DOCSLIB.ORG

Section 5'S Forgotten Years: Congressional Power To

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Section 5'S Forgotten Years: Congressional Power To View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Northwestern University Illinois, School of Law: Scholarly Commons Copyright 2018 by Christopher W. Schmidt Printed in U.S.A. Vol. 113, No. 1 SECTION 5’S FORGOTTEN YEARS: CONGRESSIONAL POWER TO ENFORCE THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BEFORE KATZENBACH V. MORGAN Christopher W. Schmidt ABSTRACT—Few decisions in American constitutional law have frustrated, inspired, and puzzled more than Katzenbach v. Morgan. Justice Brennan’s 1966 opinion put forth the seemingly radical claim that Congress—through its power, based in Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, to “enforce, by appropriate legislation,” the rights enumerated in that Amendment—shared responsibility with the Court to define the meaning of Fourteenth Amendment rights. Although it spawned a cottage industry of scholarship, this claim has never been fully embraced by a subsequent Supreme Court majority, and in City of Boerne v. Flores, the Supreme Court rejected the heart of the Morgan decision as subversive of the American constitutional order. Today, Morgan stands largely as an aberration of American constitutional law. This Article attempts to place Morgan back into the stream of historical development from which it arose. When properly situated in its historical context, Justice Brennan’s opinion appears less puzzling and less aberrational. Morgan in fact built upon several decades of debates in the courts, in Congress, and among legal commentators over the scope of congressional enforcement power under Section 5—debates that largely have been missing from Section 5 scholarship. In reconstructing the history from this period, this Article also identifies the political and legal conditions that supported claims of shared constitutional interpretive responsibility in the past and considers whether these conditions might again be met in the future. AUTHOR—Professor of Law, Associate Dean for Faculty Development, and Co-Director, Institute on the Supreme Court of the United States (ISCOTUS), Chicago-Kent College of Law; Faculty Fellow, American Bar Foundation; Editor, Law & Social Inquiry. For helpful comments and critiques on this Article, I thank William Araiza, Andrew Coan, Katie Eyer, Michael Klarman, Jason Mazzone, Cristina Rodriguez, Mark Rosen, David Schwartz, Eric Segall, Reva Siegel, Carolyn Shapiro, and participants in the 47 N O R T H W E S T E R N U N I V E R S I T Y L A W R E V I E W National Conference of Constitutional Law Scholars and the University of Illinois College of Law Constitutional Law Colloquium. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 48 I. THE FRAMING OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RECONSIDERED ......................... 53 II. DEBATING THE CONGRESSIONAL ENFORCEMENT POWER ........................................ 57 A. Anti-Lynching Legislation ............................................................................. 58 B. Anti-Poll Tax Legislation .............................................................................. 60 C. School Desegregation Legislation (Before Brown) ...................................... 64 D. Public Accommodations Legislation ............................................................. 73 III. MORGAN AND THE OCTOBER TERM 1965 ................................................................ 82 A. South Carolina v. Katzenbach....................................................................... 83 B. Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections .......................................................... 84 C. United States v. Guest ................................................................................... 87 D. Katzenbach v. Morgan .................................................................................. 91 IV. THE PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE OF SECTION 5 .................................................... 99 A. The Boerne Model......................................................................................... 99 B. Lessons from Section 5’s Forgotten Years .................................................. 104 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 108 INTRODUCTION Congress’s role in protecting the rights contained in the Fourteenth Amendment is a perennially contentious area of constitutional politics.1 Congressional responsibility in this area derives from Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which empowers Congress to “enforce, by appropriate legislation,” the rights guaranteed in the Amendment,2 including the first Section’s guarantees of the privileges and immunities of citizenship, due process, and equal protection.3 The crux of the issue is whether, in exercising its enforcement power, Congress shares responsibility with the judiciary for interpreting the meaning of those rights. For at least the last two decades, the position of the Supreme Court on this issue has been clear: the judiciary is the sole arbiter of the definition of constitutional rights. As the 1 See, e.g., OFFICE OF LEGAL POLICY, U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE, GUIDELINES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION 56–59 (1988), http://www.ialsnet.org/documents/Patersonmaterials2.pdf [https://perma.cc/ 8FLK-7EMR]; Pamela S. Karlan, The Supreme Court, 2011 Term, Foreword: Democracy and Disdain, 126 HARV. L. REV. 1, 55–57 (2012); Michael W. McConnell, Institutions and Interpretation: A Critique of City of Boerne v. Flores, 111 HARV. L. REV. 153, passim (1997). 2 U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 5 (“The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”). 3 Id. § 1 (“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”). 48 113:47 (2018) Section 5’s Forgotten Years Court asserted in City of Boerne v. Flores,4 Congress has the power under Section 5 to pass legislation to protect Fourteenth Amendment rights, so long as these statutory remedies do not expand the court-defined rights. To the extent legislation involves preventative measures, they must be “congruen[t] and proportional[]” to the scope of any record of constitutional violations by the state.5 But to allow Congress shared responsibility in giving meaning to the substance of Fourteenth Amendment rights, the Court held, would undermine the proper functioning of the American constitutional system.6 The Court has used the Boerne approach to justify striking down Congress’s attempts to use Section 5 to expand religious free exercise rights,7 to provide federal remedies for victims of gender-motivated violence,8 to allow individuals to sue states for patent infringement,9 and to allow state employees to sue their employers for money damages as a remedy for discrimination based on age10 or disability.11 A narrow reading of the congressional enforcement power also informed the Court’s ruling in Shelby County v. Holder,12 which struck down a core provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as beyond Congress’s authority to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment.13 Those who are uncomfortable with Boerne’s vision of judicial supremacy on questions of constitutional interpretation can find a starkly different conception of congressional enforcement power in the 1966 Supreme Court opinion in Katzenbach v. Morgan,14 in which Justice William 4 521 U.S. 507 (1997). 5 Id. at 520. 6 See, e.g., id. at 529 (“If Congress could define its own powers by altering the Fourteenth Amendment’s meaning, no longer would the Constitution be ‘superior paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means.’” (quoting Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803))). 7 Id. 8 United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 627 (2000) (Violence Against Women Act not authorized under Section 5). 9 Fla. Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd. v. Coll. Sav. Bank, 527 U.S. 627, 630 (1999) (Patent Remedy Act not authorized under Section 5). 10 Kimel v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62, 67 (2000) (Age Discrimination in Employment Act not authorized under Section 5). 11 Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 374 (2001) (Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 not authorized under Section 5); see also Coleman v. Court of Appeals, 566 U.S. 30, 43–44 (2012) (self-care provision of the Family and Medical Leave Act not authorized under Section 5). Using the Boerne standard, the Court has also upheld several exercises of Congress’s Section 5 power. See Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 533–34 (2004) (Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as applied to access to courts); Nev. Dep’t of Human Res. v. Hibbs, 538 U.S. 721, 735 (2003) (family leave provision of the Family and Medical Leave Act). 12 570 U.S. 529, 553–57 (2013). 13 U.S. CONST. amend. XV, § 2 (“The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”). 14 384 U.S. 641 (1966). 49 N O R T H W E S T E R N U N I V E R S I T Y L A W R E V I E W Brennan indicated a willingness to share with Congress the responsibility for defining the constitutional guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment. But while the Morgan decision has served as a foundation for recent efforts to recognize the value of constitutional responsibility outside the courts15—and the Supreme Court has never overruled it—as a matter
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Tale of Prosecutorial Indiscretion: Ramsey Clark and the Selective Non-Prosecution of Stokley Carmichael
    South Carolina Law Review Volume 62 Issue 1 Article 2 Fall 2010 A Tale of Prosecutorial Indiscretion: Ramsey Clark and the Selective Non-Prosecution of Stokley Carmichael Lonnie T. Brown Jr. University of Georgia School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/sclr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Lonnie T. Brown, Jr., A Tale of Prosecutorial Indiscretion: Ramsey Clark and the Selective Non-Prosecution of Stokley Carmichael, 62 S. C. L. Rev. 1 (2010). This Article is brought to you by the Law Reviews and Journals at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in South Carolina Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact dillarda@mailbox.sc.edu. Brown: A Tale of Prosecutorial Indiscretion: Ramsey Clark and the Select A TALE OF PROSECUTORIAL INDISCRETION: RAMSEY CLARK AND THE SELECTIVE NON-PROSECUTION OF STOKELY CARMICHAEL LONNIE T. BROWN, JR.* I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1 II. THE PROTAGONISTS .................................................................................... 8 A. Ramsey Clark and His Civil Rights Pedigree ...................................... 8 B. Stokely Carmichael: "Hell no, we won't go!.................................. 11 III. RAMSEY CLARK'S REFUSAL TO PROSECUTE STOKELY CARMICHAEL ......... 18 A. Impetus Behind Callsfor Prosecution............................................... 18 B. Conspiracy to Incite a Riot..............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • DOJ BACKGROUND/RECORDS A. Key Officials
    DOJ BACKGROUND/RECORDS A. Key Officials --Attorney General-- Robert F. Kennedy, 1961-6 Nicholas Katzenbach ? Ramsey Clarke, 196_-__ Griffin Bell (worked with HSCA) --Deputy Attorney General--Nicholas deB. Katzenbach (under Kennedy) --Associate Attorney General --Office of Legislative Affairs --Assistant Attorney General Michael Uhlman, worked with the HSCA --Office of Public Affairs --Office of Policy Development --Office of Information and Privacy --Office of Legal Counsel --Norbert A. Schlei (Assistant AG under Kennedy) --Frank M. Wozencraft (1968) --Assistant Attorney General for Criminal Division --Herbert J. Miller, Jr. (under Kennedy) --Fred M. Vinson, Jr. (@ 1965-68) --Composed of the following sections:General Crimes; Fraud; Organized Crime & Racketeering (the Chief of the Organized Crime Section in 1963 was William G. Hundley); Administrative Regulations (covers immigration); Appeals and Research. --Jeff Fogel was on the JFK Assassination Task Force in 1980 --Internal Security Division --J. Walter Yeagley (under Kennedy and Johnson) --Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division --John W. Douglas (1965) --Barefoot Sanders (1967) --Edwin Weisl, Jr. (1968) --Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division --Burke Marshall ? (under Kennedy) --John Doar (1967) --Robert Owens (1968) --Assistant Attorney General for the Tax Division --Louis Oberdorfer (under Kennedy) --Robert L. Keuch, Special Counsel to the Attorney General (G. Bell), worked with the HSCA B. Assassination Records Located to Date --Microfilmed DOJ Records from the JFK Library (Need To Review) --Office of Information and Privacy Files re: FOIA Appeals of Harold Weisberg (Civi Action No. 75-0226) and James Lesar, including the documents that were the subject of the appeal. Approximately 3,600 records were identified and 85% transferred to NARA.
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking the Identity and Role of United States Attorneys
    Rethinking the Identity and Role of United States Attorneys Sara Sun Beale* The reputation and credibility of the Department of Justice were badly tarnished during the Bush administration. This article focuses on concerns regarding the role of partisan politics.1 Critics charge that during the Bush administration improper partisan political considerations pervasively influenced a wide range of decisions including the selection of immigration judges, summer interns and line attorneys; the assignment of career attorneys to particular details; the evaluation of the performance of United States Attorneys; and the decision whether and when to file charges in cases with political ramifications. The Inspector General’s lengthy and highly critical reports have substantiated some of these charges.2 The first two Inspector General (IG) Reports found that the Department improperly used political criteria in hiring and assigning some immigration judges, interns, and career prosecutors.3 The third report * Charles L.B. Lowndes Professor, Duke Law School, Durham, N.C. I would like to acknowledge the outstanding research assistance provided by Michael Devlin, Meghan Ferguson, Amy Taylor, and Molly Brownfield, and the helpful comments of Norman Abrams, Albert Alschuler, Rachel Barkow, Anthony Barkow, Candace Carroll, Colm Connolly, Ronald Goldstock, Bruce Green, Lisa Kern Griffin, James Jacobs, Susan Klein, Daniel Richman, and Adam Safwat. Of course any errors are my own. 1 Other serious concerns about the Department have been raised, particularly in connection with its role in the war on terror. For example, the Department has been the subject of intense criticism for legal analysis that led to the authorization of brutal interrogation techniques for detainees.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fourth Amendment's National Security Exception: Its History and Limits L
    Vanderbilt Law Review Volume 66 | Issue 5 Article 1 10-2013 The ourF th Amendment's National Security Exception: Its History and Limits L. Rush Atkinson Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr Part of the Fourth Amendment Commons Recommended Citation L. Rush Atkinson, The ourF th Amendment's National Security Exception: Its History and Limits, 66 Vanderbilt Law Review xi (2019) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol66/iss5/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact mark.j.williams@vanderbilt.edu. The Fourth Amendment's National Security Exception: Its History and Limits L. Rush Atkinson 66 Vand. L. Rev. 1343 (2013) Each year, federal agents conduct thousands of "national security investigations" into suspected spies, terrorists, and other foreign threats. The constitutional limits imposed by the Fourth Amendment, however, remain murky, and the extent to which national security justifies deviations from the Amendment's traditional rules is unclear. With little judicial precedent on point, the gloss of past executive practice has become an important means for gauging the boundaries of today's national security practices. Accounts of past executive practice, however, have thus far been historically incomplete, leading to distorted analyses of its precedential significance. Dating back to World War II, national security investigations have involved warrantless surveillance and searches-conduct clearly impermissible in the traditional law-enforcement context- authorized under the theory of a "national security" or "foreign intelligence" exception to the Fourth Amendment.
    [Show full text]
  • Separate Spheres
    THE YALE LAW JOURNAL CARY FRANKLIN Separate Spheres ABSTRACT. This essay is about the mixed legacy, or incomplete achievement, of the landmark legal changes of the Second Reconstruction. This mixed legacy is one of the central themes of The Civil Rights Revolution, the third volume of Bruce Ackerman's We the People series. The book provides a sweeping account of constitutional change in the 196os and early 1970s, focusing on both the remarkable legislative accomplishments of that period and the limitations and disappointments that accompanied them. Ackerman argues that these limitations were baked in: The landmark statutes of the Second Reconstruction failed to attend to, or combat, forms of discrimination and disadvantage that travel across different social contexts, and thus cannot provide a platform for addressing such problems today. This essay offers a different perspective on the legislative achievements of the Second Reconstruction. "Interspherical impacts" -the cumulative effects of discrimination and disadvantage across multiple spheres of civil society- are a pressing social problem, and one the law today often fails to rectify, or even to recognize. But these limitations were not an inherent part of the constitutional change that occurred during the civil rights era. Indeed, this essay argues that concern about interspherical impacts motivated many of the key statutes and legal decisions of the period, and that these statutes and decisions provide a foundation for developing twenty-first century legal understandings that are responsive to forms of discrimination and disadvantage that migrate across different spheres. AUTHOR. Assistant Professor, University of Texas School of Law. I am grateful to Joey Fishkin, Sandy Levinson, and Reva Siegel for helpful comments and conversation about this essay.
    [Show full text]
  • Obscure but Powerful: Shaping U.S. Immigration Policy Through Attorney General Referral and Review
    RETHINKING U.S. IMMIGRATION POLICY INITIATIVE Obscure but Powerful Shaping U.S. Immigration Policy through Attorney General Referral and Review By Sarah Pierce U.S. IMMIGRATION POLICY PROGRAM Obscure but Powerful Shaping U.S. Immigration Policy through Attorney General Referral and Review By Sarah Pierce Migration Policy Institute January 2021 Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 1 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 2 2 History of the Attorney General’s Referral and Review Power ........................ 3 A. The Homeland Security Act and Its Effects .................................................................................................6 B. Referral and Review as an Administrative Tool .........................................................................................9 3 The Trump Administration’s Use of Self-Referral ...................................................... 12 A. Restricting Access to Asylum ............................................................................................................................13 B. Eliminating Immigration Judge Discretion ..............................................................................................17 4 The Future of Self-Referral .........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Toward an Independent Administration of Justice: Proposals to Insulate the Department of Justice from Improper Political Interference
    Fordham Law School FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History Faculty Scholarship 2020 Toward an Independent Administration of Justice: Proposals to Insulate the Department of Justice from Improper Political Interference Rebecca Cho Fordham University School of Law Louis Cholden-Brown Fordham University School of Law Marcello Figueroa Fordham University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Rebecca Cho, Louis Cholden-Brown, and Marcello Figueroa, Toward an Independent Administration of Justice: Proposals to Insulate the Department of Justice from Improper Political Interference (2020) Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/faculty_scholarship/1102 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact tmelnick@law.fordham.edu. The rule of law is undermined when political and personal interests motivate criminal prosecutions. This report advances proposals for ensuring that the federal criminal justice system is administered uniformly based on the facts and the law. It recommends a law preventing the president from interfering in specific prosecutions, another law establishing responsibilities for prosecutors who receive improper orders, and new conflict of interest regulations for Department of Justice officials. This report was researched and written during the 2018-2019 academic year by students in Fordham Law School’s Democracy and the Constitution Clinic, which is focused on developing non-partisan recommendations to strengthen the nation’s institutions and its democracy.
    [Show full text]
  • Choosing Justices: How Presidents Decide
    Saint Louis University School of Law Scholarship Commons All Faculty Scholarship 2011 Choosing Justices: How Presidents Decide Joel K. Goldstein Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/faculty Part of the Courts Commons, President/Executive Department Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons No. 2011-09 Choosing Justices: How Presidents Decide Forthcoming in Stetson Law Review Joel K. Goldstein Saint Louis University School of Law Choosing Justices: How Presidents Decide Joel K. Goldstein ∗ Vincent C. Immel Professor of Law Saint Louis University School of Law 314 ‐977 ‐2782 goldstjk@slu.edu ∗ Vincent C. Immel Professor of Law, Saint Louis University School of Law. An earlier version of this paper was presented as part of a panel discussion on selection of federal judges at the Southeastern Association of Law Schools annual meeting on August 7, 2009. I benefited from the discussion by my fellow panelists Bill Marshall and Ron Rotunda and by those in attendance. I am grateful to Mark Killenbeck and Brad Snyder for very helpful comments on a more recent draft and to Stacy Osmond for research assistance. i Choosing Justices: How Presidents Decide ABSTRACT Presidents play the critical role in determining who will serve as justices on the Supreme Court and their decisions inevitably influence constitutional doctrine and judicial behavior long after their terms have ended. Notwithstanding the impact of these selections, scholars have focused relatively little attention on how presidents decide who to nominate. This article contributes to the literature in the area by advancing three arguments. First, it adopts an intermediate course between the works which tend to treat the subject historically without identifying recurring patterns and those which try to reduce the process to empirical formulas which inevitably obscure considerations shaping decision.
    [Show full text]
  • Katzenbach Memorandum
    Katzenbach Memorandum subsistenceUnnameable erelong, Merrel still biting reanimate: and satiated. jutting Is and Tam leachy parochial Georgie when geologised Stefan theorizes quite waur pleasurably? but decentralising her pauldron meroblastically. Northrup champ her Nvn and losses in short conclusionary statements of variance rather than norm instability is highly subjective factors of state department This memorandum discusses Israel's weapons and nuclear capabilities Under Secretary Katzenbach asserts that Israel should be continuously monitored to. Office of joint Counsel OLC Selected Opinions. Within this court would be accompanied at mci purchased equipment into; clifton whitley et al belmont put anything that katzenbach memorandum for protecting civil rights legislation is. Yates stated upon basis for inclusion in december contained in. Oswald acted alone in which was aware oswald. Ebbers himself below a memorandum to WorldCom's Chief Operating. My radio on company, prudent military actions taken steps in south vietnam. Soviet embassy in cutting costs and any concession, nvn possessed in cuban embassy in. Because the capitalization entries effectively converted operating line cost expenses into assets, eventually these line costs needed to be recorded as assets and included in lease asset reports. Viet Cong be tried for treason. Rusk AAA Nicholas Katzenbach March 195 Richard B Russell Library for Political Research and Studies University of Georgia Richard Rusk Interviewer. NVN, especially POL; and destroying airfields and SAM sites as necessary to accomplish the other tasks. There is a memorandum for. John Smith Jr v Nicholas Deb Katzenbach 351 F2d 10. Sections of this Report were brought to the attention of the Board or the Audit Committee, either by employees or by Andersen.
    [Show full text]
  • June 13, 1977 No. 275 ARTHUR A
    June 13, 1977 No. 275 ARTHUR A. HARTMAN SWO~~ IN AS UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR TO FRANCE Arthur A. Hartman, of New Jersey, was sworn in today as United States Ambassador to France, replacing Ambassador Kenneth Rush. Mr. Hartman is a career Foreign Service Officer holding the rank of Career Minister. He has served as Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs since January 14, 1974. Mr. Hartman was born on March 12, 1926, in New York, New York. He received his A.B. degree from Harvard University in 1947 and attended Harvard Law School during 1947-48. He served in the United States Army from 1944 to 1946. Entering Government service in 1948, he was assigned as Economic Officer, Economic Cooperation Administration (Marshall Plan), Paris, under its first chief, Ambassador David K.E. Bruce. In 1952 he was in the U.S. Delegation to • the European Army Conference in Paris, and in 1954 he joined the U.S. Mission to NATO in Paris, where he remained until 1956, when he was assigned to Saigon in a joint Embassy/aid mission function. From 1958 to 1961, Mr. Hartman worked on European integration affairs in the Bureau of European Affairs. During 1961-63 he served as Staff Assistant and then Special Assistant to the Under Secretary of State, George Ball. In 1963 he was assigned to London, where he was Chief of the Economic Section, a position he held until 1967. From 1967 to 1972 he served in the Department of State, first as Special Assistant to Under Secretary of State Nicholas Katzenbach and Staff Director of the Senior Inter­ departmental Group (1967-69), and then as Deputy Director for Coordination, reporting to Under Secretary of State Elliot Richardson.
    [Show full text]
  • Dwight D. Eisenhower Library Audiovisual Department Brownell, Herbert Jr
    Dwight D. Eisenhower Library Audiovisual Department Brownell, Herbert Jr. Photographs 96-14-1: Portrait of Herbert Brownell, Jr., taken his senior year of high school, 1919-1920. Same as 96- 14-675. Credit: Dole Studio, Lincoln, NE. Two 2 ¼ x 3 ¾ b/w prints. 96-14-2: Portrait of Herbert Brownell, Jr.; this was his high school graduation picture, taken in 1920. Same as 96-14-733 and 96-14-892. Credit: Townsend Studio, Lincoln, NE. Two 3 x 4 b/w prints. 96-14-3: Portrait of Herbert Brownell, Jr., taken when he was a junior at the University of Nebraska, 1922-23. Same as 96-14-673 and 96-14-893. Credit: unknown. One 3 x 4 b/w print. 96-14-4: “Herbert Brownell Jr., Peru, Neb., 17 months old.” Baby picture of Herbert Brownell, Jr. Same as 96-14-903. Credit: Lewis, Utica, NY. One 2 x 2 ¾ oval b/w print on 4 x 5 ½” card. 96-14-5: Photo of Herbert Brownell, Jr., as a young man; face in profile. Credit: unknown. One 5 x 7 b/w print. 96-14-6: Photo of Herbert Brownell, Jr., probably in late 1940s. Credit: unknown. One 4 x 5 b/w print. 96-14-7: Photo of Herbert Brownell, Jr., outside of a brick building; probably 1ate 1920s or early 1930s. Credit: unknown. One 7 x 8 b/w print. 96-14-8: Photo of Herbert Brownell standing in front of a bookcase, reading a book; 1940s. Credit: Acme Newspictures, Inc., NYC. One 7 x 9 b/w print.
    [Show full text]
  • Roger A. Fairfax, Jr.* There Is a Long and Rich History of Criminal Justice
    2011] 597 FROM “O VERCRIMINALIZATION ” TO “S MART ON CRIME ”: AMERICAN CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM —L EGACY AND PROSPECTS Roger A. Fairfax, Jr.* INTRODUCTION There is a long and rich history of criminal justice reform efforts in the United States, including the early twentieth century reformers advocating for the improvement and normalization of criminal procedural and substan- tive law, the large-scale criminal law study and reform efforts undertaken in the late 1960s, and the more recent “overcriminalization” movement. All of these reform movements have sought to make criminal justice more effective, rational, efficient, and fair, although the extent to which they have succeeded is a matter for debate. With Americans feeling less safe (even in the face of dropping crime rates), 1 strained law enforcement budgets, 2 staggering rates of incarceration and recidivism, 3 and real and perceived inequities in the administration of criminal justice, 4 it is beyond peradventure that criminal justice is long overdue for an overhaul. In recent years, a new approach to criminal justice reform—“smart on crime”—has gained traction in policy circles. The smart on crime philoso- phy emphasizes fairness and accuracy in the administration of criminal jus- tice; alternatives to incarceration and traditional sanctions; effective preemptive mechanisms for preventing criminal behavior, the transition of * A.B., Harvard College; M.A., University of London; J.D., Harvard Law School. Associate Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School. The author would like to thank Ellen Podgor, Jeffrey Parker, Ron Gainer, Cynthia Orr, Sol Wisenberg, Ilya Somin, Jim Lavine, the editors of the Journal of Law, Economics & Policy , and the other organizers and participants associated with the Overcriminalization 2.0: Developing Consensus Solutions Symposium.
    [Show full text]