Faculty in the News
Moritz College of Law faculty members are increasingly finding themselves in the spotlight as reporters seek them out for expert comment on today's headlines. The topics cover a wide range, such as the death penalty, artificial insemination, and voting machines. Just as varied are the locations of the publications or news outlets, ranging from small town newspapers to wire services with international distribution.
The following is a list of selected media coverage for Moritz faculty members. The links below will direct you to sites that are not affiliated with the Moritz College of Law. They are subject to change, and some may expire or require registration as time passes. Contact Barbara Peck, Chief Communications Officer, for any media requests at (614) 292-0283.
Allan J. Samansky Media Hits
The following is a list of selected media coverage for Allan J. Samansky. The links below will direct you to sites that are not affiliated with the Moritz College of Law. They are subject to change, and some may expire or require registration as time passes. (Return to Faculty Bio)
Pastors protest from the pulpit
Sep. 29, 2008
Professor Allan Samansky was quoted in a Chicago Tribune story about preachers being encouraged to endorse candidates from the pulpit. The story says: “Ohio State University law professor Allan J. Samansky disagrees. He contends that such rules might work for non-profit organizations that could actually be fronts for political parties or candidates. But applied to churches, such rules threaten religious liberties and adversely affect political campaigns. Government, he argues, should not regulate the pulpit.”
Full Court May Weigh Taxation of Damages
Oct. 30, 2006
Professor Allan Samansky was quoted in this National Law Journal story covering the case where the DC Circuit held that taxation of damages for defamation and damage to reputation was unconstitutional because it violated the 16th Amendment. "I would say it's an outrageous opinion," said Samansky. "There's an old case-Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920)-where the Supreme Court used the 16th Amendment to say a tax was unconstitutional because what was being taxed was not income. But since then, no court has decided it's up to the courts to use the 16th Amendment to make judgments about what is income. Those are the type of issues that Congress decides. This second-guessing of Congress will undoubtedly make the law more complicated, uncertain and just messy with no benefit." The full D.C. Circuit, he added, should hear the case and reverse. (subscription required)