DOCSLIB.ORG

Ldb-100-Then-Now-Collection.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ldb-100-Then-Now-Collection.Pdf ESSAYS FROM BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY’S COMMEMORATION OF THE 100TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE APPOINTMENT OF LOUIS D. BRANDEIS TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT Edited by Daniel Terris and David J. Weinstein These essays were commissioned from participants in a 2016 celebration at Brandeis University commemorating the 100th anniversary of the nomination and confirmation of Louis D. Brandeis to the United States Supreme Court. Support for the centennial celebration and this publication comes from Brandeis University and from the Louis D. Brandeis Legacy Fund for Social Justice, founded by Jules Bernstein ’57 and his wife, Linda Lipsett. Celebrating the 100th Anniversary of Louis D. Brandeis’ Appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court CONTENTS n Introduction 3 Daniel Terris n PART I – LOUIS D. BRANDEIS, THE SUPREME COURT AND AMERICAN DEMOCRACY Lessons Learned from Louis D. Brandeis 9 Ruth Bader Ginsburg H’96 n PART II – CITIZENSHIP AND THE ECONOMY: LABOR, INEQUALITY AND BIGNESS The Last Autonomist 23 Richard Adelstein What a Little Sunlight Can Do: Learning from the Economic Legacy of Louis D. Brandeis 41 Alexis Goldstein n PART III – PRIVACY, TECHNOLOGY AND THE MODERN SELF The Declining Significance of Home: Privacy “Whilst Quiet” and of No Use to Artists or Anyone 69 Anita L. Allen Privacy Imperiled: What Would Brandeis Make of the NSA & Edward Snowden? 89 Shane Harris Translating Justice Brandeis’ Views on Privacy for the 21st Century 101 Steven A. Mirmina ’89 n PART IV – JEWISH JUSTICES AND THE EXPANDING DIVERSITY OF THE SUPREME COURT The Appointment of Louis D. Brandeis, First Jewish Justice on the Supreme Court 123 David G. Dalin PhD’77 Diversifying the Supreme Court: Brandeis, Marshall, Sotomayor 147 Linda S. Greene n PART V – SPEECH AND PARTICIPATION IN A DEMOCRACY: WHAT ARE THE RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE EDUCATED CITIZEN? Brandeis, Speech, and Money 183 Leslie Kendrick The Brandeis/Citizens United Question 197 Jon D. Levy Speech and Democracy: The Legacy of Justice Brandeis Today 215 Philippa Strum ’59 n Selected Bibliography 241 Anu Shah ’16 n Organizing Committee 248 Photo courtesy of the Robert D. Farber Archives & Special Collections Department, Brandeis University Louis D. Brandeis 100: Then & Now Daniel Terris* Then On January 28, 1916, President Woodrow Wilson announced that he was nominating Boston attorney Louis Dembitz Brandeis to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court of the United States. The 58-year-old Brandeis had an inkling what he might be in for: “I am not exactly sure,” he wrote to his brother Alfred, “that I am to be congratulated, but I am glad the President wanted to make the appointment and I am convinced, all things considered, that I should accept.” The public reaction to the president’s announcement was swift and explosive. Former President William Howard Taft, denouncing the nomination, called Brandeis “a muckraker, an emotionalist for his own purposes, a socialist, prompted by jealousy, a hypocrite … who is utterly unscrupulous…a man of infinite cunning…of great tenacity of purpose, and, in my judgment, of much power for evil.” Even the liberal New York Times was unhappy, complaining that Brandeis “is essentially a contender, a striver after change and reforms. The Supreme Court by its very nature is the conservator of our institutions.” The qualities that concerned Taft and the Times are the very things that we at Brandeis University value so much in our institution’s namesake. As a young lawyer, he had taken on the inquisitive press and defined, for the first time in American life, a “right to privacy.” Later, when taking legal action to limit the number of hours that women were forced to work in certain industries, he invented a new form of argument – relying on data, not just legal theory – and the “Brandeis Brief” became a staple of American law. When the growing power of mammoth financial institutions threatened to overwhelm the interests of small investors, he argued eloquently for limits on the ways in which financiers could use “other people’s money.” And he spoke explicitly about his commitment to “social justice,” an idea that Brandeis and other prominent thinkers of the progressive era brought into the public lexicon – and which remains a cornerstone of the Brandeis University ethos. brandeis.edu/ldb-100 | 3 The battle over the Brandeis nomination made headlines across the country for more than four months, and it is clear that some of the opposition to the nomination had its roots in anti-Semitism. The Senate Judiciary Committee held weeks of hearings, but according to the tradition of the time, the nominee himself was not invited to speak on his own behalf or answer their probing questions about his judicial philosophy. Instead, Brandeis helped to orchestrate a quiet but effective campaign from his home in Massachusetts to try to shore up political support for his confirmation. On June 1, 1916, Wilson’s vice president Thomas Riley Marshall, in his role as president of the Senate, announced that Louis D. Brandeis had been confirmed as an associate justice of the Supreme Court by a vote of 47 to 22. Brandeis was on the train from his office in Boston to his summer home in Dedham, Massachusetts, when the Senate was voting. When he arrived, his wife Alice met him at the door with a new greeting: “Good evening, Mr. Justice Brandeis.” Brandeis served as a justice of the Supreme Court for the next 23 years, creating a legacy of brilliant and innovative jurisprudence that makes him not only one of the great justices, but one of the primary shapers of the modern-day United States. His dissent in Olmstead v. the United States, which argued for limiting the government’s use of technology to spy on its own citizens, continues to influence legal doctrine in the age of Edward Snowden. And his famous concurring opinion in Whitney v. California made freedom of expression not just a constitutional principle but an active force in American life. Evil and destructive rhetoric, he insisted in Whitney, must be met with “more speech, not enforced silence.” Those who feared his appointment were wrong about at least one thing: Brandeis was no activist lawyer determined to turn upside down the cherished traditions of the Supreme Court. He would prove, in fact, to be a proponent of judicial restraint. He believed deeply in American democratic institutions, which meant for him that Congress and the president ought to make the laws, and Supreme Court justices should avoid interpreting the law to suit their moral or political positions. Above all, Louis Brandeis believed in creating space and freedom for the individual to live a meaningful life as an engaged citizen of a democracy. Much of his jurisprudence had as its ultimate end the goal of protecting the space where citizens could learn, and where ideas could be debated. For that reason, it is fitting that the founders of this university chose to honor him as its namesake. His greatest legacy is the meaning that he found in robust civic and intellectual engagement, a hallmark of Brandeis University from its founding to the present day. 4 | Louis D. Brandeis | 100 | Then & Now Now Over the course of the winter and spring of 2016, Brandeis University marked the centennial of the nomination and appointment of Louis D. Brandeis to the Supreme Court of the United States with a series of events, exhibitions and special occasions. The celebration kicked off on January 28, 2016, with “Louis Brandeis, the Supreme Court and American Democracy,” featuring Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and an all-star cast of judicial, scholarly and journalistic commentators. Five panel discussions followed during February, March and April, focused on different aspects of the varied and remarkable career of Louis D. Brandeis (“LDB”). The life and career of Brandeis served as the starting point for the kind of vigorous debate that for him characterized the best of American life. The contributors to our LDB 100 panels brought to our conversations a variety of intellectual and professional perspectives. Scholars, journalists, judges and activists joined in the kind of robust multi-disciplinary discussion that the author of the original “Brandeis Brief” would have cherished. This Collection In this publication, 11 of the contributors to our LDB 100 series reflect on the extraordinary achievements of Louis Brandeis in light of contemporary developments in law, politics and society. They demonstrate that the legacy of Justice Brandeis is a dynamic and powerful current in 21st century American life. Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s address from “Louis D. Brandeis, the Supreme Court and American Democracy,” the kickoff event for the LDB 100 series, focuses on the development of the “Brandeis Brief” for Brandeis’ argument in Muller v. Oregon, followed by Justice Ginsburg’s reflections on how the thinking of Louis Brandeis has had a direct influence on her own thinking and career. The other 10 essays, commissioned as original contributions to the LDB 100 series, are grouped (as were our panel discussions) around key themes: brandeis.edu/ldb-100 | 5 Citizenship and the Economy: Labor, Inequality and Bigness Richard Adelstein and Alexis Goldstein examine Louis Brandeis’ concerns about the power and influence of large corporations, and consider the implications of his ideas in an era when the issue of income inequality has once again become part of the national discourse. Privacy, Technology and the Modern Self Anita Allen, Shane Harris, and Steven Mirmina return to LDB’s seminal essay on “The Right to Privacy” and his landmark dissent in Olmstead v. United States in light of the pervasive intrusions on private life that technology has made possible in our time. Jewish Justices and the Expanding Diversity of the Supreme Court David Dalin and Linda Greene review the extraordinary battle over the 1916 nomination process, and trace the history of the changing racial, ethnic and gender composition of the United States Supreme Court over the following century.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Jessica Chastain
    FALL 2019 smagazineofficial.com JESSICA CHASTAIN FALL TAILORING DESIGN WITH PURPOSE SOFT-GLOSS BEAUTY $6.95 DISPLAY UNTIL NOVEMBER 18, 2019 THE LIST 02/ BEAUTY The ideas, personalities, and trends to know now. SPICE OF LIFE Offering a delightful array of fragrances, candles, bath and body products, and more, Maison Christian Dior is a go-to brand for perfume lovers looking to discover their signature scent. The latest addition to the family is Spice Blend: “The fragrant translation of an exotic image stemming from my childhood,” explains Dior Perfumer François Demachy. Featuring concentrated doses of spices from around the world—namely Madagascan black pepper, Indonesian nutmeg, Russian coriander, and Chinese cinnamon—the scent has an enticing base that mingles with ginger, cedar, and musk, revealing a rum absolute that is both warm and fresh. An homage to Christian Dior’s love of Cuba and its vibrant energy, the unisex fragrance embodies both masculine elegance and sophisticated femininity. Maison Christian Dior Spice Blend is available at Saks Fifth Avenue and dior.com. FOOD + DRINK 03/French Twist Situated in the 136-year-old C.H. Gooderham House, Maison Selby, an all-day-dining restaurant and bar, celebrates timeless French cooking with an elevated modern accent. The recognized heritage property, helmed by Oliver & Bonacini’s chefs Anthony Walsh and John Horne, focuses on old- school European techniques and Parisian-inspired nibbles. The thoughtfully curated menu serves a TIFF range of French fare, featuring perfectly executed classics like the tuna Niçoise salad and French onion EVENING THE SCORE soup. Accompanying the dining room, tucked away Based on Jessica Pressler’s article “The Hustlers at Scores”, which ran in New York magazine in 2015, Hustlers in the lower level, is an underground speakeasy tells the true account of a group of Manhattan strippers who entertain and swindle millions from their Wall Street for intimate post-dinner nightcaps.
    [Show full text]
  • In Defence of the Court's Integrity
    In Defence of the Court’s Integrity 17 In Defence of the Court’s Integrity: The Role of Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes in the Defeat of the Court-Packing Plan of 1937 Ryan Coates Honours, Durham University ‘No greater mistake can be made than to think that our institutions are fixed or may not be changed for the worse. We are a young nation and nothing can be taken for granted. If our institutions are maintained in their integrity, and if change shall mean improvement, it will be because the intelligent and the worthy constantly generate the motive power which, distributed over a thousand lines of communication, develops that appreciation of the standards of decency and justice which we have delighted to call the common sense of the American people.’ Hughes in 1909 ‘Our institutions were not designed to bring about uniformity of opinion; if they had been, we might well abandon hope.’ Hughes in 1925 ‘While what I am about to say would ordinarily be held in confidence, I feel that I am justified in revealing it in defence of the Court’s integrity.’ Hughes in the 1940s In early 1927, ten years before his intervention against the court-packing plan, Charles Evans Hughes, former Governor of New York, former Republican presidential candidate, former Secretary of State, and most significantly, former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, delivered a series 18 history in the making vol. 3 no. 2 of lectures at his alma mater, Columbia University, on the subject of the Supreme Court.1 These lectures were published the following year as The Supreme Court: Its Foundation, Methods and Achievements (New York: Columbia University Press, 1928).
    [Show full text]
  • Mccormick Foundation Civics Program Freedom of Speech: Clear & Present Danger
    McCormick Foundation Civics Program 2010 First Amendment Summer Institute Freedom of Speech: Clear & Present Danger Shawn Healy Director of Educational Programs Civics Program Freedom of Speech o First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law…abridging…the freedom of speech…” o An historic progression of free speech tests: • Bad tendency -Rooted in English Common Law and articulated in Gitlow v. New York (1925) • Clear and present danger -First articulated by Holmes in Schenck v. U.S. (1919), and adopted by a majority of the Court in Herndon v. Lowry (1937) • Imminent lawless action -Supplants clear and present danger test in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) -Exception: speech cases in military courts Bad Tendency Test o World War I: Used as test to determine whether speech critical of government during the war and its aftermath crossed the line o Sedition Act of 1917: • Congress intended to forestall threats to military operations • The Wilson Administration used to prohibit dissenting views • Shaffer v. U.S. (9th Circuit Court of Appeals): “It is true that disapproval of war and the advocacy of peace are not crimes under the Espionage Act; but the question here is…whether the natural and probable tendency and effect of the words…are such as are calculated to produce the result condemned by the statute.” Bad Tendency Test Continued o Abrams v. U.S. (1919): • Pamphlet critical of Wilson’s decision to send troops to Russia, urging U.S. workers to strike in protest • Charged under 1918 amendment to Sedition Act prohibiting expression of disloyalty and interference with the war effort • Downplayed clear and present danger distinction: “for the language of these circulars was obviously intended to provoke and to encourage resistance to the United States and the war.” Bad Tendency Test Continued o Gitlow v.
    [Show full text]
  • Culture Wars' Reloaded: Trump, Anti-Political Correctness and the Right's 'Free Speech' Hypocrisy
    The 'Culture Wars' Reloaded: Trump, Anti-Political Correctness and the Right's 'Free Speech' Hypocrisy Dr. Valerie Scatamburlo-D'Annibale University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada Abstract This article explores how Donald Trump capitalized on the right's decades-long, carefully choreographed and well-financed campaign against political correctness in relation to the broader strategy of 'cultural conservatism.' It provides an historical overview of various iterations of this campaign, discusses the mainstream media's complicity in promulgating conservative talking points about higher education at the height of the 1990s 'culture wars,' examines the reconfigured anti- PC/pro-free speech crusade of recent years, its contemporary currency in the Trump era and the implications for academia and educational policy. Keywords: political correctness, culture wars, free speech, cultural conservatism, critical pedagogy Introduction More than two years after Donald Trump's ascendancy to the White House, post-mortems of the 2016 American election continue to explore the factors that propelled him to office. Some have pointed to the spread of right-wing populism in the aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis that culminated in Brexit in Europe and Trump's victory (Kagarlitsky, 2017; Tufts & Thomas, 2017) while Fuchs (2018) lays bare the deleterious role of social media in facilitating the rise of authoritarianism in the U.S. and elsewhere. Other 69 | P a g e The 'Culture Wars' Reloaded: Trump, Anti-Political Correctness and the Right's 'Free Speech' Hypocrisy explanations refer to deep-rooted misogyny that worked against Hillary Clinton (Wilz, 2016), a backlash against Barack Obama, sedimented racism and the demonization of diversity as a public good (Major, Blodorn and Blascovich, 2016; Shafer, 2017).
    [Show full text]
  • Selected Highlights of Women's History
    Selected Highlights of Women’s History United States & Connecticut 1773 to 2015 The Permanent Commission on the Status of Women omen have made many contributions, large and Wsmall, to the history of our state and our nation. Although their accomplishments are too often left un- recorded, women deserve to take their rightful place in the annals of achievement in politics, science and inven- Our tion, medicine, the armed forces, the arts, athletics, and h philanthropy. 40t While this is by no means a complete history, this book attempts to remedy the obscurity to which too many Year women have been relegated. It presents highlights of Connecticut women’s achievements since 1773, and in- cludes entries from notable moments in women’s history nationally. With this edition, as the PCSW celebrates the 40th anniversary of its founding in 1973, we invite you to explore the many ways women have shaped, and continue to shape, our state. Edited and designed by Christine Palm, Communications Director This project was originally created under the direction of Barbara Potopowitz with assistance from Christa Allard. It was updated on the following dates by PCSW’s interns: January, 2003 by Melissa Griswold, Salem College February, 2004 by Nicole Graf, University of Connecticut February, 2005 by Sarah Hoyle, Trinity College November, 2005 by Elizabeth Silverio, St. Joseph’s College July, 2006 by Allison Bloom, Vassar College August, 2007 by Michelle Hodge, Smith College January, 2013 by Andrea Sanders, University of Connecticut Information contained in this book was culled from many sources, including (but not limited to): The Connecticut Women’s Hall of Fame, the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 20 Ap® Focus & Annotated Chapter Outline Ap® Focus
    CHAPTER 20 AP® FOCUS & ANNOTATED CHAPTER OUTLINE AP® FOCUS Period 7: 1890–1945 AP U.S. History Key Concepts 7.2 A revolution in technology created a new mass culture and spread “modern” values amid increasing cultural conflicts. • Wartime tensions and xenophobia led to legislation restricting immigration. • World Wars I and II contributed to increased migration, both internally and to the United States. 7.3 Global conflicts led to debates over the United States’ increasingly dominant role in the world. • American expansionism led to overseas involvement and acquisitions in the Western Hemisphere and the Pacific. • World War I increased debates over the proper role of the United States in the world. ANNOTATED CHAPTER OUTLINE The following annotated chapter outline will help you review the major topics covered in this chapter. I. From Expansion to Imperialism A. Foundations of Empire 1. Historians used to describe turn-of-the-twentieth-century U.S. imperialism as something new. Now they emphasize continuities between foreign policy in this era and the nation’s earlier, relentless expansion across the continent. 2. Policymakers beginning in the 1890s went on a determined quest for global markets. Industrialization and a modern navy provided tools for the United States to flex its muscle, and the economic crisis of the 1890s provided a spur. 3. Confronting high unemployment and mass protests, policymakers feared that American workers would embrace socialism or communism. The alternative, they believed, was overseas markets that would create jobs and prosperity at home. 4. Intellectual trends also favored imperialism. As early as 1885, Congregationalist minister Josiah Strong urged Protestants to proselytize overseas.
    [Show full text]
  • Gender & Society
    ~Draft: Schedule and Materials Subject to Revision~ GSWS 002: GENDER & SOCIETY Summer Session II July 1st-August 6th, 2021 Synchronous Zoom sessions will be held for conversation, review, and classroom community on Tuesdays and Thursdays, 9:00-11:00 am EST. All other course lectures, activities, and assessments will be asynchronous. Course Instructor: Alicia Meyer (she/her) Email: [email protected] Office Hours: by appointment via Zoom, chat session, or phone Course Description: This course will introduce students to the ways in which sex, gender, and sexuality mark our bodies, influence our perceptions of self and others, organize families and work like, delimit opportunities for individuals and groups of people, as well as impact the terms of local and transnational economic exchange. We will explore the ways in which sex, gender, and sexuality work with other markers of difference and social status such as race, age, nationality, and ability to further demarcate possibilities, freedoms, choices, and opportunities available to people. Required Texts: All reading assignments will be PDFs or other forms of electronic media made available through Canvas. There are several films and clips that we will watch that are available through Canvas and Van Pelt Library. Assignments and Evaluation: Attendance and Participation: 30% Attendance is required. If you need to miss a class, please reach out to me beforehand. You are permitted to take one absence, but, because this is an accelerated course, any further absences will result in a deduction of your final grade. If you have difficulties or are in a unique situation regarding time-zones, travel, quarantine, caregiving, work, or other challenges, please reach out to me ASAP so that we can create a plan together that will allow you to participate in the class.
    [Show full text]
  • St. Paul's Episcopal Church Broad Street 36 03 40 N 76 36 31 W
    St. Paul’s Episcopal Church Broad Street 36 03 40 N 76 36 31 W W. D. Holmes July 22, 1842 April 26, 1908 Father Harriet Holmes March 11, 1842 July 29, 1883 Mother Eligible stone In Memory of M.J. Hollowell Wife of W.H. Hollowell November 15, 1840 January 5, 1883 In Memory of Jessie Hollowell Son of W.H. Hollowell Wife ______ Hollowell In Memory of Infant son of W.H. and M.J. Hollowell Burnice McCoy April 1, 1899 January 7, 1901 Elizabeth Arnold Jackson Wife of Jacob Wool December 21, 1852 June 17, 1914 Asleep in Jesus Penelopy McCoy August 20, 1839 May 15, 1915 James McCoy August 20, 1827 April 14, 1892 Patty June McCoy June 22, 1861 August 27, 1888 Jacob Wool August 27, 1830 December 6, 1900 In Loving Remembrance of Annie B. Wool November 8, 1870 September 5, 1887 Daughter of Jacob and Elizabeth Wool A faithful Christian devoted friend, none knew her but to love her. Asleep in Jesus. Eligible ground marker Elizabeth M.W. Moore Daughter of Augustus Minten and Elizabeth Warren Moore March 3, 1878 February 28, 1936 Judge Augustus M. Moore December 17, 1841 April 24, 1902 Our father Mary E. Moore August 11, 1839 February 12, 1903 William Edward Anderson Thompson August 6, 1869 February 16, 1924 The Lord is my rock and my fortress. God is Love. Walker Anderson Thompson October 18, 1866 February 15, 1891 Erected in loving remembrance by his aunt Mary Read Anderson. John Thompson September 6, 1860 February 6, 1879 Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God.
    [Show full text]
  • SUMMER | 2021 Lawyering in the Age of Covid-19 Lawyering in Theageof American College of Trial Lawyers JOURNAL
    ISSUE 96 | SUMMER | 2021 Lawyering in theageof Covid-19 American College of Trial Lawyers JOURNAL Chancellor-Founder Hon. Emil Gumpert contents (1895-1982) 02 04 05 OFFICERS Letter from the Editor Annual Meeting President’s The College RODNEY ACKER President Announcement Perspective Welcomes New MICHAEL L. O’DONNELL President-Elect Officers & Regents SUSAN J. HARRIMAN Treasurer WILLIAM J. MURPHY Secretary DOUGLAS R. YOUNG Immediate Past President MEETING RECAP BOARD OF REGENTS 09 15 19 25 RODNEY ACKER DAN S. FOLLUO CLE: The 25th Anniversary The Honorable Brian Brurud - Check 6 Scientific Collaboration in Dallas, Texas Tulsa, Oklahoma of the VMI Case: Mark E. Recktenwald – Access to The Fight Against Covid-19 PETER AKMAJIAN LARRY H. KRANTZ Remembering RBG Justice In the Age Of COVID Tucson, Arizona New York, New York SUSAN S. BREWER MARTIN F. MURPHY Morgantown, West Virginia Boston, Massachusetts JOE R. CALDWELL, JR. WILLIAM J. MURPHY Washington, D.C. Baltimore, Maryland 31 37 41 47 JOHN A. DAY MICHAEL L. O’DONNELL Brentwood, Tennessee Denver, Colorado The Importance of Dr. Patrick Connor — A Conversation With Never Out Of The Fight — Separate Opinions — Treating Panthers the Former President the Eddie Gallagher RICHARD H. DEANE, JR. LYN P. PRUITT Professor Melvin Urofsky of the United States Court Martial Atlanta, Georgia Little Rock, Arkansas MONA T. DUCKETT, Q.C. JEFFREY E. STONE Edmonton, Alberta Chicago, Illinois GREGORY M. LEDERER MICHAEL J. SHEPARD Cedar Rapids, Iowa San Francisco, California 53 59 65 67 Michele Bratcher Goodwin Defending the Skies — Heather Younger — Spring 2021 SANDRA A. FORBES CATHERINE RECKER — Quarantine: The Reach and General Victor Eugene Building Resistence Induction Ceremony Toronto, Ontario Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Limits of Government Action Renuart, Jr.
    [Show full text]
  • Espionage Act of 1917
    Communication Law Review An Analysis of Congressional Arguments Limiting Free Speech Laura Long, University of Oklahoma The Alien and Sedition Acts, Espionage and Sedition Acts, and USA PATRIOT Act are all war-time acts passed by Congress which are viewed as blatant civil rights violations. This study identifies recurring arguments presented during congressional debates of these acts. Analysis of the arguments suggests that Terror Management Theory may explain why civil rights were given up in the name of security. Further, the citizen and non-citizen distinction in addition to political ramifications are discussed. The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 are considered by many as gross violations of civil liberties and constitutional rights. John Miller, in his book, Crisis in Freedom, described the Alien and Sedition Acts as a failure from every point of view. Miller explained the Federalists’ “disregard of the basic freedoms of Americans [completed] their ruin and cost them the confidence and respect of the people.”1 John Adams described the acts as “an ineffectual attempt to extinguish the fire of defamation, but it operated like oil upon the flames.”2 Other scholars have claimed that the acts were not simply unwise policy, but they were unconstitutional measures.3 In an article titled “Order vs. Liberty,” Larry Gragg argued that they were blatantly against the First Amendment protections outlined only seven years earlier.4 Despite popular opinion that the acts were unconstitutional and violated basic civil liberties, arguments used to pass the acts have resurfaced throughout United States history. Those arguments seek to instill fear in American citizens that foreigners will ultimately be the demise to the United States unless quick and decisive action is taken.
    [Show full text]
  • Book Review: the Brandeis/Frankfurter Connection
    BOOK REVIEW THE BRANDEIS/FRANKFURTER CONNECTION; by Bruce Allen Murphy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1982. 473 pp. $18.95. Reviewed by Judith Resnikt Shouldl be more serviceableto the State, ifI took an employment, where function would be wholly bounded in my person, and take up all my time, than I am by instructing everyone, as I do, andin furnishing the Republic with a great number of citizens who are capable to serve her? XENoHON'S M EMORABIL bk. 1, ch. 6, para. 15 (ed 1903), as quoted in a letter by Louis . Brandeis to Felix Frankfurter(Jan. 28, 1928).' I THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN JUSTICE BRANDEIS AND PROFESSOR FRANKFURTER From the same bits of information-letters, fragmentary notes, in- dividuals' recollections, newspaper and historical accounts-several different stories can emerge, as the storyteller brings to the materials his or her own personal concerns and hypotheses. From reading some of the correspondence between Justices Brandeis and Frankfurter,2 biog- raphies of each,3 and assorted articles about them and the times in which they lived,4 I envision the following exchanges between Brandeis and Frankfurter: The year was 1914. A young law professor, Felix Frankfurter, went to t Associate Professor of Law, University of Southern California Law Center. B.A. 1972, Bryn Mawr College; J.D. 1975, New York University School of Law. I wish to thank Dennis E. Curtis, William J. Genego, and Daoud Awad for their helpful comments. 1. 5 LETTERS OF Louis D. BRANDEIS 319 (M. Urofsky & D. Levy eds. 1978) [hereinafter cited as LETTERS]. 2. E.g., 1-5 LETTERs, supra note 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Whitney V. California, 274 U.S
    Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) 47 S.Ct. 641, 71 L.Ed. 1095 Constitutional Law Exercise of police power; relationship to KeyCite Red Flag - Severe Negative Treatment governmental interest or public welfare Overruled in Part by Brandenburg v. Ohio, U.S.Ohio, June 9, 1969 Right of free speech is not absolute right 47 S.Ct. 641 to speech without responsibility, and under Supreme Court of the United States police power state may punish utterances WHITNEY inimical to public welfare. v. 127 Cases that cite this headnote PEOPLE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA. No. 3. [4] Constitutional Law | Syndicalism Reargued March 18, 1926. Insurrection and Sedition | Nature and existence in general Decided May 16, 1927. Right of free speech is not denied Synopsis by California criminal syndicalism act. In Error to the District Court of Appeal, First Appellate California Criminal Syndicalism Act (See District, Division 1, of the State of California. Gen.Laws, Act 8428, West's Ann.Military & Vets.Code, 1632 et seq.); U.S.C.A.Const. Charlotte Anita Whitney was convicted of violating the Amend. 14. California Criminal Syndicalism Act, and to review a 73 Cases that cite this headnote judgment of the District Court of Appeal (57 Cal. App. 449, 207 P. 698), she brings error. On reargument, order (269 U. S. 530, 46 S. Ct. 22, 70 L. Ed. 396) dismissing writ [5] Constitutional Law of error vacated and set aside, and judgment affirmed. Right of Assembly Constitutional Law Freedom of Association West Headnotes (16) Right of assembly and association is not denied by California criminal syndicalism act.
    [Show full text]