DOCSLIB.ORG

The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment Article The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment Akhil Reed Amart CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................... 1194 I. ANTEBELLUM IDEAS ..................................... 1198 A. Barron .......................................... 1198 B. The Barron Contrarians...............................1203 1. The General WordinglExpressio Unius Theory ......... 1204 2. The Declaratory Theory ........................ 1205 C. The Contrarian Context .............................. 1212 1. Technology, Geography, and Ideology ............... 1212 2. Slavery .................................... 1215 II. THE EASY CASE FOR INCORPORATION ......................... 1218 A. The Text of the FourteenthAmendment .................... 1218 1. "No State shall... .. ............. ............ 1218 2. "... make or enforce any law which shall abridge. ." . 1219 3. ... the privileges or immunities. ."...... 1220 4. "... of citizens of the United States;".. .............. 1222 5. ".. nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;".. ............ 1224 6. Beyond Mechanical Incorporation ................. 1227 B. Glosses on the Text ................................. 1233 1. The Thirty-ninth Congress ....................... 1233 a. The Easy Case Made Easier .................. 1233 t Professor, Yale Law School. This Article is a sequel to Akhil Reed Amar, The Bill of Rights as a Constitution, 100 YALE L.J. 1131 (1991). Both essays are part of a larger book-length treatment of the Bill of Rights to be published next year. 1194 The Yale Law Journal [Vol. 101: 1193 b. IncorporatingAnti-Incorporation Insights ......... 1238 (i) Fairman .............................. 1238 (ii) Berger ............................... 1243 2. Ratification: The Sounds of Silence ................. 1246 a. Ratification Silence and the IncorporationDebate ... 1246 b. Ratification Silence More Generally ............. 1251 3. Early Interpretations:In Search of Reasons ........... 1254 III. THB HARD PART OF INCORPORATION ....................... 1260 A. The Problem: Fitting the Constitution'sPegs into Reconstruc- tion Holes ........................................ 1260 B. The Solution: Refined Incorporation ...................... 1262 1. Total and Selective IncorporationRevisited ........... 1262 2. A New Synthesis .............................. 1264 3. A Founding Analogy ........................... 1266 4. The Old Roots of the New Synthesis ................ 1268 C. "Refined Incorporation" Applied: The Rights of Expression ..... 1272 CONCLUSION ............................................ 1284 INTRODUCTION What is the relationship between the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment? Does the Amendment "incorporate" the Bill, making the Bill's restrictions on federal power applicable against states? If so, which words in the Fourteenth Amendment work this change? Are all, or only some, of the provisions of the first ten amendments "incorporated" or "absorbed" into the Fourteenth? If only some, which ones, and why? Once "incorporated" or "absorbed," does a right or freedom declared in the Bill necessarily constrain state and federal governments absolutely equally in every jot and tittle? Or, on the other hand, can a guarantee in the Bill ever lose something in the transla- tion, so that only a part of the guarantee-perhaps only its "core"--applies against state governments by dint of the Fourteenth Amendment? These questions have framed a debate that, in the words of Judge Henry Friendly, "go[es] to the very nature of our Constitution" with "profound effects for all of us."1 Professor Van Alstyne has written that "it is difficult to imagine a more consequential subject, ' an assessment confirmed by the extraordinary number of twentieth-century legal giants who have locked horns in the de- bate-Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, William Brennan, Henry Friendly, William Crosskey, Louis Henkin, Erwin Griswold, and John Ely, to name only a few. Perhaps even more extraordinary has been the willingness of Supreme Court Justices to reinforce their judicial pronouncements on the issue with extra-judicial elaborations. For example, after his retirement from the bench and shortly before his death, Justice Frankfurter published as his parting words to I. Henry J. Friendly, The Bill of Rights as a Code of CriminalProcedure, 53 CAL. L. REV. 929, 934 (1965). 2. William W. Van Alstyne, Foreword to MICHAEL KENT CURTIS, NO STATE SHALL ABRIDGE: THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS, at ix (1986). 1992] The Bill of Rights 1195 the legal community an elaborate "memorandum" on "incorporation" in the HarvardLaw Review, piling up case citations and other material to support his own preferred solution to the issue.3 Three years later, Frankfurter's great sparring partner, Justice Black, publicly responded in his Carpentier Lectures, breaking "a longstanding rule of not speaking out on constitutional issues.' 4 And in two James Madison Lectures delivered twenty-five years apart-each aptly titled "The Bill of Rights and the States"--Justice Brennan expanded upon 5 his own proposed solution to the incorporation conundrum. When we shift our attention from lectures and law reviews to United States Reports, we see much more evidence of the centrality of the incorporation debate to twentieth-century constitutional law. Consider, for example, the lead paragraph of the most famous footnote in Supreme Court history: "There may be narrower scope for operation of the presumption of constitutionality when legislation appears on its face to be within a specific prohibition of the Consti- tution, such as those of the first ten amendments, which are deemed equally specific when held to be embraced within the Fourteenth."6 In the half-century since Carolene Products, the Court has taken the hint of footnote four. A list of cases applying various parts of the Bill of Rights against states reads like the "greatest hits"7 of the modem era: New York Times v. Sullivan,8 Abington School District v. Schempp,9 Mapp v. Ohio,10 Miranda v. Arizona," Gideon v. Wainwright,2 Duncan v. Louisiana,13 and on and on. Some cases, like Sullivan, merely applied provisions of the Bill of Rights that had long before been deemed "embraced within" the Fourteenth Amendment; others, like Duncan, achieved notoriety precisely because they decided to "incorporate" previously "unabsorbed" clauses. Speaking only of the latter set, Justice Brennan ranked the incorporation opinions ahead of reapportionment and desegregation cases as "the most important [series of decisions] of the Warren era." 4 In remarks sharply critical of Brennan and his brethren, Solicitor Gen- 3. Felix Frankfurter, Memrandum on "Incorporation"ofthe Bill ofRights Into the Due ProcessClause of the Fourteenth Amendment, 78 HARV. L. REv. 746 (1965). Judge Friendly notes that this memorandum was Frankfurter's "last published work." Friendly, supra note 1, at 934 n.27. 4. William C. Warren, Foreword to HUGO LAFAYETrE BLACK, A CONSTITUTIONAL FAITH, at x-xi (1968); HUGO LAFAYETTE BLACK, A CONSTITUTIONAL FAITH, at xvi-vii, 34-42 (1968). 5. William J. Brennan, Jr., The Bill ofRights and the States, 36 N.Y.U. L. REV. 761 (1961) [hereinafter Brennan I]; William J. Brennan, Jr., The Bill of Rights and the States: The Revival of State Constitutions as Guardians ofIndividualRights, 61 N.Y.U. L. REV. 535 (1986) [hereinafter Brennan II]. 6. United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, 152 n.4 (1938). 7. This phrase is meant to suggest the importance of the cases and not necessarily their correctness. 8. 376 U.S. 254 (1964) (freedom of speech and press). 9. 374 U.S. 203 (1963) (nonestablishment of religion). 10. 367 U.S. 643 (1961) (exclusion of evidence obtained by unreasonable search and seizure); see also id. at 661-66 (Black, J., concurring) (relying in part on right against compelled self-incrimination). 11. 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (privilege against compelled self-incrimination and right to counsel). 12. 372 U.S. 335 (1963) (right to counsel). 13. 391 U.S. 145 (196S) (right to criminal jury). 14. Brennan 11, supra note 5, at 535-36; see also William J. Brennan, Jr., State Constitutionsand the Protectionof IndividualRights, 90 HARV. L. REV. 489, 492-93 (1977). 1196 The Yale Law Journal [Vol. 101: 1193 eral Erwin Griswold offered an even more sweeping assessment of the stakes involved: "I can think of nothing in the history of our constitutional law which has gone so far since John Marshall and the Supreme Court decided Marbury v. Madison in 1803. "15 And yet, despite the importance of the topic and all the attention devoted to it, we still lack a fully satisfying account of the relationship between the first ten amendments and the Fourteenth. Minor variations aside, three main ap- proaches have dominated the twentieth-century debate. The first, represented by Justice Frankfurter, insists that, strictly speaking, the Fourteenth Amendment never "incorporated" any of the provisions of the Bill of Rights. 16 The Four- teenth requires only that states honor basic principles of fundamental fairness and ordered liberty-principles that might indeed happen to overlap wholly or in part with some of the rules of the Bill of Rights, but that bear no logical relationship to those rules. The second approach, championed by Justice Black, insists on "total incorporation" of the Bill of Rights.1 7 The Fourteenth Amend- ment, claimed Black, made applicable against the states each and every provi- sion of the Bill, lock, stock, and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • How to Read the Bill History Page Hb 2480
    HOW TO READ THE BILL HISTORY PAGE This tutorial will show you how to read the bill information and history page for a bill. This page and the next show the bill history for HB 2480 from the 2007-08 legislative session as it appears on the webpage. Beginning on page 3 this bill history is shown with a detailed explanation of what each line means. HB 2480 - 2007-08 (What is this?) Concerning public transportation fares. Sponsors: Clibborn, McIntire, Simpson Companion Bill: SB 6353 Go to documents. Go to videos. Bill History 2008 REGULAR SESSION Dec 21 Prefiled for introduction. Jan 14 First reading, referred to Transportation. (View Original Bill) Jan 17 Public hearing in the House Committee on Transportation at 3:30 PM. Jan 29 Executive action taken in the House Committee on Transportation at 3:30 PM. TR - Executive action taken by committee. TR - Majority; 1st substitute bill be substituted, do pass. (View 1st Substitute) Minority; do not pass. Feb 1 Passed to Rules Committee for second reading. Feb 12 Made eligible to be placed on second reading. Feb 13 Placed on second reading. Feb 14 1st substitute bill substituted (TR 08). (View 1st Substitute) Floor amendment(s) adopted. Rules suspended. Placed on Third Reading. Third reading, passed; yeas, 84; nays, 10; absent, 0; excused, 4. (View Roll Calls) (View 1st Engrossed) IN THE SENATE Feb 16 First reading, referred to Transportation. Feb 20 Public hearing in the Senate Committee on Transportation at 1:30 PM. Feb 26 Executive action taken in the Senate Committee on Transportation at 3:30 PM.
    [Show full text]
  • CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. March 10
    1776 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. MARcH 10, H. Owen and ofW. W. Welch-severally to the Committee on Wax braces some six or seven hundred miles of road under one control, Claims. and, talring it in connection with its control of the Georgia road, By Mr. A.. HERR SMITH: The petition of soldiers and sailors of more than that. That is all worked in connection with the expor­ the late war for an increase of pension to all pensioners who lost an tation of productions at Savannah. The Louisville and Nashville arm and leg while in the line of duty-to the Committee on Invalid system, which is very prominent and controls probably some two Pensions. thousand miles of road, or more, works in harmony with the Central. By Mr. STONE: The petition of Patrick McDonald, to be placed That combination of roads naturally looks to Savannah as an outlet on the retired list-to the Committee on Military Affairs. for a great deal of the produce that is shipped over its lines. There By Mr. TALBOTT: Papers relating to the claim of Alexander M. is then the line by way of'the Georgia and Cent.ral, through Atlanta Templeton-to the Committee on War Claims. over the Stat.e Road~ as it is called, by the Nashville, Chattanoo~a By Mr. URNER: Papers relating to the claim of Robertson Topp antl Saint Louis, al o connecting with the Louisville and Nashviue and William L. Vance-to the same committee. Road to the western cities. There are the same connections up to By Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Bills of Attainder
    University at Buffalo School of Law Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship Winter 2016 Bills of Attainder Matthew Steilen University at Buffalo School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/journal_articles Part of the Legal History Commons Recommended Citation Matthew Steilen, Bills of Attainder, 53 Hous. L. Rev. 767 (2016). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/journal_articles/123 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLE BILLS OF ATTAINDER Matthew Steilen* ABSTRACT What are bills of attainder? The traditional view is that bills of attainder are legislation that punishes an individual without judicial process. The Bill of Attainder Clause in Article I, Section 9 prohibits the Congress from passing such bills. But what about the President? The traditional view would seem to rule out application of the Clause to the President (acting without Congress) and to executive agencies, since neither passes bills. This Article aims to bring historical evidence to bear on the question of the scope of the Bill of Attainder Clause. The argument of the Article is that bills of attainder are best understood as a summary form of legal process, rather than a legislative act. This argument is based on a detailed historical reconstruction of English and early American practices, beginning with a study of the medieval Parliament rolls, year books, and other late medieval English texts, and early modern parliamentary diaries and journals covering the attainders of Elizabeth Barton under Henry VIII and Thomas Wentworth, earl of Strafford, under Charles I.
    [Show full text]
  • Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)
    Friday Volume 497 16 October 2009 No. 125 HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) Friday 16 October 2009 £5·00 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2009 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Parliamentary Click-Use Licence, available online through the Office of Public Sector Information website at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/ Enquiries to the Office of Public Sector Information, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU; e-mail: [email protected] 551 16 OCTOBER 2009 552 Solicitor-General to make a statement about the Yvonne House of Commons Fletcher case? It emerged last night that, two years ago, a senior lawyer carried out an independent review of Friday 16 October 2009 the case for the Crown Prosecution Service in which he said that the two Libyans involved could be charged for conspiracy to cause death. Neither had diplomatic The House met at half-past Nine o’clock immunity; they escaped from the Libyan embassy. The report made it clear that both those men played an instrumental role in the murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher. PRAYERS Last night, as I said, it emerged that the Crown Prosecution Service had confirmed that, two years on, The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means took the police had still not provided it with the final case file the Chair as Deputy Speaker (Standing Order No. 3). containing the admissible evidence. Surely the Home Secretary should make a statement explaining why the NEW WRIT Metropolitan police are sitting on that vital evidence, Ordered, and to put our minds at rest by assuring us that Britain’s That the Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the trade interests are not being put before the interests of Crown, to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to bringing criminals to justice.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 Panel Systems Catalog
    Table of Contents Page Title Page Number Terms and Conditions 3 - 4 Specifications 5 2.0 and SB3 Panel System Options 16 - 17 Wood Finish Options 18 Standard Textile Options 19 2.0 Paneling System Fabric Panel with Wooden Top Cap 6 - 7 Fabric Posts and Wooden End Caps 8 - 9 SB3 Paneling System Fabric Panel with Wooden Top Cap 10 - 11 Fabric Posts with Wooden Top Cap 12 - 13 Wooden Posts 14 - 15 revision 1.0 - 12/2/2020 Terms and Conditions 1. Terms of Payment ∙Qualified Customers will have Net 30 days from date of order completion, and a 1% discount if paid within 10 days of the invoice date. ∙Customers lacking credentials may be required down payment or deposit in full prior to production. ∙Finance charges of 2% will be applied to each invoice past 30 days. ∙Terms of payment will apply unless modified in writing by Custom Office Design, Inc. 2. Pricing ∙All pricing is premised on product that is made available for will call to the buyer pre-assembled and unpackaged from our base of operations in Auburn, WA. ∙Prices subject to change without notice. Price lists noting latest date supersedes all previously published price lists. Pricing does not include A. Delivery, Installation, or Freight-handling charges. B. Product Packaging, or Crating charges. C. Custom Product Detail upcharge. D. Special-Order/Non-standard Laminate, Fabric, Staining and/or Labor upcharge. E. On-site service charges. F. Federal, state or local taxes. 3. Ordering A. All orders must be made in writing and accompanied with a corresponding purchase order.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record—House H8191
    September 26, 2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Ð HOUSE H8191 would probably refer to as a standard UNITED STATES MINT NUMIS- obvious that this makes no sense at all silver dollar, modeled after the old buf- MATIC COIN CLARIFICATION ACT to make a silver version of a coin that falo nickel which was designed by OF 2000 is gold in color. But language left over James Earle Fraser and minted from Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speak- from the time when the silver-colored 1913 through 1938. er, I move to suspend the rules and Susan B. Anthony dollar coins were The proceeds of the sale of this coin pass the bill (H.R. 5273) to clarify the made would require the all-silver proof version. will go towards funding the opening of intention of the Congress with regard Not having this clarification has held the museum and will supplement the to the authority of the United States museums endowment and educational up the mint's production of proof sets Mint to produce numismatic coins, and for collectors, and it is illegal to outreach funds. Because the mint will for other purposes. produce coins in a year other than in be reimbursed the cost of minting the The Clerk read as follows: which they are issued. Failure to pass coin before the funds are given to the H.R. 5273 this bill would result either in a non- museum, this bill will have no net cost Be it enacted by the Senate and House of sensical proof set or no proof set for to the American taxpayer.
    [Show full text]
  • Tracing the History of the Bill of Rights
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Constitutional Commentary 2019 From Appendix to Heart: Tracing the History of the Bill of Rights Lael Weinberger Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Weinberger, Lael, "From Appendix to Heart: Tracing the History of the Bill of Rights" (2019). Constitutional Commentary. 1202. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm/1202 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]. 07 WEINBERGER_FINAL (DO NOT DELETE) 12/23/2019 10:24 AM FROM APPENDIX TO HEART: TRACING THE HISTORY OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS THE HEART OF THE CONSTITUTION: HOW THE BILL OF RIGHTS BECAME THE BILL OF RIGHTS. Gerard N. Magliocca.1 New York: Oxford University Press, 2018. Pp. xii + 235. $29.95 (Hardcover). Lael Weinberger2 I. INTRODUCTION: THE THINGS WE TAKE FOR GRANTED The upper level of the National Archives museum features three documents, grandly presented in a marble rotunda: the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. When the hall is open for visitors, the documents are displayed behind bulletproof glass and constantly attended by guards; at night, the documents are stored still more securely in a bomb-proof vault.3 “In this Rotunda are the most cherished material possessions of a great and good nation,” President George W. Bush said in 2003 at an event reopening the hall after a major renovation.4 Every branch of government was represented at the event, offering encomiums to the documents enshrined in the hall.
    [Show full text]
  • Report on the Draft Investigatory Powers Bill
    Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament Report on the draft Investigatory Powers Bill Chair: The Rt. Hon. Dominic Grieve QC MP Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament Report on the draft Investigatory Powers Bill Chair: The Rt. Hon. Dominic Grieve QC MP Presented to Parliament pursuant to Section 3 of the Justice and Security Act 2013 Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 9 February 2016 HC 795 © Crown copyright 2016 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected]. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at www.gov.uk/government/publications Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us via isc.independent.gov.uk/contact Print ISBN 9781474127714 Web ISBN 9781474127721 ID 26011601 02/16 53894 19585 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum Printed in the UK by the Williams Lea Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office THE INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY COMMITTEE OF PARLIAMENT The Rt. Hon. Dominic Grieve QC MP (Chair) The Rt. Hon. Sir Alan Duncan KCMG MP The Rt. Hon. Fiona Mactaggart MP The Rt. Hon. George Howarth MP The Rt. Hon. Angus Robertson MP The Rt. Hon. the Lord Janvrin GCB GCVO QSO The Rt.
    [Show full text]
  • Insert Catchy Title
    Addressing Tomorrow’s Terrorists Andrew Peterson* American anti-terrorism laws are insufficient to address the next wave of global terrorism. When President Bush declared that the United States had begun a “war on terror,”1 the entire government began to reorient itself to tackle America’s newest “generational challenge.”2 The Department of Justice (DOJ) joined this massive effort, declaring in a new Strategic Plan that its focus was not simply to prosecute terrorists for crimes, but to “[p]revent, disrupt, and defeat terrorist operations before they occur.”3 Despite its constant talk of reorientation, however, DOJ has been limited in its ability to creatively address the war on terror for one simple reason: many of the relevant federal criminal statutes are poorly constructed. Prior to September 1994, there were no federal criminal prohibitions that specifically punished material support for terrorism. Prosecutors had to rely instead on generic federal crimes, such as murder and money laundering, or on a variety of statutes condemning specific acts of terrorism, such as air piracy or hostage taking. After the 1993 terrorist bombing of the World Trade Center, this situation rapidly changed. Legislators hastily drafted a number of statutes and amendments that sought to address the domestic terrorist threat. Acting in response to public demand for quick, decisive action, Congress generally maximized the scope of anti-terror prohibitions while overriding any legal obstacles to quick prosecution that were presented by the judiciary. Although it is difficult to fault Congress for acting decisively, the bedrock of counterterrorism enforcement laid down by these statutes is deeply flawed.
    [Show full text]
  • 5115-S.E Hbr Aph 21
    HOUSE BILL REPORT ESSB 5115 As Passed House - Amended: April 5, 2021 Title: An act relating to establishing health emergency labor standards. Brief Description: Establishing health emergency labor standards. Sponsors: Senate Committee on Labor, Commerce & Tribal Affairs (originally sponsored by Senators Keiser, Liias, Conway, Kuderer, Lovelett, Nguyen, Salomon, Stanford and Wilson, C.). Brief History: Committee Activity: Labor & Workplace Standards: 3/12/21, 3/24/21 [DPA]. Floor Activity: Passed House: 4/5/21, 68-30. Brief Summary of Engrossed Substitute Bill (As Amended By House) • Creates an occupational disease presumption, for the purposes of workers' compensation, for frontline employees during a public health emergency. • Requires certain employers to notify the Department of Labor and Industries when 10 or more employees have tested positive for the infectious disease during a public health emergency. • Requires employers to provide written notice to employees of potential exposure to the infectious disease during a public health emergency. • Prohibits discrimination against high-risk employees who seek accommodations or use leave options. HOUSE COMMITTEE ON LABOR & WORKPLACE STANDARDS This analysis was prepared by non-partisan legislative staff for the use of legislative members in their deliberations. This analysis is not part of the legislation nor does it constitute a statement of legislative intent. House Bill Report - 1 - ESSB 5115 Majority Report: Do pass as amended. Signed by 6 members: Representatives Sells, Chair; Berry, Vice Chair; Hoff, Ranking Minority Member; Bronoske, Harris and Ortiz- Self. Minority Report: Without recommendation. Signed by 1 member: Representative Mosbrucker, Assistant Ranking Minority Member. Staff: Trudes Tango (786-7384). Background: Workers' Compensation. Workers who are injured in the course of employment or who are affected by an occupational disease are entitled to workers' compensation benefits, which may include medical, temporary time-loss, and other benefits.
    [Show full text]
  • Calendar No. 80
    Calendar No. 80 113TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! 1st Session SENATE 113–40 BORDER SECURITY, ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, AND IMMIGRATION MODERNIZATION ACT JUNE 7, 2013.—Ordered to be printed Mr. LEAHY, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following R E P O R T together with ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS [To accompany S. 744] The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the bill (S. 744), to provide for comprehensive immigration reform, and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon, with an amendment, and recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass. CONTENTS Page I. Background and Purpose of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act ........................................................ 1 II. History of the Bill and Committee Consideration ....................................... 22 III. Section-by-Section Summary of the Bill ...................................................... 75 IV. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ................................................ 161 V. Regulatory Impact Evaluation ...................................................................... 161 VI. Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 161 VII. Additional and Minority Views ..................................................................... 163 VIII. Changes to Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ........................... 186 I. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THE BORDER SECURITY, ECONOMIC
    [Show full text]
  • Review of the Birth of the Bill of Rights by Robert Allen Rutland
    19561 BOOK REVIEWS The Birth of the Bill of Rights. By Robert Allen Rutland. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1955. Pp. 243. $5.00. The federal Bill of Rights is one of the most cherished documents in our national hagiography. Its clauses have been invoked by contending parties in every crisis of our history. Every sort of minority interest has sought se- curity in its generous phrases. Its meaning has long been the subject of in- tense controversy among lawyers and judges. The judicial gloss upon its words and phrases has attained enormous proportions. Yet in spite of all this, surprisingly little scholarly work has been done on the history of the Bill of Rights.1 The interest of American historians in constitutional history, once so pronounced, seems to have spent itself. Such newer pastures as those of in- tellectual and business history appear to be greener. It is a long time since our historians have produced a significant new work in the field of constitu- tional history. Political scientists and legal scholars are gradually moving in to fill the vacuum.2 We have had, of course, a number of historical studies of particular aspects of civil liberties,3 but we have never had a thorough, criti- cal, substantial, scholarly study of the origins of the American Bill of Rights. In fact, Rutland's treatise, The Birth of the Bill of Rights, is, to my knowl- edge, the first book-length study by a historical scholar ever written on the subject. While Rutland should be given credit for making the attempt, his book does not by any means fill this gap in historical scholarship.
    [Show full text]