Copyright (c) 2011 All rights reserved. http://works.bepress.com/mark_bell Recent documents in Mark M Bell en-us Fri, 11 Mar 2011 02:17:00 PST 3600 http://works.bepress.com/mark_bell/4 http://works.bepress.com/mark_bell/4 Wed, 09 Mar 2011 11:19:24 PST <p>The attached article is the first article to clearly and plainly describe the history and genesis of concurrent causation as well as the development of anti-concurrent policy exclusions. After describing this unique history, the article argues that it is time to re-analyze concurrent causation questions and advocates for a categorical analysis for addressing “concurrent causation” questions.</p> Mark M. Bell General Law http://works.bepress.com/mark_bell/3 http://works.bepress.com/mark_bell/3 Wed, 09 Mar 2011 11:07:33 PST <p>The attached article is the first article to clearly and plainly describe the history and genesis of concurrent causation as well as the development of anti-concurrent policy exclusions. After describing this unique history, the article argues that it is time to re-analyze concurrent causation questions and advocates for a categorical analysis for addressing “concurrent causation” questions.</p> Mark M. Bell General Law A Concurrent Mess and a Call for Clarity in First-Party Property Insurance Coverage Analysis http://works.bepress.com/mark_bell/2 http://works.bepress.com/mark_bell/2 Mon, 30 Mar 2009 11:17:05 PDT <p>Apportionment issues inevitably arise decennially. Consistent with historical trends, the debates concerning the upcoming 2010 apportionment have already begun to intensify. Deciding which apportionment method to use has generated intense debates among some of the most prominent figures in the Nation’s history. Most scholars believe that there is constitutional tension between two fundamental apportionment constraints: apportioning proportionally and representatively. It has been universally accepted that it is “impossible to satisfy both criteria.” In order to satisfy both criteria, an apportionment method must both, maintain quota, and avoid paradoxes. I postulate a new method, the “Webster Plus One” approach, that stands to settle the apportionment method debate by guaranteeing proportional and representative apportionment, while simultaneously maintaining quota and avoiding paradoxes. Because this method finally ensures a Constitutional apportionment, it should be implemented by Congress prior to the 2010 reapportionment.</p> Mark M. Bell Constitutional Law General Law Legislation http://works.bepress.com/mark_bell/1 http://works.bepress.com/mark_bell/1 Fri, 27 Feb 2009 17:51:23 PST <p>Apportionment issues inevitably arise decennially. Consistent with historical trends, the debates concerning the upcoming 2010 apportionment have already begun to intensify. Deciding which apportionment method to use has generated intense debates among some of the most prominent figures in the Nation’s history. Most scholars believe that there is constitutional tension between two fundamental apportionment constraints: apportioning proportionally and representatively. It has been universally accepted that it is “impossible to satisfy both criteria.” In order to satisfy both criteria, an apportionment method must both, maintain quota, and avoid paradoxes. I postulate a new method, the “Webster Plus One” approach, that stands to settle the apportionment method debate by guaranteeing proportional and representative apportionment, while simultaneously maintaining quota and avoiding paradoxes. Because this method finally ensures a Constitutional apportionment, it should be implemented by Congress prior to the 2010 reapportionment.</p> Mark M. Bell Constitutional Law Legal History Legislation Politics