state bans on same-sex marriage, the federal Defense of Marriage Act, and sodomy laws was that they imposed dignitary harm. This Article explores how the gay and lesbian dignity cases exemplify the process by which constitutional law emerges from a social and cultural dialogue in which the Supreme Court actively participates. In doing so, it draws on the scholarly literatures on dialogic judicial review and the role of social meaning in constitutional law. It illuminates how the Supreme Court interprets democratic preferences and constructs social meaning in order to apply fundamental Constitutional norms to emerging legal claims. Contrary to the speculations of some commentators, “dignity” in these cases did not operate as some new form of constitutional right. Rather, the identification and protection of dignitary interests served as the unifying principle for a process, unfolding in three cases over thirteen years, through which constitutional law was brought into alignment with evolving public attitudes and policy preferences. The dignity decisions should be understood as majoritarian, not acts of judicial will. They were broadly accepted, because the Court’s insights about the status of gays and lesbians in American society were consistent with dramatic and long-term changes in culture and public attitudes. As culture and attitudes evolved, so did the social meaning of anti-gay laws. Sodomy laws and marriage restrictions, once accepted as presumptively constitutional protections of tradition and public morality, increasingly came be understood as impositions of stigma and humiliation -- the kind of expressive harms that the Constitution forbids.

Capitalist Family Values: Gender, Work, and Corporate Culture at Boeing by Polly Reed Myers

Capitalist Family Values: Gender, Work, and Corporate Culture at Boeing by Polly Reed Myers

Dropping the Other Shoe:Obergefelland the Inevitability of the Constitutional Right to Equal Marriage

After having invalidated the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the U.S. Supreme Court “dropped the other shoe” inObergefell v. Hodgesby declaring the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage at the state level unconstitutional. Written by Justice Kennedy, the majority opinion heavily relied on the dignity-bestowing character of marriage to show why this exclusion is so harmful. But this strategy comes with a cost: it inflicts a stigma even as it conveys recognition—a drawback that an equality analysis can avoid. Respondents had argued that opening marriage dangerously disconnected marriage from procreation, both the historical reason for and the essence of marriage. In finding that they had failed to provide evidence for the harmful outcomes they described, the majority not only provided the rational basis test with a new kind of “bite.” It also asserted that tradition or religious beliefs were not enough to justify exclusion. Once secular purposes define marriage and rational reasons are required to regulate access, the road to marriage equality opens wide. As the line of cases leading up toObergefellsuggests, and developments in Germany, Austria, and other jurisdictions confirm, equality works as a one-way ratchet—albeit without necessarily including polygamy and incest. Crucially, equality changes the focus: From an equality perspective, the harm lies not in the exclusion from a dignity-conferring institution, but in the suggestion that the excluded group is not worthy of participating in it and does not deserve the recognition and benefits associated with it. Instead of aspiring to achieve dignity through marriage, in this view same-sex couples claim recognition as free and equal citizens. Discrimination on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation subsumes an individual under a group category whose purported characteristics are systematically devalued, thus refusing to appreciate a person as an individual. It is this denial of recognition that conveys harm to the dignity of the individual above and beyond the respective disadvantage suffered. Thus taken with equality, dignity does not have the exclusive effect it has in isolation, as struggling against degrading exclusion stresses common traits.

A study on a sound fire extinguisher using special sound lens

Sound fire extinguisher is developed based on principle of quenching fire by blocking inflow of oxygen with contacting vibration energy from low frequency sound under 100 Hz to fire and then, lowering its temperature. The first sound fire extinguisher made by a Federal Defence researcher was very huge and based on theory of initial principles, making it hard to be commercialized. Although next sound fire extinguisher developed by students of George Mason University was smaller than before, it was also at the basic stage with early theory. What is more, disturbance from the too long cable and inconvenience of having to carry all the tools were not effective to be commercialized. By improving these drawbacks, Sori Sound Engineering Research Institute (SSERI) of Soongsil University has developed new concept sound fire distinguisher. It concentrates sound through special sound lens and increases energy 10 times more to put out the fire. This study researches about reducing weight of sound fire extinguisher based on new concept special sound lens created by Sori Sound Engineering Research Institute of Soongsil University.

Law, Social Justice, and Marriage: An Anti-Essentialist View

At the forefront of the culture wars today in the United States is the issue of or equality. Advocates of equality eschew the term same-sex marriage or marriage as it denotes a separate kind of institution, something really marriage. term equality, on the other hand, suggests that what the law commands-equal protection in terms of rights and responsibilities-is fulfilled.1 In other words, equality extends to all people the stabilizing legal expectations that comes with that are reinforced in hundreds of different ways each day. These benefits break down roughly into six categories, including: death benefits, entitlements, evidentiary privileges, inheritance, surrogate decisions making issues, and tax issues.2 Yet, the legalistic explanation of is not enough; it also has a social component. United States Supreme Court, in its landmark decision creating a constitutional right to privacy among spouses, reiterated the social importance of marriage:Marriage is a coming together better or worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.3The law, therefore, takes very seriously, as it should. For all of its imperfections, serves a range of functions that make life easier and more enjoyable most people during at least some part of their lives. Thus qualified, is a fundamental good. legal and social values of marriage, however, does not answer the question of who gets to enjoy its benefits. current battle is over couples, but previously it was over race and patriarchy, all of which reduce to, in my view, essentialist arguments that society has worked hard to overcome.WHAT IS MARRIAGE? WHAT CONSTITUTES A FAMILY? WHO DECIDES?According to the 2010 census, there are 901,997 couples in the United States.4 These were people who identified as being spouses or unmarried partners. By March 2013, the number of legally married couples was 120,000.5 Formal recognition of such relationships by the state is important a variety of reasons which I will discuss below-not the least of which, notes journalist Frank Bruni, for older relatives who now [have] a traditional vocabulary and framework- vows, rings, cake-for understanding the relationships.6 These and related symbols are important and, in some sense, they mean more than the $360,000 tax bill that Edith Windsor was facing when she successfully challenged the federal Defense of Marriage Act.7 Money, of course, is important, but not all currency involves dollars and cents.In other words, the symbolism of is precisely what gay people are fighting over. It is about other people understanding them and that we sometimes have to use the terms that other people recognize in order them to recognize us. Such people can be important, such as relatives who are trying to make sense of our lives, who love us and want to support us, but do not have a way to process our decisions. Or it can be strangers who interact with us as citizens through daily social intercourse. Simply, adopting the symbols of the dominant society becomes a useful way translating between different lived experiences. overall effect of such symbolic exchange can be a notable change in consciousness. As activist Arnie Kantrowitz has noted, The right to choose is the ultimate normalization of relations between gay and non-gay society.8 Such normalization is an end to which I hope will occur when the Supreme Court rules in June that the U.S. Constitution, in fact, guarantees Americans the right to enter into marriages.9In order readers to understand the importance of equality our society, I need to address the question: What is marriage? …

Правовые основы военной безопасности России

The military security of the Russian Federation in the face of external and internal threats is still primarily important. In this context the rightful principles of defense and security in Russia play a discrete role. The article provides the analysis of these principles for a legal framework of the Russian military security regulation. It reveals system problems, gaps and contradictions of the legal regulation. Complex and urgent measures for the legal system and legal instruments improvement are suggested in the article. It is proposed to develop a number of regulatory acts needed by reason of the blanket character of the Federal Defense Act. Among these are: The Armed Forces of the Russian Federation Act, The Operational Equipment of the Territory of the Russian Federation for the Purpose of Defense Act, The Armed Forces of the Russian Federation Management and Control during the War Act, etc. Problems of the social relations legal regulation in the defense and security sphere are systemic and complex, require a constant attention on the part of government agencies and a painstaking daily work of legislators. It should facilitate bringing the defense and military security system of the Russian Federation to a fundamentally different, whole new level relevant to the present level of external and internal threats.

A Conversation with Edie Windsor

Suzanne Goldberg [SG): It is not often that a law school gets to welcome a rock star. But in our world, Edie Windsor is a rock star. She is one of the major civil rights plaintiffs of our lifetime, whose lawsuit challenged--and triumphed over--the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Her victory in that suit has been vital to changing the landscape of marriage equality for all Americans. It is a tremendous honor, Edie, to have you here at Columbia Law School, and we welcome you. Edie Windsor [EW]: Thank you so much. SG: will start off by asking the first question in our conversation this afternoon, and then Andrew Chesley and Madeline Gomez, who are both Columbia Law School students, will be following up with questions we have collected from students throughout the law school. Edie, you have shown courage in every imaginable way: entering the computer science field as a young woman at a time where there were few women computer scientists--in fact, there were barely computer scientists; making the decision to get divorced and then coming to New York City to find other lesbians; and then coming out in so many ways. So when Time Magazine called you the unlikely it was not quite right because in so many ways, for so many years, you have been an activist, and you have been willing to challenge conventions. (1) Let's start the conversation by you just talking about how it was as a young lesbian coming to New York and confronting this world, and then also about some of the activism that you've done along the way before you filed your lawsuit against the United States government. EW: First of all, came out late enough in life that missed a lot of the pain of adolescence when you're gay and don't belong. first had any kind of real relationship with a woman when was a first-year student in college. And didn't fall in love seriously with a woman until was in my third year in college. Meanwhile had become engaged to be married to a great guy, who was my big brother's best friend. He and did get married, but when saw two women together on a Saturday night, was jealous. had never been out with a girlfriend even on a Saturday night. went out with boyfriends. So it was a whole different world. told my husband, Honey, you deserve more and need something else. But as said, missed most of the pain. came to New York and there was nothing but bars, and 1 didn't even know how to find them. The first time went to a bar, really wasn't living in New York yet. came in for a wedding, and then got on the Fifth Avenue bus and went downtown. stopped a woman on the street who had on a trenchcoat. And said, Do you know a bar where only women go? She sent me to Thompson Street, L's Bar. sat down at the bar, and ordered a drink; had never paid for a drink myself in my life until then. And nobody talked to me. was dressed to the T, and nobody said hello, nobody said anything. sat there for two hours and then left. Okay. thought, this is not going to be easy. My first real experience with being afraid of being gay came when worked on the UNIVAC at NYU, which was mostly subsidized by the government and used primarily by the Atomic Energy Commission. (2) We had to have security clearances. got a notice from the FBI inviting me to a meeting and saying did not need a lawyer at this point. got a book to get ready--and the book was the first time saw the word (3) It also had an appendix with the states and what was illegal in each state. It said that as far as women were concerned, that in New York, as long as you weren't imitating a man or pretending you were a man, you were safe. And in the bars, everybody said that so long as you were wearing two pieces of women's underwear, you would be safe if the police raided. So didn't want to lie. If they asked me, wanted to say, I am gay. I'll probably lose my job, but won't be arrested. …

Assessing the Impact of the Inner Belt

Between 1948 and 1971, the Massachusetts Department of Public Works released plans to build a freeway through Cambridge. One route would carve up a working-class neighborhood while another would run alongside MIT. First, we assess the impact of the planning process. While no highway was built, housing stock declined and uncertainly complicated urban renewal. Second, we explore MIT’s role in this story. Because its campus lay near a proposed route, the university functioned much like any other stakeholder. Yet its economic importance and its involvement with federal defense gave its administrators access to arguments unavailable to local residents or politicians. MIT functioned as both agent and subject, as a private entity at the mercy of federal and state prerogatives and as an influential public force in its own right, whose institutional knowledge, national importance, and civic significance overshadowed city and community prerogatives.

Equal Treatment under the Law: A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Same-Sex Benefits Post-Windsor

In June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a landmark decision in United States v. Windsor (570 U.S. ___ 2013). the ruling advanced gay rights by striking down Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and instating federal benefits to same-sex married couples. the ruling has widespread economic benefits for legally married same-sex couples including health insurance, flex-spending accounts, Social Security benefits, federal taxes, and veterans’ benefits. Framed within a global context, this article analyzes the economic implications of United States v. Windsor and the subsequent implementation of the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Rule 17 (Rev. Rul. 2013–17) by conducting a cost-benefit analysis of a state with marriage equality compared to a state prohibiting same-sex marriage. Findings indicate, despite the Supreme Court ruling, there is an unequal distribution of costs and benefits across states based on same-sex marriage. If all Americans are to receive equal treatment under the law, then all 50 states and Washington D.C. must comport with federal law and legalize same-sex marriage.

Tribal Laws & Same-Sex Marriage: Theory, Process, and Content

In 1996, Congress, in enacting the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), took the somewhat surprising step of explicitly including tribes within its purview. The legislative history is silent as to the decision to explicitly include tribes, and, at the time of DOMA’s passage, it does not appear that any tribe was seriously examining the issue. Since then, however, there have been many developments among tribes on this issue, including enactment of laws permitting same-sex marriage and enactment of prohibitions on same-sex marriage. Nonetheless, generally speaking, the issue does not seem to be a priority among tribes to the same extent it is a priority for states and the federal government.In 2013, the Supreme Court struck down section 3 of the DOMA, which concerns the federal definition of marriage, as a violation of equal protection and due process. In doing so, it left the constitutionality of section 2, which pertains to tribes’ and states’ recognition of out-of-jurisdiction marriages, uncertain. This article presents the post-DOMA developments in tribal law as to same-sex marriage, explaining the different tribal approaches to the issue, and then examines the processes by which tribal laws on same-sex marriage, particularly those explicitly permitting same-sex marriage, have been enacted. Finally, this article examines the possible effects that United States v. Windsor will likely have on tribal laws and suggests that tribal courts apply Windsor as persuasive authority under the Indian Civil Rights Act unless there is significant historical evidence as to a lack of openness to same-sex relationships or LGBT identities within that particular tribe. Finally, it discusses the reasons that laws on same-sex marriage may be less of a priority for tribes than for the other sovereigns in the United States. This article is the only comprehensive examination of tribal same-sex marriage laws since the issue gained serious momentum among tribes in 2011 and 2012, and it is the first to address the potential effects of Windsor on Indian tribes.

In the NEWS: A ROUNDUP OF NEWS AND INFORMATION FROM OUR COMMUNITY

In <i>the</i> NEWS: A ROUNDUP OF NEWS AND INFORMATION FROM OUR COMMUNITY

Windsor, Federalism, and Family Equality

In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Kennedy, the Court held in Windsor v. United States that section 3 of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional. Advocates had attacked section 3 on two primary grounds. The principal argument leveled at section 3 was that it violated principles of equal protection by denying one class of married spouses — lesbian and gay spouses — all federal marital benefits. Section 3 was also attacked on a number of federalism-based grounds. Some advocates pushed a particularly strong federalism variant, arguing that DOMA was unconstitutional because Congress lacked the authority to define or determine family status. I call this the categorical family status federalism argument. Others endorsed a more moderated claim. Under this theory, the fact that a law — here section 3 of DOMA — deviated from the historic allocation of power as between the federal government and the states was simply a basis for applying a more careful level of equal protection scrutiny. Under this theory, the federalism-based concerns were not an independent basis for striking down the law. This Essay argues that civil rights advocates dodged a bullet when the Windsor Court declined to embrace the categorical family status federalism theory. While its acceptance would have brought along the short-term gain of providing a basis for invalidating DOMA, it also would have curtailed the ability of federal officials to protect same-sex couples and other families.