DOCSLIB.ORG

Analyzing the United States Constitution in 90 Days

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Analyzing the United States Constitution in 90 Days A 90 Day Study of the United States Constitution For Kids and Adults February 21 – June 24, 2011 Featuring Essays by Constituting America National Youth Director Juliette Turner – U.S. Constitution for Kids Essays And Guest Constitutional Scholars Analyzing the Constitution in 90 Days Guest Constitutional Scholar Essayists Analyzing the Contitution in 90 Days - Constitutional Fun Facts for Kids Juliette Turner Constituting America National Youth Director Analyzing the Contitution in 90 Days - Constitutional Scholar Essayists David Addington Vice President for Domestic and Economic Policy The Heritage Foundation Steven H. Aden, Esq. Senior Counsel Alliance Defense Fund Prof. Bill Allen Michigan State University John S. Baker Professor of Law Emeritus Louisiana State University Law School Andrew Baskin, Attorney Director of Education & Volunteers The Constitutional Sources Project James D. Best Author of Tempest At Dawn David J. Bobb, Ph.D. Director and Lecturer in Politics Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship Hillsdale College Justin Butterfield Constitutional Attorney, Liberty Institute Robert Chapman-Smith Instructional Design Associate, Bill of Rights Institute Horace Cooper Legal Commentator and a Senior Fellow with the Heartland Institute Carol Crossed Owner and President Susan B. Anthony Birthplace Museum Cynthia Dunbar Asst. Prof. of Law Liberty University School of Law William Duncan Director, Marriage Law Foundation Scot Faulkner Executive Director The Dreyfuss Initiative Colin Hanna President, Let Freedom Ring Allison Hayward Vice President of Policy, Center for Competitive Politics Hadley Heath Senior Policy Analyst, Independent Women’s Forum Troy Kickler Founding Director of the North Carolina History Project Joerg W. Knipprath Professor of Law, Southwestern Law School David B. Kopel Research Director, Advanced Constitutional Law Denver University, Sturm College of Law Marc Lampkin Quinn Gillespie and Associates Andrew Langer President The Institute for Liberty Gary McCaleb Senior Counsel Alliance Defense Fund Dan Morenoff Attorney Prof. Will Morrisey Hillsdale College Joe Postell Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Colorado – Colorado Springs Jeff Reed Former Constitutional Law Professor, Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green, Kentucky Professor Charles Rice Professor Emeritus of Law at the University of Notre Dame Judge Jim Rogan Superior Court of California Tara Ross Author, Enlightened Democracy: The Case for the Electoral College Dr. Charles K. Rowley Duncan Black Professor of Economics at George Mason University and General Director of The Locke Institute George Schrader Student of Political Science, Hillsdale College Prof. Kyle Scott Department of Political Science University of Houston Mr. Kelly Shackelford President and CEO of Liberty Institute Julia Shaw Research Associate and Program Manager B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies Larry Spiwak Lawrence J. Spiwak President, Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies W. David Stedman Editor, Our Ageless Constitution Nathaniel Stewart Attorney Paul S. Teller, Ph.D. Executive Director of the Republican Study Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives Kevin Theriot Senior Counsel, Alliance Defense Fund February 21, 2011 – Analyzing the Constitution for 90 Days – The Preamble to the United States Constitution – Guest Essayist: David Bobb, Ph.D., director of the Hillsdale College Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship, in Washington, D.C. Monday, March 7th, 2011 The Preamble to the United States Constitution We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. The Preamble to the Constitution was added at the last minute by the Constitutional Convention, roundly criticized upon its announcement, and even today lacks any legal standing. So what does it mean, and why does it matter? “We the People” was a powerful and even revolutionary way to announce the Americans’ new form of government, for encapsulated in these three opening words was the argument for a new regime that is in keeping with the principles advanced in the Declaration of 1776, and defended in the War for Independence. Whereas the previous compact of the United States, the Articles of Confederation, had been a “firm league of friendship” joined by states, the new Constitution was formed by the people as a whole. The national government was sovereign, not the states. To Anti-Federalists, the Constitution went awry from the outset, for in its first phrase, they held, it announced a form of government that would eliminate the power of the states and thereby destroy the liberties of the people. Nothing could be further from the truth, Federalists responded correctly, for unless the nation wished to continue in abject weakness, it needed to empower the national government to do what the states could not, thus ensuring that the liberties of the people would be secure. Owing to the fluid style and incisive intellect of Pennsylvanian Gouverneur Morris, who despite being the most loquacious of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention was also among the most profound, the Preamble was his parting gift to the nation, drafted as he did the final edits to the document as a whole. Remedying the weaknesses of the Articles, the new Constitution would accomplish all of ends stated in its Preamble. Morris gave those ends concise expression, and despite his clarity, they were misunderstood in his day, and often, for very different reasons, continue to be misunderstood in ours. Take, for example, two of the six ends, or goals, adduced in the Preamble: the first, which is “to form a more perfect Union,” and the fifth, to “promote the general Welfare.” To some Anti-Federalists, the phrase “to form a more perfect Union” was taken to entail a process of perfection whereby the states would be gradually crowded out, and more and more power would be given to the central government, so that when the evolution was complete all three main functions—legislative, executive, and judicial—would be held by one consolidated power. Such would not only be a violation of the Constitution’s set-up, it would also trammel everything the Declaration had stated against the King’s own arrogation of authority. Publius and many other Federalists had a ready response for this erroneous reading. There are many who today take the phrase, “to form a more perfect Union,” to mean that the steady march of Progress must carry us closer and closer to perfection. Intent on leaving behind old, outdated ideas, and replacing them with a “new foundation” for our government, contemporary Progressives take the Preamble out of context in supposing it an endorsement of their agenda. “To form a more perfect Union” meant nothing about the future, and everything about the past. It meant, simply, that the Constitution would be an improvement upon the Articles of Confederation, which left much to be desired in its anemic, nearly non-existent central government. The Constitution is the architecture of our equality and liberty not because of some supposed Progressivism in the Preamble, but rather because of its foundation in principles that are enduring. While some Anti-Federalists wondered whether the fifth end, or purpose, of the Preamble, to “promote the general Welfare,” would, along with its recapitulation later in the first article of the Constitution, create too broad a grant of power, the overwhelming consensus at the time of the Founding was that the word “general” precluded the kind of projects that today we know as “pork.” Today the Preamble’s “general Welfare” reference is occasionally cited in error as a constitutional grant of authority. The Preamble can confer no such legal boon, and even if it could, the phrase “general Welfare” would allow very little, if any, of the legislative activity that the frequent misreading of the first clause of the Constitution’s Article I, Section 8, has permitted. In other words, to “promote the general Welfare” must be understood within the limited government context in which it was written. Limited government for the Founders did not mean weak government. On the contrary, government had to be strong to secure the rights of the people. This is obvious when three other ends not examined in detail here are considered. To “establish Justice,” “insure domestic Tranquility,” and “provide for the common defence”: How do each of these ends require strong government—stronger than provided under the Articles of Confederation? The Constitution’s Preamble states six ends of government, the sixth of which is, to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” It is this phrase, especially, that might remind us of the president of the Constitutional Convention, and the “Father of our Country,” George Washington, whose birthday should remind us how much we owe to him for the “blessings of liberty” that we so richly enjoy today. David J. Bobb, Ph.D. is director of the Hillsdale College Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship, in Washington, D.C. Click on http://www.hillsdale.edu/KirbyCenter/about/staff/bobb.asp to read Dr. Bobb’s biography. U.S. Constitution for Kids - The Preamble to the Constitution - February 21, 2010 - Interpretation of Dr. David Bobb's Essay The Preamble to the United States Constitution We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. The Preamble is probably the most well know part of the Constitution. But do we really know what it means? Do we thoroughly understand the actual meaning of each phrase? It is important to know how to use and comprehend these phrases correctly.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • This Constitution: a Bicentennial Chronicle, Nos. 14-18
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 300 290 SO 019 380 AUTHOR Mann, Shelia, Ed. TITLE This Constitution: A Bicentennial Chronicle, Nos. 14-18. INSTITUTION American Historical Association, Washington, D.C.; American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C.; Project '87, Washington, DC. SPONS AGENCY National Endowment for the Humanities (NFAH), Washington, D.C. PUB DATE 87 NOTE 321p.; For related document, see ED 282 814. Some photographs may not reproduce clearly. AVAILABLE FROMProject '87, 1527 New Hampshire Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20036 nos. 13-17 $4.00 each, no. 18 $6.00). PUB TYPE Collected Works - Serials (022) -- Historical Materials (060) -- Guides - Classroom Use - Guides (For Teachers) (052) JOURNAL CIT This Constitution; n14-17 Spr Sum Win Fall 1987 n18 Spr-Sum 1988 EDRS PRICE MFO1 Plus Postage. PC Not Available from EDRS. DESCRIPTORS Class Activities; *Constitutional History; *Constitutional Law; History Instruction; Instructioral Materials; Lesson Plans; Primary Sources; Resource Materials; Secondary Education; Social Studies; United States Government (Course); *United States History IDENTIFIERS *Bicentennial; *United States Constitution ABSTRACT Each issue in this bicentennial series features articles on selected U.S. Constitution topics, along with a section on primary documents and lesson plans or class activities. Issue 14 features: (1) "The Political Economy of tne Constitution" (K. Dolbeare; L. Medcalf); (2) "ANew Historical Whooper': Creating the Art of the Constitutional Sesquicentennial" (K. Marling); (3) "The Founding Fathers and the Right to Bear Arms: To Keep the People Duly Armed" (R. Shalhope); and (4)"The Founding Fathers and the Right to Bear Arms: A Well-Regulated Militia" (L. Cress). Selected articles from issue 15 include: (1) "The Origins of the Constitution" (G.
    [Show full text]
  • Session from Hell by Arnold Hamilton These Are the Raw Numbers: the Lawmakers Consider Sacrosanct: Cor- Legislature’S 101 House Members Porate Welfare
    $2.50 25,000 Blue Chip Readers VOL. 42, NO. 2 An Independent Journal of Commentary JANUARY 25, 2010 Wingnuts And Corporatists Session From Hell By Arnold Hamilton These are the raw numbers: The lawmakers consider sacrosanct: cor- Legislature’s 101 House members porate welfare. and 48 senators filed 2,235 bills and The state has created a cornucopia 59 resolutions in advance of the 2010 of tax exemptions – including sales session that opens Feb. 1. taxes on newspapers – that benefit Toss in the 1,051 bills and 86 res- the supposedly free-market Chamber olutions left over from last year and crowd. When GOP Sen. Mike Mazzei lawmakers could take up as many as of Tulsa tried to repeal them and start 3,431 measures this year – or one for over, he discovered neither Republi- just about every little Oklahoma town cans nor Democrats were much inter- the size of Medford or Fairland, Wister ested in disappointing wealthy busi- or Hydro. ness interests and deep-pocketed As impressive – or depressing – as campaign donors. the sheer magnitude of legislative Don’t be surprised if the GOP lead- creativity may be, there’s really only ership targets education, despite lip one number that is important to know service to the contrary. The corporat- heading into this session: 1.3 billion. ists in charge are not beyond using That’s the size of the projected hole the crisis to attempt to bring their – in dollars – in the 2010-11 budget, arch-enemies, the state’s teachers down from a $7.1 billion spending unions, to their knees.
    [Show full text]
  • Not the King's Bench Edward A
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Constitutional Commentary 2003 Not the King's Bench Edward A. Hartnett Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Hartnett, Edward A., "Not the King's Bench" (2003). Constitutional Commentary. 303. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm/303 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Constitutional Commentary collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOT THE KING'S BENCH Edward A. Hartnett* Speaking at a public birthday party for an icon, even if the honoree is one or two hundred years old, can be a surprisingly tricky business. Short of turning the party into a roast, it seems rude to criticize the birthday boy too harshly. On the other hand, it is at least as important to avoid unwarranted and exaggerated praise.1 The difficult task, then, is to try to say something re­ motely new or interesting while navigating that strait. The conference organizers did make it easier for me in one respect: My assignment does not involve those ideas for which Marbury is invoked as an icon. It is for others to wrestle in well­ worn trenches with exalted arguments about judicial review and its overgrown descendent judicial supremacy, while trying to avoid unseemly criticism or fawning praise. I, on the other hand, am to address more technical issues involving section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 and its provision granting the Supreme Court the power to issue writs of mandamus.
    [Show full text]
  • Extradition Law at the Crossroads: the Trend Toward Extending Greater Constitutional Procedural Protections to Fugitives Fighting Extradition from the United States
    Michigan Journal of International Law Volume 19 Issue 3 1998 Extradition Law at the Crossroads: The Trend Toward Extending Greater Constitutional Procedural Protections to Fugitives Fighting Extradition from the United States Lis Wiehl University of Washington Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Criminal Law Commons, and the Evidence Commons Recommended Citation Lis Wiehl, Extradition Law at the Crossroads: The Trend Toward Extending Greater Constitutional Procedural Protections to Fugitives Fighting Extradition from the United States, 19 MICH. J. INT'L L. 729 (1998). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil/vol19/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Journal of International Law at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Journal of International Law by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. EXTRADITION LAW AT THE CROSSROADS: THE TREND TOWARD EXTENDING GREATER CONSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURAL PROTECTIONS TO FUGITIVES FIGHTING EXTRADITION FROM THE UNITED STATES Lis Wiehl* PROLOGUE ............................................................................................. 730 INTRODUCrION ................... ....................... 730 I. BACKGROUND: THE LIMITED NATURE OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURAL PROTECTIONS IN THE U.S. LAW OF INTERNATIONAL EXTRADITION
    [Show full text]
  • Commandeering Under the Treaty Power
    NOTES COMMANDEERING UNDER THE TREATY POWER JANET R. CARTER* In this Note, Janet Carter argues that the anticommandeeringprinciple announced in Printz v. United States should not constrain congressional implementation of treaty obligations. The Printz Court struck the balance between federal goals and states' rights knowing that Congress had alternative means of achieving its ends: the spending power and the threat of conditionalpreemption. Carter argues that those alternative means are largely unavailable,or at least less likely to work, when Congress is seeking to implement a treaty obligation. Therefore, the Printz Court's federal/state compromise will weigh too heavily againstfederal interests if applied to treaty-implementingprograms, suggesting that an absolute prohibitionon federal commandeeringpursuant to the treaty power is inappropriate. INTRODUCTION The powers of Congress, limited to those enumerated in the Con- stitution, are constrained further by the Tenth Amendment' and the general principles of federalism it embodies.2 However, in Missouri v. Holland,3 the Supreme Court held that federalism does not constrain * I would like to thank Professor Christopher Eisgruber for his generous guidance and advice, and Professors Barry Friedman and David Golove for their helpful comments. Thanks also to my wonderful editor Maggie Lemos, and to Paul Hayes, Alex Reid, Sally Kesh, and David Karp. 1 U.S. Const. amend. X ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Con- stitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."). 2 According to current Supreme Court jurisprudence, that is. See Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) (holding that federal government may not commandeer state executive); New York v.
    [Show full text]
  • The "Public Trust" As It Is Used in Article VI
    THE "PUBIC TRUST" JenniferAnglim Kreder ABSTRACT It seems as if no one really knows the meaning of the term "public Trust" used in the Religious Test Clause of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. 7iis Article is the first scholarly attempt to define the term by exploring historical evidence pre-dating the nation's jounding through the Constitution's adoption, including British and colonial trust law that influenced the Founders' conception of the term. Today, one can find the term used only in the cases and scholarship concerning environmental law, tax law and museum law. After a thorough analysis of the old and new sources, this Article proposes the following original definition of term "public Trust": "Any entity given special privilege by the government, beyond the simple grant of a state corporate charteroften coupled with state or federal tax waivers, so long as that entity is legally obligated to engage in conduct that could traditionally have been performed by the government itself for the public's benefit." TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..................................... ..... 1426 I. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF ARTICLE VI............ .... 1428 A. The Stuart Period & Colonial Era......... ............... 1429 B. The Foundingand Early Republic ................... 1430 C. InterpretationalFoundations .................. ..... 1434 D. Fiduciary Underpinnings .......................... 1438 II. MODERN SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PUBLIC TRUST....... ..... 1440 A. Judicially Recognized Trusts and Non-Profit Corporations.. 1441 B. EnvironmentalRegulation ......................... 1443 1. Historical Origins of the Environmental "PublicTrust * Professor of Law, Salmon P. Chase College of Law. The author wishes to disclose that she has done a limited amount of legal work for American Atheists, Inc., including in Ameri- can Atheists, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Revolutionary Period (1763-1789) Part 3: Constitutional Convention
    Revolutionary Period (1763-1789) Part 3: Constitutional Convention The Constitutional Convention was held in 1787 in Philadelphia. Fifty-five delegates met to revise, or improve, the nation’s first constitution, the Articles of Confederation. The Articles were so weak, the framers decided to a write a new constitution. The U.S. Constitution created a strong national government, but with limits against the abuse of power. After the convention ended, the states ratified the new constitution. Problems under the Delegates meet at States ratify the new Articles of Confederation Constitutional constitution. Examples: no president Convention in 1787 and States have too write a new constitution. much power The most important conflict at the Convention was over Another conflict was over the counting of slaves when representation in the legislative branch (Congress). determining the number of representatives each state received in the House of Representatives. Virginia Plan New Jersey Plan Northern States Southern States -large state plan -small state plan -did not want to count -wanted to count -2-house legislature -1-house legislature slaves as part of the slaves as part of the -proportional -equal representation population population representation (population) Great Compromise 3/5 Compromise -2-house legislature -three-fifths of all -House of Representatives (proportional slaves would be representation) counted as part of the -Senate – equal representation (2 per population for state) representation Ratification Terms to Know Federalists – supported ratification of the Constitution Delegate - representative Federalist Papers – written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Framer - someone who and John Jay is support of ratification helped write the Constitution Anti-Federalists – opposed ratification of the Constitution, mainly Ratify - to approve or because it did not have a bill of rights accept .
    [Show full text]
  • History and Structure of Article Iii
    THE HISTORY AND STRUCTURE OF ARTICLE III DANIEL J. MELTZERt In his present article and two that preceded it,' Akhil Amar takes issue with what has come to be regarded as the traditional view of article III-that Congress has plenary authority over federal court jurisdiction. According to that view, Congress may deprive the lower federal courts, the Supreme Court, or all federal courts of jurisdic- tion over any cases within the federal judicial power, excepting only 2 those few that fall within the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction. Amar's powerful challenge to this tradition resembles two other t Professor of Law, Harvard University. A.B. 1972, J.D. 1975, Harvard University. I am grateful to Dick Fallon, Willy Fletcher, Gerry Gunther, and David Shapiro for their encouragement and perceptive comments, and to Matt Kreeger and Sylvia Quast for helpful suggestions and tireless research assistance. Special thanks go to Akhil Amar, whose careful and probing criticism saved me from errors and clarified my own thinking, even though he did not quite convert me. 1 See Amar, Marbury, Section 13, and the OriginalJurisdiction of the Supreme Court, 56 U. CHI. L. REv. 443 (1989) [hereinafter Amar, OriginalJurisdiction]; Amar, A Neo- FederalistFiew ofArticle III: Separatingthe Two Tiers of FederalJurisdiction,65 B.U.L. REv. 205 (1985) [hereinafter Amar, Neo-Federalist View]. 2 See, e.g., Bator, CongressionalPower Over the Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts, 27 VILL. L. REV. 1030, 1030-31 (1982); Gunther, Congressional Power to Curtail Federal CourtJurisdiction: An Opinionated Guide to the Ongoing Debate, 36 STAN. L. REV. 895, 901- 10 (1984); Redish, Congressional Power to Regulate Supreme Court Appellate Jurisdiction Under the Exceptions Clause: An Internal and External Examination, 27 VILL.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Convention: Lesson Plan
    Constitutional Convention (Philadelphia 1787): The Birth of the Constitution- History of the United States Series | Academy 4 Social Change Constitutional Convention: Lesson Plan Topic The Constitutional Convention was a meeting of delegates from 12 out of the 13 states that was held in Philadelphia from May to September 1787. George Washington was elected president of the Convention, and other delegates included James Madison, Ben Franklin, and Alexander Hamilton. Though their original objective was only to amend the Articles of Confederation, the delegates quickly decided to draft an entirely new document instead. This new Constituti on outlined a federalist form of government with a bicameral legislature, three distinct branches, and a comprehensive system of checks and balances. Possible subjects/classes Time needed ● Government ● History 45 - 60 min ● Politics Video link: https://academy4sc.org/topic/constitutional-convention-the-birth-of-the-constituti on/ Objective: What will students know/be able to do at the end of class? Students will be able to... ● Explain why the Constitutional Convention happened. ● Describe some of the main debates during the Convention, and provide the arguments of each side. ● Explain the lasting impact of the decisions made at the Constitutional Convention. Key Concepts & Vocabulary American Revolutionary War, Delegates, separation of powers, ratification Materials Needed Worksheet, Student Internet Access (Optional) Constitutional Convention (Philadelphia 1787): The Birth of the Constitution- History of the United States Series | Academy 4 Social Change Before you watch Quick write: Ask students to make a list of words and phrases that come to mind when they are asked about the Constitution (responses may include “Founding Fathers,” “amendments,” etc).
    [Show full text]
  • Law Review Articles
    Law Review Articles 1. Church and State in the United States: Competing Conceptions and Historic Changes Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 13 Ind. J. Global Legal Stud. 503 This article explains the separation of church and state in the United States. 2. Crowns and Crosses: The problems of Politico-Religious Visits as they Relate to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 3 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 227 This article examines whether the Pope or any similar leader should be treated as a head of state or as the representative of a religious group. 3. Damages and Damocles: The Propriety of Recoupment Orders as Remedies for Violations of the Establishment Clause Notre Dame Law Review 83 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1385 In Americans United for Separation of Church & State v. Prison Fellowship Ministries, the court required “a private party, at the behest of another private party, to reimburse the public treasury when the government itself ha[d] not sought reimbursement” for a violation of the Establishment Clause. This Note offers background about taxpayer standing, restitution lawsuits, and background on the Establishment Clause. 4. Accommodation of Religion in Public Institutions Harvard Law Review 100 Harv. L. Rev. 1639 This artcile examines establishment clause problems attaching to government efforts to recognize religion in public institutions under an ‘accommodation’ rationale. Section A introduces the justification for allowing government recognition of religion in public institutions and discusses the difficulty of applying traditional establishment clause analysis to actions taken under this justification. It then proposes that the ambiguities in establishment clause analysis should be explicitly resolved so as to prevent majoritarian infringements of the religious autonomy of minorities.
    [Show full text]
  • Report to the Attorney General Economic Liberties Protected by the Constitution
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. .. U.S. Department of JustIce Office of Legal Policy ]Report to the Attorney General Economic Liberties Protected by the Constitution March 16, 1988 ~ ~ 115093 U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or organization originating It. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the National Institute of Justice. Ponnission to reproduce this ~material has been granted by. PubI1C Domain/Office of Legal Poli_co±y________ _ to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis­ sion of the ~ht owner. REPORT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ON ECONOMIC LIBERTIES PROTECI'ED BY THE CONSTITUTION JAN 1:) Rec'd ACQUISITIONS Office of Legal Policy March 16, 1988 ®fftrr of tqP 1\ttotnPR Qf)puprnl Iht.sltingtnn; ]1. at. znssn In June, 1986, it was my pleasure to host the Attorney General's Conference on Economic Liberties at the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. This conference provided an opportunity for a candid exchange of the very different views held by prominent legal scholars on the scope of constitutional j"rotections afforded to economic rights. The conference served as a catalyst for increased discussion of these issues both within the Department and outside it. The present study, "Economic Liberties Protected by the Constitution," is a further contribution to that discussion. It was prepared by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Policy, which functions as a policy development staff for the Department and undertakes comprehensive analyses of contemporary legal issues.
    [Show full text]
  • General Land Office Book
    FORWARD n 1812, the General Land Office or GLO was established as a federal agency within the Department of the Treasury. The GLO’s primary responsibility was to oversee the survey and sale of lands deemed by the newly formed United States as “public domain” lands. The GLO was eventually transferred to the Department of Interior in 1849 where it would remain for the next ninety-seven years. The GLO is an integral piece in the mosaic of Oregon’s history. In 1843, as the GLO entered its third decade of existence, new sett lers and immigrants had begun arriving in increasing numbers in the Oregon territory. By 1850, Oregon’s European- American population numbered over 13,000 individuals. While the majority resided in the Willamette Valley, miners from California had begun swarming northward to stake and mine gold and silver claims on streams and mountain sides in southwest Oregon. Statehood would not come for another nine years. Clearing, tilling and farming lands in the valleys and foothills and having established a territorial government, the settlers’ presumed that the United States’ federal government would act in their behalf and recognize their preemptive claims. Of paramount importance, the sett lers’ claims rested on the federal government’s abilities to negotiate future treaties with Indian tribes and to obtain cessions of land—the very lands their new homes, barns and fields were now located on. In 1850, Congress passed an “Act to Create the office of the Surveyor-General of the public lands in Oregon, and to provide for the survey and to make donations to settlers of the said public lands.” On May 5, 1851, John B.
    [Show full text]