DOCSLIB.ORG

Supreme Court Case Studies Booklet Contains 82 Reproducible Supreme Court Case Studies

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Supreme Court Case Studies Booklet Contains 82 Reproducible Supreme Court Case Studies SupremeSupreme CourtCourt CaseCase StudiesStudies To the Teacher The Supreme Court Case Studies booklet contains 82 reproducible Supreme Court case studies. These cases include landmark decisions in American government that have helped and continue to shape this nation, as well as decisions dealing with current issues in American society. Every case includes background information, the constitutional issue under consideration, the court’s decision, and where appropriate, dissenting opinions. Each two-page study requires students to analyze the case and apply critical thinking skills. An answer key is provided in the back of the booklet. Creating a Customized File There are a variety of ways to organize Glencoe Social Studies teaching aids. Several alternatives in creating your own files are given below. • Organize by category (all activities, all tests, etc.) • Organize by category and chapter (all Chapter 1 activities, all Chapter 1 tests and quizzes, etc.) • Organize sequentially by lesson (activities, quizzes, tests, for Chapter 1/Section 1, Chapter 1/Section 2, etc.) No matter what organization you use, you can pull out individual worksheets from these booklets for your files, or you may photocopy directly from the booklet and file the photocopies. You will then be able to keep the original booklets intact and in a safe place. Copyright © by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to reproduce the material contained herein on the condition that such material be reproduced only for classroom use; be provided to students, teachers, and families, without charge; and be used solely in conjunction with Glencoe Social Studies products. Any other reproduction, for use or sale, is prohibited without written permission from the publisher. Send all inquiries to: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill 8787 Orion Place Columbus, Ohio 43240 ISBN: 978-0-07-878445-3 MHID: 0-07-878445-X Printed in the United States of America 1234567891006610090807 Table of Contents To the Teacher ...................................................................................................................................................... ii Supreme Court Case Studies Case Study 1: Marbury v. Madison, 1803 ...............................................................................................................1 Case Study 2: McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819...........................................................................................................3 Case Study 3: Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 1819............................................................................................5 Case Study 4: Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824 ....................................................................................................................7 Case Study 5: Worcester v. Georgia, 1832................................................................................................................9 Case Study 6: Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1857 ..........................................................................................................11 Case Study 7: Ex Parte Milligan, 1866 ..................................................................................................................13 Case Study 8: Slaughterhouse Cases, 1873 ............................................................................................................15 Case Study 9: Reynolds v. United States, 1879 ......................................................................................................17 Case Study 10: Civil Rights Cases, 1883................................................................................................................19 Case Study 11: Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co. v. Illinois, 1886 ............................................................21 Case Study 12: United States v. E.C. Knight Co., 1895 .........................................................................................23 Case Study 13: In re Debs, 1895 ............................................................................................................................25 Case Study 14: Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896 ................................................................................................................27 Case Study 15: Northern Securities Company v. United States, 1904...................................................................29 Case Study 16: Lochner v. New York, 1905............................................................................................................31 Case Study 17: Muller v. Oregon, 1908 .................................................................................................................33 Case Study 18: Weeks v. United States, 1914.........................................................................................................35 Case Study 19: Schenck v. United States, 1919......................................................................................................37 Case Study 20: Gitlow v. New York, 1925..............................................................................................................39 Case Study 21: Whitney v. California, 1927..........................................................................................................41 Case Study 22: Olmstead v. United States, 1928 ...................................................................................................43 Case Study 23: Near v. Minnesota, 1931...............................................................................................................45 Case Study 24: Powell v. Alabama, 1932...............................................................................................................47 Case Study 25: A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States, 1935 ......................................................49 Case Study 26: DeJonge v. Oregon, 1937...............................................................................................................51 Case Study 27: West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, 1937.................................................................................................53 Case Study 28: Minersville School District v. Gobitis, 1940..................................................................................55 Case Study 29: Betts v. Brady, 1942.......................................................................................................................57 Case Study 30: West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 1943...........................................................59 Case Study 31: Endo v. United States, 1944 ..........................................................................................................61 Case Study 32: Korematsu v. United States, 1944 .................................................................................................63 Case Study 33: Everson v. Board of Education, 1947 ............................................................................................65 Supreme Court Case Studies iii Case Study 34: McCollum v. Board of Education, 1948........................................................................................67 Case Study 35: Dennis v. United States, 1951 .......................................................................................................69 Case Study 36: Feiner v. New York, 1951...............................................................................................................71 Case Study 37: Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, 1954 ................................................................73 Case Study 38: Watkins v. United States, 1957 .....................................................................................................75 Case Study 39: Yates v. United States, 1957...........................................................................................................77 Case Study 40: Barenblatt v. United States, 1959 .................................................................................................79 Case Study 41: Mapp v. Ohio, 1961 ......................................................................................................................81 Case Study 42: Baker v. Carr, 1962 .......................................................................................................................83 Case Study 43: Engel v. Vitale, 1962......................................................................................................................85 Case Study 44: Abington School District v. Schempp, 1963 ..................................................................................87 Case Study 45: Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963 .........................................................................................................89 Case Study 46: Escobedo v. Illinois, 1964 ..............................................................................................................91 Case Study 47: Reynolds v. Sims, 1964..................................................................................................................93 Case Study 48: Wesberry v. Sanders, 1964.............................................................................................................95 Case Study 49: Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 1964..............................................................................97 Case Study 50: Miranda v. Arizona, 1966.............................................................................................................99
Load more

Recommended publications
  • “THE MOVEMENT of COERCION” Justice David J. Brewer
    “THE MOVEMENT OF COERCION” BY Justice David J. Brewer _______ FOREWORD BY DOUGLAS A. HEDIN Editor, MLHP David Josiah Brewer served on the Supreme Court from December 18, 1889 to March 27, 1910. Off the court, he continued to express his views on a wide range of subjects, legal and otherwise, through articles in journals, books and numerous public addresses, including the following to the New York State Bar Association in January 1893. 1 His topic was “The Movement of Coercion” which, he explained, referred to the demands of the “multitudes” to share the wealth earned and accumulated by a few: I wish rather to notice that movement which may be denominated the movement of "coercion," and which by the mere force of numbers seeks to diminish protection to private property. It is a movement which in spirit, if not in letter, violates both the Eighth and Tenth Command- ments; a moment, which, seeing that which a man has, attempts to wrest it from him and transfer it to those who have not. It is the unvarying law, that the wealth of a community will not be in the hands of a few, and the greater the general wealth, the greater the individual accumulations. 1 In his biography of the justice, Michael J. Brodhead devotes an entire chapter to his “off-the- bench activities.” David J. Brewer: The Life of a Supreme Court Justice, 1837-1919 116-138 (Southern Illinois Univ. Press, 1994)(“In fact, he was the most visible and widely known member of the Fuller Court.”). 1 He argued that the “coercion movement” against private property expressed itself through, first, unions and, second, excessive regulation, though neither was evil per se : First, in the improper use of labor organizations to destroy the freedom of the laborer, and control the uses of capital.
    [Show full text]
  • Trailword.Pdf
    NPS Form 10-900-b OMB No. 1024-0018 (March 1992) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form This form is used for documenting multiple property groups relating to one or several historic contexts. See instructions in How to Complete the Multiple Property Documentation Form (National Register Bulletin 16B). Complete each item by entering the requested information. For additional space, use continuation sheets (Form 10-900-a). Use a typewriter, word processor, or computer to complete all items. _X___ New Submission ____ Amended Submission ======================================================================================================= A. Name of Multiple Property Listing ======================================================================================================= Historic and Historical Archaeological Resources of the Cherokee Trail of Tears ======================================================================================================= B. Associated Historic Contexts ======================================================================================================= (Name each associated historic context, identifying theme, geographical area, and chronological period for each.) See Continuation Sheet ======================================================================================================= C. Form Prepared by =======================================================================================================
    [Show full text]
  • Outline of United States Federal Indian Law and Policy
    Outline of United States federal Indian law and policy The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to United States federal Indian law and policy: Federal Indian policy – establishes the relationship between the United States Government and the Indian Tribes within its borders. The Constitution gives the federal government primary responsibility for dealing with tribes. Law and U.S. public policy related to Native Americans have evolved continuously since the founding of the United States. David R. Wrone argues that the failure of the treaty system was because of the inability of an individualistic, democratic society to recognize group rights or the value of an organic, corporatist culture represented by the tribes.[1] U.S. Supreme Court cases List of United States Supreme Court cases involving Indian tribes Citizenship Adoption Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (1989) Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 530 U.S. _ (2013) Tribal Ex parte Joins, 191 U.S. 93 (1903) Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978) Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (1989) South Dakota v. Bourland, 508 U.S. 679 (1993) Civil rights Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978) United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313 (1978) Congressional authority Ex parte Joins, 191 U.S. 93 (1903) White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136 (1980) California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987) South Dakota v. Bourland, 508 U.S. 679 (1993) United States v.
    [Show full text]
  • Assimilationist Language in Cherokee Women's Petitions: a Political Call to Reclaim Traditional Cherokee Culture
    Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All Graduate Plan B and other Reports Graduate Studies 5-2016 Assimilationist Language in Cherokee Women's Petitions: A Political Call to Reclaim Traditional Cherokee Culture Jillian Moore Bennion Utah State University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/gradreports Part of the American Studies Commons Recommended Citation Bennion, Jillian Moore, "Assimilationist Language in Cherokee Women's Petitions: A Political Call to Reclaim Traditional Cherokee Culture" (2016). All Graduate Plan B and other Reports. 838. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/gradreports/838 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Graduate Plan B and other Reports by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Assimilationist Language in Cherokee Women’s Petitions: A Political Call to Reclaim Traditional Cherokee Culture Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Masters of Arts in American Studies in the Graduate School of Utah State University By Jillian Moore Bennion Graduate Program in American Studies Utah State University 2016 Thesis Committee: Keri Holt, Ph.D., Advisor Melody Graulich, Ph.D. Colleen O’Neill, Ph.D. ASSIMILATIONIST LANGUAGE IN CHEROKEE WOMEN’S PETITIONS: A POLITICAL CALL TO RECLAIM TRADITIONAL CHEROKEE CULTURE By Jillian M. Moore Bennion A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS in English Approved: ______________________ ______________________ Dr. Keri Holt Dr. Melody Graulich ______________________ Dr. Colleen O’Neill UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY Logan, Utah 2016 ii Copyright © Jillian M.
    [Show full text]
  • David Josiah Brewer and the Christian Constitution, 81 Marq
    Marquette Law Review Volume 81 Issue 2 Winter 1998: Symposium: Religion and the Article 13 Judicial Process: Legal, Ethical, and Empirical Dimensions David Josiah Brewer And The hrC istian Constitution J. Gordon Hylton Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr Part of the Law Commons Repository Citation J. Gordon Hylton, David Josiah Brewer And The Christian Constitution, 81 Marq. L. Rev. 417 (1998). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol81/iss2/13 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Law Review by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DAVID JOSIAH BREWER AND THE CHRISTIAN CONSTITUTION J. GORDON HYLTON* Professor Berg does a great service by reminding us that religion has been an important factor in the lives of many of the men and women who have served on the United States Supreme Court. Unfortunately, historians, legal scholars, and judicial biographers have paid scant atten- tion to this aspect of our constitutional experience. I hope to illustrate the advantage of exploring the connections between religious belief and constitutional theory through a brief examination of the life and career of Justice David Josiah Brewer, who figures prominently in Professor Berg's paper. Brewer was born in Smyrna, Asia Minor, to missionary parents in 1837. He was raised in New England, but in the late 1850s, he migrated to Kansas where he later served on the state supreme court and the fed- eral circuit court.
    [Show full text]
  • In Honor of David Getches
    University of Colorado Law School Colorado Law Scholarly Commons Articles Colorado Law Faculty Scholarship 2013 Never Construed to Their Prejudice: In Honor of David Getches Richard B. Collins University of Colorado Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/articles Part of the Indian and Aboriginal Law Commons, Legal History Commons, Legislation Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Citation Information Richard B. Collins, Never Construed to Their Prejudice: In Honor of David Getches, 84 U. COLO. L. REV. 1 (2013), available at https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/articles/113. Copyright Statement Copyright protected. Use of materials from this collection beyond the exceptions provided for in the Fair Use and Educational Use clauses of the U.S. Copyright Law may violate federal law. Permission to publish or reproduce is required. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Colorado Law Faculty Scholarship at Colorado Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of Colorado Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. +(,121/,1( Citation: 84 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1 2013 Provided by: William A. Wise Law Library Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline Fri Feb 24 13:16:43 2017 -- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License -- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text. UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO LAW REVIEW Volume 84, Issue 1 2013 NEVER CONSTRUED TO THEIR PREJUDICE: IN HONOR OF DAVID GETCHES RICHARD B.
    [Show full text]
  • Representation for Removal? the Cherokee's Claim to a Congressional
    99 N.C. L. REV. 223 (2020) Representation for Removal? The Cherokee’s Claim to a Congressional Delegate Assessed Under the Canons of Construction* The Treaty of New Echota is the pact between the Cherokee Nation and the United States which served as the legal basis for Cherokee removal via the infamous Trail of Tears. The Treaty of New Echota contains several promises made by the United States in exchange for the Cherokee ancestral land in North Carolina and several other southern states. One of these promises, found in Article 7, states that the Cherokee “shall be entitled to a delegate in the House of Representatives of the United States whenever Congress shall make provision for the same.” Article 7 has been the recent subject of controversy due to its textual ambiguity and historical implications of possible Native American representation at the federal level. These potential ramifications, coupled with the mounting pressure from the Cherokee Nation claiming that Article 7 grants the Tribe an affirmative right to a delegate, warrants an investigation into Article 7’s effect. From its robust body of precedent on Native American treaty interpretation, the U.S. Supreme Court has developed a set of rules called the Indian law canons of construction which federal courts apply when the effect of a treaty involving Native Americans is at issue. This Recent Development sets out to shed light on the implications of Article 7’s delegate promise by applying the canons to its text to ultimately determine whether the United States is legally bound to grant the Cherokee Nation’s request for a delegate in the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the DISTRICT of COLUMBIA the CHEROKEE NATION, Plaintiff
    Case 1:13-cv-01313-TFH Document 248 Filed 08/30/17 Page 1 of 78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA THE CHEROKEE NATION, Plaintiff/ Counter Defendant, v. RAYMOND NASH, et al., Defendants/ Counter Claimants/ Cross Claimants, --and-- Civil Action No. 13-01313 (TFH) MARILYN VANN, et al., Intervenor Defendants/ Counter Claimants/ Cross Claimants, --and-- RYAN ZINKE, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, AND THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Counter Claimants/ Cross Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Although it is a grievous axiom of American history that the Cherokee Nation’s narrative is steeped in sorrow as a result of United States governmental policies that marginalized Native American Case 1:13-cv-01313-TFH Document 248 Filed 08/30/17 Page 2 of 78 Indians and removed them from their lands,1 it is, perhaps, lesser known that both nations’ chronicles share the shameful taint of African slavery.2 This lawsuit harkens back a century-and-a-half ago to a treaty entered into between the United States and the Cherokee Nation in the aftermath of the Civil War. In that treaty, the Cherokee Nation promised that “never here-after shall either slavery or involuntary servitude exist in their nation” and “all freedmen who have been liberated by voluntary act of their former owners or by law, as well as all free colored persons who were in the country at the commencement of the rebellion, and are now residents therein, or who may return within six months, and their descendants, shall have all the rights of native Cherokees .
    [Show full text]
  • Family Type and Incidence
    RULING OR BEING RULED? THE DEVELOPMENT OF CITIZENSHIP IN THE CHEROKEE NATION _______________________________________ A Dissertation presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School at the University of Missouri-Columbia _______________________________________________________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy _____________________________________________________ by AARON KUSHNER Dr. Justin Dyer, Dissertation Supervisor JULY 2019 DEDICATION …………………To Mary Ann and Robert Kushner. You saw in me something special. …………………To Ryan, Daniel, and Tommy. You are the best of friends. …………………To Nhi, G, Lea, Dale, and Christopher. I couldn’t ask for better family. …………………To Hannah. You are all beauty and color and light. …………………Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto. Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper, et in saecula saeculorum. Amen. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Professor Justin Dyer for his mentorship and guidance throughout this dissertation project. Without his wisdom, kindness, and encouragement, none of this would have been possible. I also want to acknowledge Professor Adam Seagrave, who mentored me at Northern Illinois University and again here at the University of Missouri. His insight and advice have been an invaluable part of my professional development. Thank you to Professor Sarah Beth Kitch, who gave generously of her time to help me improve the quality of my writing. Thank you as well to dissertation committee members Marvin Overby and Jay Dow for all of your time and ongoing support. Additional thanks are due to Professors Scot Schraufnagel, Brad Watson, Jason King, Laron Williams, and Jason Jividen, who mentored and supported me at various stages of my academic career.
    [Show full text]
  • A Quantitative Analysis of Writing Style on the U.S. Supreme Court
    Washington University Law Review Volume 93 Issue 6 2016 A Quantitative Analysis of Writing Style on the U.S. Supreme Court Keith Carlson Dartmouth College Michael A. Livermore University of Virginia School of Law Daniel Rockmore Dartmouth College Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Keith Carlson, Michael A. Livermore, and Daniel Rockmore, A Quantitative Analysis of Writing Style on the U.S. Supreme Court, 93 WASH. U. L. REV. 1461 (2016). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol93/iss6/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF WRITING STYLE ON THE U.S. SUPREME COURT KEITH CARLSON MICHAEL A. LIVERMORE DANIEL ROCKMORE ABSTRACT This Article presents the results of a quantitative analysis of writing style for the entire corpus of US Supreme Court decisions. The basis for this analysis is the measure of frequency of function words, which has been found to be a useful “stylistic fingerprint” and which we use as a general proxy for the stylistic features of a text or group of texts. Based on this stylistic fingerprint measure, we examine temporal trends on the Court, verifying that there is a “style of the time” and that contemporaneous Justices are more stylistically similar to their peers than to temporally remote Justices.
    [Show full text]
  • Viewed This Immense Burden
    Florida State University Libraries Honors Theses The Division of Undergraduate Studies 2015 The Importance of Geographical Background of Supreme Court Appointments in the Period of 1830-1920 Shawna M. Abbatiello Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES THE IMPORTANCE OF GEOGRAPHICAL BACKGROUND OF SUPREME COURT APPOINTMENTS IN THE PERIOD OF 1830-1920 By SHAWNA MARIE ABBATIELLO A Thesis submitted to the Department of History in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation with Honors in the Major Degree Awarded: Spring 2015 The members of the Defense Committee approve the thesis of Shawna Abbatiello defended on April 20, 2015. Dr. Katherine Mooney Thesis Director Professor Garrick Pursley Outside Committee Member Dr. Edward Gray Committee Member 2 I. Problem Statement Among the 112 Supreme Court justices1 and twenty-nine failed appointments stands one lone Floridian with ties to the state as questionable as his ideology.2 After losing in an election to the Georgia state legislature, G. Harrold Carswell moved to Tallahassee, Florida in 1948, where he would later become one of the nation’s youngest federal judges. President Richard Nixon appointed the Georgia native to the Supreme Court of the United States in 1970 in an attempt to fill the position left by Abe Fortas with a Southerner. Preceded by the failed appointment of Clement F. Haynsworth, Carswell’s confirmation hearings revolved around his controversial racial ideology and high rate of overturned cases, resulting in a 51-48 rejection.3 Although President Nixon did not ostensibly make geographical background of candidates a major role in his nomination process, he did articulate on multiple occasions that he wanted to select a Southern strict-constructionist.4 This marks the last President in history to give geographical background recognition publicly or consciously.
    [Show full text]
  • The Supreme Court and Superman
    THE SUPREME COURT AND SUPERMAN THE JUSTICES AND THE FAMOUS PEOPLE IN THEIR FAMILY TREES Stephen R. McAllister† HILE EXAMINING a photograph of the 1911 U.S. Supreme Court, I spotted Joseph Rucker Lamar, but was initially confused because I thought Justice Lamar served on the Court in the nineteenth century. I quickly discovered that Joseph was the cousin (distant, it turns out) of an earlier Justice, Lu- W 1 cius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar II. I was aware of two other family rela- tionships between Justices who served on the Court: John Marshall Harlan and his grandson, John Marshall Harlan II, and Stephen Johnson Field and his nephew, David Josiah Brewer,2 with the service of only Field and Brewer overlapping.3 † Stephen McAllister is United States Attorney for the District of Kansas, and on leave of absence from the University of Kansas where he is the E.S. & Tom W. Hampton Distinguished Professor of Law. 1 His namesake presumably is Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus, the Roman farmer-statesman who legend holds was appointed dictator and left his farm in 458 B.C. to defend Rome against an attacking army, quickly defeated the enemy, and then immediately gave up his power and returned to his farm. 2 The Kansas Justice, David Josiah Brewer, 19 Green Bag 2d 37 (2015). 3 A particularly observant reader of the chart that accompanies this article, or a knowl- edgeable student of Supreme Court history, might wonder whether some other Justices 21 GREEN BAG 2D 219 Stephen R. McAllister Justice John Marshall Harlan, left (1833-1911) and right (1899-1971).
    [Show full text]