DOCSLIB.ORG

Table of Contents

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Table of Contents U.S. Court Cases Editor:Thomas Tandy Lewis, St. Cloud State Univ. August 2010 · 3 volumes · 1,346 pages · 6"x 9" ISBN: 978-1-58765-672-9 List Price: $225 e-ISBN: 978-1-58765-676-7 eBook Single User Price: $225 Table of Contents Volume 1 Contents Publisher’s Note Contributors U.S. Supreme Court Citation Numbers Law and the Courts Anglo-American Legal Systems Law Jurisprudence The U.S. Constitution The Bill of Rights Constitutional Law The U.S. Judicial System State and Local Courts The U.S. Supreme Court Judicial Review Due Process of Law Court Cases Abington School District v. Schempp Ableman v. Booth Abrams v. United States Adair v. United States Adamson v. California Adarand Constructors v. Peña Adderley v. Florida Adkins v. Children’s Hospital Afroyim v. Rusk Agostini v. Felton Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody Albertson v. Subversive Activities Control Board Alcoa v. Federal Trade Commission Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education Allegheny County v. American Civil Liberties Union Greater Pittsburgh Chapter Allgeyer v. Louisiana Alsager v. District Court American Booksellers Association, Inc. v. Hudnut American Communications Association v. Douds Antelope, The Aptheker v. Secretary of State Argersinger v. Hamlin Arizona v. Fulminante Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority Atkins v. Virginia Atwater v. City of Lago Vista Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. Baker v. Carr Baker v. Vermont Ballard v. United States Ballew v. Georgia Bank of Augusta v. Earle Bank of the United States v. Deveaux Barenblatt v. United States Barker v. Wingo Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc. Barron v. Baltimore Bates v. State Bar of Arizona Batson v. Kentucky Belle Terre v. Boraas Benton v. Maryland Berman v. Parker Betts v. Brady Bigelow v. Virginia Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents BMW of North America v. Gore Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell Boerne v. Flores Bolling v. Sharpe Booth v. Maryland Boumediene v. Bush Bowe v. Colgate-Palmolive Bowers v. Hardwick Bowsher v. Synar Boy Scouts of America v. Dale Boyd v. United States Bradwell v. Illinois Brady v. United States Brandenburg v. Ohio Branzburg v. Hayes Brecht v. Abrahamson Breedlove v. Suttles Briscoe v. Bank of the Commonwealth of Kentucky Bronson v. Kinzie Brown v. Board of Education Brown v. Maryland Brown v. Mississippi Bryant v. Yellen Buchanan v. Warley Buck v. Bell Buckley v. Valeo Budd v. New York Bunting v. Oregon Burstyn v. Wilson Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority Bush v. Gore Butz v. Economou Calder v. Bull California v. Acevedo California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians California v. Greenwood Cantwell v. Connecticut Carroll v. United States Carter v. Carter Coal Co. Chambers v. Florida Champion v. Ames Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge Cherokee Cases Chicago v. Morales Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad Co. v. Chicago Chicago, Milwaukee, and St. Paul Railway Co. v. Minnesota Chimel v. California Chinese Exclusion Cases Chisholm v. Georgia Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission City of Renton v. Playtime Theaters Civil Rights Cases Clark Distilling Co. v. Western Maryland Railway Co. Clinton v. City of New York Clinton v. Jones Cohen v. California Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. Cohens v. Virginia Coker v. Georgia Colegrove v. Green Coleman v. Miller Collector v. Day Columbus Board of Education v. Penick Commonwealth v. Hunt Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board Cooley v. Board of Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia Cooper v. Aaron Corrigan v. Buckley Counselman v. Hitchcock County of Washington v. Gunther Cox v. Louisiana Cox v. New Hampshire Coyle v. Smith Craig v. Boren Craig v. Missouri Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health Cumming v. Richmond County Board of Education Cummings v. Missouri Dames and Moore v. Regan Dandridge v. Williams Dartmouth College v. Woodward Davis v. Bandemer Davis v. Beason DeJonge v. Oregon Dennis v. United States DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services Diamond v. Chakrabarty Dillon v. Gloss District of Columbia v. Heller Dobbins v. Erie County Dodge v. Woolsey Doe v. Bolton Dolan v. City of Tigard Dombrowski v. Pfister Dronenburg v. Zech Duncan v. Kahanamoku Duncan v. Louisiana Dunn v. Blumstein Duplex Printing Co. v. Deering Edelman v. Jordan Edgewood Independent School District v. Kirby Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co. Edwards v. Aguillard Edwards v. California Edwards v. South Carolina Eisenstadt v. Baird Elfbrandt v. Russell Elrod v. Burns Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith Engel v. Vitale Epperson v. Arkansas Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins Erznoznik v. Jacksonville Escobedo v. Illinois Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. Evans v. Abney Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township Ex parte Crow Dog Ex parte McCardle Ex parte Merryman Ex parte Milligan Ex parte Quirin Ex parte Siebold Ex parte Yarbrough Ex parte Young Fairfax’s Devisee v. Hunter’s Lessee Faretta v. California Fay v. Noia Federal Trade Commission v. Procter & Gamble Co. Fedorenko v. United States Feiner v. New York Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Co. Ferguson v. City of Charleston Ferguson v. Skrupa Firefighters Local Union No. 1784 v. Stotts et al. First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti Flast v. Cohen Fletcher v. Peck Florida v. Bostick Ford v. Wainwright 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island Frank v. Mangum Freedman v. Maryland Frontiero v. Richardson Frothingham v. Mellon Fullilove v. Klutznick Furman v. Georgia Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority Garrison v. Louisiana Geduldig v. Aiello Gelpcke v. Dubuque General Electric v. Gilbert Genesee Chief v. Fitzhugh Contents U.S. Supreme Court Citation Numbers Complete List of Contents Geofroy v. Riggs Gertz v. Robert Welch Gibbons v. Ogden Gideon v. Wainwright Gitlow v. New York Gold Clause Cases Goldberg v. Kelly Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar Goldwater v. Carter Gomez v. Perez Gomillion v. Lightfoot Gompers v. Buck’s Stove and Range Co. Gonzales v. Raich Good News Club v. Milford Central School Goodridge v. Department of Public Health Goss v. Lopez Graham v. Richardson Gratz v. Bollinger/Grutter v. Bollinger Graves v. New York ex rel. O’Keefe Gray v. Sanders Green v. Biddle Green v. County School Board of New Kent County Greer v. Spock Gregg v. Georgia Griffin v. Breckenridge Griffin v. California Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County Griggs v. Duke Power Co. Griswold v. Connecticut Grosjean v. American Press Co. Grove City College v. Bell Groves v. Slaughter Grovey v. Townsend Guinn v. United States Hague v. Congress of Industrial Organizations Hall v. DeCuir Hamdan v. Rumsfeld Hamling v. United States Hammer v. Dagenhart Harmelin v. Michigan Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections Harris v. McRae Harris v. New York Harris v. United States Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff Hayburn’s Case Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier Head Money Cases Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States Helvering v. Davis Hernández v. Texas Herndon v. Lowry Hirabayashi v. United States Hodgson v. Minnesota Holden v. Hardy Holmes v. Jennison Home Building and Loan Association v. Blaisdell Hoyt v. Florida Hudson v. Michigan Hudson v. Palmer Humphrey’s Executor v. United States Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston Hurtado v. California Hustler Magazine v. Falwell Hutchinson v. Proxmire Hutto v. Davis Hylton v. United States Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education Illinois v. Caballes Illinois v. Gates Illinois v. Krull Illinois v. McArthur Illinois v. Wardlow Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha In re Baby M In re Debs In re Gault In re Neagle In re Winship Insular Cases Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co. Jacobellis v. Ohio Jacobson v. Massachusetts Johnson and Graham’s Lessee v. McIntosh Johnson v. Louisiana Johnson v. Santa Clara County Johnson v. Zerbst Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. Jones v. Van Zandt Kansas v. Hendricks Kastigar v. United States Katz v. United States Katzenbach v. McClung Katzenbach v. Morgan Kelo v. City of New London Kennedy v. Louisiana Kent v. Dulles Kentucky v. Dennison Ker v. California Keyes v. Denver School District No. 1 Keyishian v. Board of Regents Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictis Kidd v. Pearson Kilbourn v. Thompson Kirkpatrick v. Preisler Klopfer v. North Carolina Knowles v. Iowa Korematsu v. United States Kunz v. New York Kyllo v. United States Lassiter v. Northampton County Board of Elections Lau v. Nichols Lawrence v. Texas Lee v. Weisman Legal Tender Cases Lemon v. Kurtzman License Cases Local 28 of Sheet Metal Workers International Association v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Lochner v. New York Loewe v. Lawlor Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock Lorance v. AT&T Technologies Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber Louisville, Cincinnati, and Charleston Railroad Co. v. Letson Louisville, New Orleans, and Texas Railway Co. v. Mississippi Lovell v. City of Griffin Loving v. Virginia Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council Luther v. Borden Lynch v. Donnelly McCleskey v. Kemp McCleskey v. Zant McConnell v. Federal Election Commission McCray v. United States McCulloch v. Maryland McKeiver v. Pennsylvania McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education Mahan v. Howell Maher v. Roe Mallory v. United States Malloy v. Hogan Mapp v. Ohio Marbury v. Madison Marshall v. Barlow’s Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee Martin v. Mott Martin v. Wilks Marvin v. Marvin Maryland v. Buie Maryland v. Craig Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia Massachusetts v. Mellon Massachusetts v.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Debs Case: Labor, Capital, and the Federal Courts of the 1890S By
    The Debs Case: Labor, Capital, and the Federal Courts of the 1890s by David Ray Papke, Professor of Law Marquette University Law School Revised by the Federal Judicial Center for inclusion in the project Federal Trials and Great Debates in United States History Federal Judicial Center Federal Judicial History Offi ce 2008 This Federal Judicial Center publication was undertaken in furtherance of the Centerʼs statutory mission to “conduct, coordinate, and encourage programs relating to the history of the judicial branch of the United States government.” The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Federal Judicial Center. The Debs Case: Labor, Capital, and the Federal Courts of the 1890s Contents The Debs Case: A Short Narrative, 1 The town of Pullman, 1 A strike and boycott, 2 Management organizes, 3 Federal response, 4 A petition to the Supreme Court of the United States, 6 The Federal Courts and Their Jurisdiction, 9 U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 9 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 9 Supreme Court of the United States, 10 The Judicial Process: A Chronology, 11 Legal Questions Before the Courts, 13 Did the U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illinois have authority to issue an injunction against Eugene V. Debs and the offi cers of the American Railway Union? 13 Did the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890 apply to labor unions as well as trusts and monopolies? 14 Did Eugene V. Debs and the other offi cers of the American Railway Union violate the injunction? 14 Did the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Abington School District V. Schempp 1 Ableman V. Booth 1 Abortion 2
    TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 Bill of Rights 66 Birth Control and Contraception 71 Abington School District v. Schempp 1 Hugo L. Black 73 Ableman v. Booth 1 Harry A. Blackmun 75 Abortion 2 John Blair, Jr. 77 Adamson v. California 8 Samuel Blatchford 78 Adarand Constructors v. Peña 8 Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell 79 Adkins v. Children’s Hospital 10 Bob Jones University v. United States 80 Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl 13 Boerne v. Flores 81 Advisory Opinions 15 Bolling v. Sharpe 81 Affirmative Action 15 Bond v. United States 82 Afroyim v. Rusk 21 Boumediene v. Bush 83 Age Discrimination 22 Bowers v. Hardwick 84 Samuel A. Alito, Jr. 24 Boyd v. United States 86 Allgeyer v. Louisiana 26 Boy Scouts of America v. Dale 86 Americans with Disabilities Act 27 Joseph P. Bradley 87 Antitrust Law 29 Bradwell v. Illinois 89 Appellate Jurisdiction 33 Louis D. Brandeis 90 Argersinger v. Hamlin 36 Brandenburg v. Ohio 92 Arizona v. United States 36 William J. Brennan, Jr. 92 Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing David J. Brewer 96 Development Corporation 37 Stephen G. Breyer 97 Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition 38 Briefs 99 Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority 38 Bronson v. Kinzie 101 Assembly and Association, Freedom of 39 Henry B. Brown 101 Arizona v. Gant 42 Brown v. Board of Education 102 Atkins v. Virginia 43 Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association 104 Automobile Searches 45 Brown v. Maryland 106 Brown v. Mississippi 106 Bad Tendency Test 46 Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company 107 Bail 47 Buchanan v.
    [Show full text]
  • Standing Outside of Article Iii
    UNIVERSITY of PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW Founded 1852 Formerly AMERICAN LAW REGISTER © 2014 by the University of Pennsylvania Law Review VOL. 162 MAY 2014 NO. 6 ARTICLE STANDING OUTSIDE OF ARTICLE III TARA LEIGH GROVE† The U.S. Supreme Court has insisted that standing doctrine is a “bedrock” re- quirement only of Article III. Accordingly, both jurists and scholars have assumed † Associate Professor, William and Mary Law School. I am grateful to Randy Barnett, Amy Barrett, A.J. Bellia, Neal Devins, Dave Douglas, Richard Fallon, Josh Fischman, David Fontana, Barry Friedman, Amanda Frost, Mark Graber, Chris Griffin, Aziz Huq, Vicki Jackson, Alli Larsen, Kurt Lash, Gary Lawson, Daryl Levinson, John Manning, Alan Meese, Gillian Metzger, Henry Monaghan, Nate Oman, Jim Pfander, Marty Redish, Judith Resnik, Mark Seidenfeld, David Shapiro, Suzanna Sherry, Larry Solum, Kevin Stack, Carlos Vazquez, Steve Vladeck, Tobias Wolff, Ann Woolhandler, Ingrid Wuerth,Ernie Young, and Tim Zick for discussions of this project or comments on earlier drafts. I am also grateful to Dara Gibson, Amanda Hamm, Alexis Patillo, and Alex Reidell for helpful research assistance. This Article was selected for presentation at the 2014 New Voices in Civil Justice Workshop at Vanderbilt Law School, the Sixth Annual Junior Faculty Federal Courts Workshop at Brooklyn Law School, and the Fourth Annual Constitutional Law Colloquium at Loyola University Chicago School of Law. The Article was also presented at the Georgetown University Law Center Constitutional Law Colloquium, Florida State University College of Law, William and Mary Law School, and American Universi- ty Washington College of Law. I am grateful for comments and suggestions offered at those events.
    [Show full text]
  • The Constitution in the Supreme Court: the Protection of Economic Interests, 1889-1910
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 1985 The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The Protection of Economic Interests, 1889-1910 David P. Currie Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation David P. Currie, "The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The Protection of Economic Interests, 1889-1910," 52 University of Chicago Law Review 324 (1985). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The Protection of Economic Interests, 1889-1910 David P. Curriet The Supreme Court's first hundred years virtually ended with the death of Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite in March 1888. Five of Waite's brethren-Stanley Matthews, Samuel F. Miller, Joseph P. Bradley, Samuel Blatchford, and Lucius Q.C. Lamar-left the Court within the next five years, and a sixth-Stephen J. Field-hung on after his powers had faded.1 By 1894, Melville W. Fuller2 presided over an essentially new Court consisting of David J. Brewer, Henry B. Brown, George Shiras, Howell E. Jackson, and Edward Douglass White3 in addition to the three holdovers, John M. Harlan, Horace Gray, and Field. Jackson and Field soon gave way to Rufus W. Peckham and Joseph McKenna; Gray and Shiras, after the turn of the century, were replaced by Oliver Wendell Holmes and William R.
    [Show full text]
  • The Constitution in the Supreme Court: the Protection of Economic Interests, 1889-1910 David P
    The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The Protection of Economic Interests, 1889-1910 David P. Curriet The Supreme Court's first hundred years virtually ended with the death of Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite in March 1888. Five of Waite's brethren-Stanley Matthews, Samuel F. Miller, Joseph P. Bradley, Samuel Blatchford, and Lucius Q.C. Lamar-left the Court within the next five years, and a sixth-Stephen J. Field-hung on after his powers had faded.1 By 1894, Melville W. Fuller2 presided over an essentially new Court consisting of David J. Brewer, Henry B. Brown, George Shiras, Howell E. Jackson, and Edward Douglass White3 in addition to the three holdovers, John M. Harlan, Horace Gray, and Field. Jackson and Field soon gave way to Rufus W. Peckham and Joseph McKenna; Gray and Shiras, after the turn of the century, were replaced by Oliver Wendell Holmes and William R. Day. William H. Moody and Horace R. Lurton served briefly at the end of Fuller's term, and another mas- sive turnover accompanied Fuller's death in 1910. Thus the per- sonnel of Fuller's twenty-one-year tenure is well separated from that of the preceding and following periods. Moreover, although twenty Justices sat during this time, eleven did the lion's share of the work: Harlan, Gray, Fuller, Brewer, Brown, Shiras, White, t Harry N. Wyatt Professor of Law, University of Chicago. I thank Karla Kraus and Richard Levy for valuable research assistance, Mitchell Daffner for taming the computer, Richard Helmholz, Richard Posner, and Cass R. Sunstein for helpful comments, and the Jerome S.
    [Show full text]
  • The History and Principles of American Copyright Protection for Fashion Design: a Strange Centennial
    \\jciprod01\productn\H\HLS\6-2\HLS201.txt unknown Seq: 1 6-NOV-15 7:40 The History and Principles of American Copyright Protection for Fashion Design: A Strange Centennial Charles E. Colman* Series Preface Between 1914 and 1916, the United States Congress saw the first seri- ous round of lobbying by advocates seeking more robust legal protection of original industrial design and applied art, including fashion design. In the subsequent hundred years, the fashion industry has become a powerful (if fractured) force on the American legislative scene—yet fashion designers and their allies have continually failed to persuade Congress to amend federal statutes to provide greater rights in the appearance of their creations. At the same time, these stakeholders have pressed their cause in the courts, with varying results. This series of articles examines the U.S. federal courts’ adju- dication of the resulting disputes. In the process, the articles to come will highlight tacit assumptions, unacknowledged inconsistencies, and irrecon- cilable tensions in the case law. At the same time, this series will seek to shed light on largely unrecognized consistencies, coherent but under-theo- rized quasi-doctrines, and systematic principles that characterize—and, in many instances, are arguably unique to—U.S. “copyright-for-fashion” jurisprudence. Before embarking on this journey, it is necessary as an initial matter to dispose of the commonly recited myth that there is “no copyright for fash- ion” under U.S. law. In fact, certain components of fashion design receive * Acting Assistant Professor, NYU School of Law. © 2015 Charles E. Colman. I would like to thank Francis Galasi, Rachael Griffith-Pierce, Yin Huang, Guillermo Jimenez, Barbara Kolsun, Angela Lelo, Ariana Lo Giudice, Hannah Mrakovich, Sam Van Eichner, and the editors and staff of the Harvard Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law (especially Jeff Huberman, Marissa Lambert, and Sam Stuckey.) \\jciprod01\productn\H\HLS\6-2\HLS201.txt unknown Seq: 2 6-NOV-15 7:40 226 Harvard Journal of Sports & Entertainment Law / Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • David Josiah Brewer and the Politics of Judicial Reputation J
    Marquette University Law School Marquette Law Scholarly Commons Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 1-1-2009 The eP rils of Popularity: David Josiah Brewer and the Politics of Judicial Reputation J. Gordon Hylton Marquette University Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/facpub Part of the Law Commons Publication Information J. Gordon Hylton, The eP rils of Popularity: David Josiah Brewer and the Politics of Judicial Reputation, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 567 (2009) Repository Citation Hylton, J. Gordon, "The eP rils of Popularity: David Josiah Brewer and the Politics of Judicial Reputation" (2009). Faculty Publications. Paper 123. http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/facpub/123 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 9. HYLTON_PAGE 3/25/2009 11:42:37 AM The Perils of Popularity: David Josiah Brewer and the Politics of Judicial Reputation J. Gordon Hylton∗ I. THE PEOPLE’S SUPREME COURT JUSTICE............................ 569 II. THE ARCH-CONSERVATIVE DEFENDER OF PROPERTY.......... 573 III. BREWER AND FULLER COURT REVISIONISM ........................ 576 IV. DAVID BREWER REVISIONISM .............................................. 577 V. BREWER’S APPROACH TO DECIDING CASES ......................... 583 David Brewer is hardly a household name in the contemporary legal academy. Most American professors of constitutional law would have a hard time placing his nearly twenty-one years of service on the U.S. Supreme Court, though most would be savvy enough to guess “Lochner era.” He is probably the least well-known of all the Justices whose careers are examined in this Symposium.
    [Show full text]
  • The American Constitution
    CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Government Organization and Powers Political Science 410G Fall Semester, 2020 Constitutions should consist only of general provisions; the reason is that they must necessarily be permanent, and that they cannot calculate for the possible change of things. --Alexander Hamilton The Constitution of the United States was made not merely for the generation that then existed, but for posterity--unlimited, undefined, endless, perpetual posterity. --Henry Clay Course Professor Dr. Richard J. (Rick) Hardy—Professor of Political Science Class Hours: 11:00 - 11:50 a.m., MWF, 308 Morgan Hall Office Hours: 2:00 - 3:30 p.m., MW, 8:00 – 8:50 F, or by Appointment* Professor's Office: 445 Morgan Hall Email: [email protected] Office Phone: 309-298-1534 *We live in difficult times. Because I am in the “high risk” category regarding Covid-19, my physician strongly recommends that, if at all possible, we avoid one-on-one meetings in my office. I will still hold office hours and be available for phone calls during those times. And, of course I will return emails in a prompt manner. RJH Course Description The United States Constitution is the solid foundation upon which all American government is built. The document is now 231 years old; it is the oldest, written, nation- state constitution in the world. And it is amazingly quite short. It contains a preamble, seven articles, twenty-seven formal amendments, and just over 7,000 words (about the length of the average daily newspaper's sport section). Unfortunately, it takes more than just a few minutes reading to understand the workings of this glorious document.
    [Show full text]
  • United States V. State of Louisiana, 225 F. Supp. 353 (E.D. La. 1963) :: Justia
    7/22/2019 United States v. State of Louisiana, 225 F. Supp. 353 (E.D. La. 1963) :: Justia United States v. State of Louisiana, 225 F. Supp. 353 (E.D. La. 1963) US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana - 225 F. Supp. 353 (E.D. La. 1963) December 31, 1963 225 F. Supp. 353 (1963) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF LOUISIANA, Jimmie H. Davis, C. C. Aycock, J. Thomas Jewel, as Members of the Board of Registration of the State of Louisiana, and Hugh E. Cutrer, Jr., Director and ex officio Secretary of the Board of Registration of the State of Louisiana, Defendants. Civ. A. No. 2548. United States District Court E. D. Louisiana, Baton Rouge Division. November 27, 1963. Dissenting Opinion December 31, 1963. *354 *355 Robert F. Kennedy, Burke Marshall, Washington, D. C., Louis Lacour, New Orleans, La., John Doar, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff. Jack P. F. Gremillion, Carroll Buck, Harry J. Kron, Jr., Baton Rouge, La., Henry Roberts, Jr., Weldon Cousins, John Jackson, New Orleans, La., Thomas W. McFerrin, Baton Rouge, https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/225/353/1872222/ 1/74 7/22/2019 United States v. State of Louisiana, 225 F. Supp. 353 (E.D. La. 1963) :: Justia La., for defendants. Before WISDOM, Circuit Judge, and CHRISTENBERRY and WEST, District Judges. WISDOM, Circuit Judge. A wall stands in Louisiana between registered voters and unregistered, eligible Negro voters. The wall is the State constitutional requirement that an applicant for registration "understand and give a reasonable interpretation of any section" of the Constitutions of Louisiana or of the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • The Paradox of Paternalism and Laissez- Faire Constitutionalism: United States Supreme Court, 1888-1921
    The Paradox of Paternalism and Laissez- Faire Constitutionalism: United States Supreme Court, 1888-1921 Aviam Soifer In 1898, the year Americans first sailed forth to fight in other countries to protect purported victims of imperialism, A. V. Dicey steamed into Harvard University to deliver his lectures on Law and Public Opinion in England. Like William Blackstone, Vinerian Professor before him, Dicey deployed a number of memorable epigrams to capture what seemed basic truths of his day. Dicey's assertion that 'protection invariably involves disability'" appeared to state the obvious to Americans at the turn of the century. Aviam Soifer is Professor of Law at Boston University. This article is part of a larger project on the thirteenth amendment, made possible in part by grants from Project '87, co-sponsored by the American Historical Association and the American Political Science Association, and by the American Bar Foundation Fellowship in Legal History. A fellowship at the Legal History Workshop at the University of Wisconsin, summer, 1982, was also invaluable. Portions of this paper were delivered at the 1983 Annual Meeting of the Organization of American Historians; I benefited from the comments of Russell Osgood, Herman Belz, and those in the audience. An earlier version of this article appeared as a chapter in Warren Samuels and Arthur S. Miller, eds., Corporationsand Society: Powers and Responsibility (Westport, 1986). 1 have been lucky for years with research assistants. Margaret Geary was exceptionally helpful in writing this paper. 1 am grateful to her, and to Janice Brown, Lance Cassak, Steve Lincoln, and Anita Mar as well as to colleagues and friends at Boston University, and faculty-particularly Stanley Kutler, Robert Gordon, and Willard Hurst-and fellow Fellows at the University of Wisconsin.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Law
    1/9/2020 Thomas M. Cooley: Principles of Constitutional Law THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. BY THOMAS M. COOLEY, LL.D., AUTHOR OF "CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS," ETC. THIRD EDITION BY ANDREW C. McLAUGHLIN, A.M., LL.B. PROFESSOR OF AMERICAN HISTORY, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN. BOSTON: LITTLE, BROWN, AND COMPANY. 1898. Copyright, 1880, BY THOMAS M. COOLEY Copyright, 1891, 1898, BY LITTLE, BROWN, AND COMPANY. UNIVERSITY PRESS JOHN WILSON AND SON, CAMBRIDGE FOURTH EDITION EDITED BY JON ROLAND 2002 PREFACE. THE manual which follows has been prepared for the use of students in law schools and other institutions of learning. The design has been to present succinctly the general principles of constitutional law, whether they pertain to the federal system, or to the state system, or to both. Formerly, the structure of the federal constitutional government was so distinct from that of the States, that each might usefully be examined and discussed apart from the other; but the points of contact and dependence have been so largely increased by the recent amendments to the federal Constitution that a different course is now deemed advisable. Some general principles of constitutional law, which formerly were left exclusively to state protection, are now brought within the purview of the federal power, and any useful presentation of them must show the part they take in federal as well as state government. An attempt has been made to do this in the following pages. The reader will soon discover that mere theories have received very little attention, and that the principles stated are those which have been settled, judicially or otherwise, in the practical working of the government.
    [Show full text]
  • The Structure of Classical Public Law, 75 U
    Notre Dame Law School NDLScholarship Journal Articles Publications 2008 The trS ucture of Classical Public Law Barry Cushman Notre Dame Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship Part of the Law Commons, and the Legal Commons Recommended Citation Barry Cushman, The Structure of Classical Public Law, 75 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1917 (2008). Available at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/290 This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Publications at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. File: 17 - Cushman Final Created on: 10/28/2008 7:27:00 PM Last Printed: 12/2/2008 1:21:00 PM REVIEWS The Structure of Classical Public Law Barry Cushman† The Rise and Fall of Classical Legal Thought Duncan Kennedy. Beard, 2006. Pp vii, 273. INTRODUCTION The “most widely circulated and cited unpublished manuscript in twentieth-century American legal scholarship”1 since Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks’s legal process materials has at long last been formally published. The original manuscript is here accompanied by a lengthy and disarming preface entitled “Thirty Years Later,” which provides interesting insights into Duncan Kennedy’s early intellectual influences and scholarly ambitions, and situates the project in the legal literature and academic politics of the 1970s. In the preface Kennedy explains that the manuscript was “the first draft of the first half of a book about the history of American legal thought from the early nine- teenth century to World War II” (p vii).
    [Show full text]