Dr Erwin Kay Review

[Aline Braunbeck]

AtKenyon Review Young Writers Workshops, talented high school students from around the world join a dynamic and supportive literary community to stretch their talents, discover new strengths, and challenge themselves in the company of peers who are also passionate about writing.

PhD qualifying exams are a grueling rite of passage for graduate students. I took mine in February for a degree in art history specializing in the Italian Renaissance. I studied hard, but on the oral section of the exam I suddenly froze with nerves. I passed, but it had not gone well, and I was upset about it. I wanted, badly, to impress on the second section: an essay to be written in 10 days. From the topic I was assigned, I knew that I would have to say something at least intelligible about the 1960 book by Erwin Panofsky (1892-1968), Renaissance and Renascences in Western Art.

As I scrambled to complete my bibliography hours before the exam was due, I stumbled across something unexpected. The second chapter of the 1960 book had, in an earlier form, been published as an article in The Kenyon Review in 1944. Kenyon Review? Why had Panofsky published this in a literary journal that, at the time, only very occasionally published articles and book reviews about art history? The question preoccupied me because, well, I went to Kenyon, and I had been a student associate and an intern at KR.

Should he argue that its author is too much in earnest, and has no right to hold art so strictly to account? It would seem too rude, as well as lacking in understanding, inasmuch as no view of art other than this could suggest itself to a soldier risking his life at the front. Survival is the issue with that soldier, though not merely his own survival. Yet the only reply that could have any validity would have been that the editor, and most of the contributors and readers, were not at the front as the soldier was, and saw little to gain by pretending they were at the front, and felt that a normal literary activity such as they were still trying to maintain could not occur at the front, nor be directed from the front.

The site is secure.

The ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of the major databases and hand-searched proceedings of major neurology, psychiatry, and dementia conferences through November 2012. Prospective cohort studies examining the MeDi with longitudinal follow-up of at least 1 year and reporting cognitive outcomes (mild cognitive impairment [MCI] or Alzheimer's disease [AD]) were included. The effect size was estimated as hazard-ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using the random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran's Q-test and I2-statistic.

Conclusions: While the overall number of studies is small, pooled results suggest that a higher adherence to the MeDi is associated with a reduced risk of developing MCI and AD, and a reduced risk of progressing from MCI to AD. Further prospective-cohort studies with longer follow-up and randomized controlled trials are warranted to consolidate the evidence. Systematic review registration number: PROSPERO 2013: CRD42013003868.

The answer is not to eliminate judicial review. After a disastrous month of Supreme Court rulings, it is tempting to embrace the idea of getting rid of the power of the judiciary to declare laws and executive actions unconstitutional. But I am convinced that would only make things much worse for the most vulnerable in our society. The Court was wrong in overruling Roe v. Wade, but if there had not been the power of judicial review then there would have been no right to abortion at all for the last 49 years.

Cooper makes familiar arguments against judicial review. He says that it is a power that never was intended in the Constitution. Whether judicial review was intended by the framers has been debated for over 200 years and is a question that never will be resolved. Although the Constitution does not explicitly mention the authority of courts to declare laws and executive acts unconstitutional, judicial review existed in many states and some believe that it was assumed that the federal courts would have this power too. Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78 outlines why judicial review was intended and essential. But unless one embraces a radical form of originalism, why should we care whether judicial review was intended in 1787? It has existed ever since Marbury v. Madison in 1803 and it should take a compelling case to eliminate what has been a core aspect of American government throughout its history.

Cooper says that judicial review is anti-democratic because it empowers unelected judges to declare unconstitutional the acts of popularly elected officials. Cooper bases his argument on a simplistic and flawed definition of democracy as majority rule. This ignores that the Constitution itself is profoundly anti-democratic and any enforcement of it necessarily also will be anti-majoritarian. Obviously, none of us alive today participated in the drafting or ratification of the Constitution, nor did most of us have ancestors in the country then. The Constitution is enormously difficult to change, requiring two-thirds of both houses of Congress and then three-fourths of the states to approve an amendment. It has been amended only 27 times and only 17 times since the adoption of the Bill of Rights in 1791.

Most importantly, those without political power have nowhere to turn for protection except the judiciary. There is little incentive for the political process to protect unpopular minorities, such as racial or political minorities. How long would it have been before Southern state legislatures outlawed the segregation of public facilities if not for Brown v. Board of Education? How long would it have taken Congress, dominated by Southerners in key committee chairs, to have acted in this regard?

These, of course, are just some of the examples where the political process cannot be relied on to comply voluntarily with the Constitution. In all of these areas, it is likely the courts or nothing for enforcing and upholding the Constitution.

Judicial review also is essential to ensure that state and local governments comply with the Constitution. The nature of the federalist structure of American government is that there are 50 states and tens of thousands of local governments that can violate the Constitution. These include not only every town, city, and county, but every school board and zoning commission.

Cooper and others who would eliminate judicial review make their case as it pertains to the actions of elected officials. Their claim is that the popular political process would be enough to ensure compliance with the Constitution. But eliminating judicial review would do so for the actions of unelected officials as well. Much actual governance in the United States is done by unelected officials: police officers, prison guards, zoning board members, and regulatory agencies at all levels of government. Critics of judicial review stress the desirability of majority rule, but decisions by these officials are not majoritarian in any sense. Even if one could accept trust in the majoritarian process, it seems absurd to say that police officers or prison guards will have compliance with the Constitution at the forefront of their concerns.

I have spent my career as a lawyer largely representing those who would have had no chance in the political system. In the Supreme Court, I argued a case on behalf of a homeless man who was challenging a religious symbol at the Texas State Capitol and another on behalf of a man who received a sentence of 50 years to life for stealing $153 worth of videotapes. In the lower courts, I have represented a Guantanamo detainee, a man seeking asylum after persecution in Mexico, a person sentenced to death for committing a triple murder, and victims of egregious police abuse. I have lost more cases than I have won, but I know for my clients that it is judicial review or nothing.

Since 1991, he has held many diverse positions in the corporate and academic fields, and began his career as a communications specialist for a military contractor during the first Persian Gulf War. From 1995-2000, he served as fiction editor and contributing editor of The MacGuffin. From 1999 to 2010, he was director of Publications and lecturer of Communications and Literature at Kettering University. From 2010 to 2017, he was executive director of Marketing & Communications for Henry Ford College, where he led the launch of the institution's new brand, name and website. He has taught creative writing, technical writing, business communications, marketing communications, journalism, corporate communications and American literature at Kettering University, Baker College, Oakland Community College and Mott Community College. He has presented at a number of national professional conferences and consulted for Fortune 500 companies and non-profit organizations, for which he has raised more than $130 million in grant funding over the past 20 years.

His stories, essays, research and science journalism have appeared in numerous journals, reviews, conference proceedings, media outlets and magazines, including Red Cedar Review, The Sun, Pebble Lake Review, The MacGuffin, Sante Fe Literary Review, Driftwood Review, Adelaide Literary Magazine, 3288 Review, Technology Century, Society of Technical Communications Global Communications Conference Proceedings, and National Commission for Cooperative Education, among others. His work has also earned two Pushcart Prize nominations and has been anthologized in The PrePress Awards Volume II: Michigan Voices. His book of short stories, Trail Crossing Sixteen Counties, was published in 2019. He is currently working on a new novel titled Cut River Redemption. Excerpts from this work have appeared in Pebble Lake Review and Adelaide Literary Magazine.

3a8082e126