DOCSLIB.ORG

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW in CONTEXT, 3 Edition Michael Kent Curtis, J

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW in CONTEXT, 3 Edition Michael Kent Curtis, J Copyright © 2016 Michael Kent Curtis, J. Wilson Parker, Davison M. Douglas, Paul Finkelman, and William G. Ross. All rights reserved. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IN CONTEXT, 3rd Edition Michael Kent Curtis, J. Wilson Parker, Davison M. Douglas, Paul Finkelman, and William G. Ross 2016-2017 ANNUAL SUPPLEMENT Carolina Academic Press Michael Kent Curtis, J. Wilson Parker, William G. Ross, and Davison M. Douglas © 2016 Michael Kent Curtis, J. Wilson Parker, William G. Ross, and Davison M. Douglas Copyright © 2016 Michael Kent Curtis, J. Wilson Parker, Davison M. Douglas, Paul Finkelman, and William G. Ross. All rights reserved. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IN CONTEXT, 3rd Edition 2016-2017 ANNUAL SUPPLEMENT Michael Kent Curtis, J. Wilson Parker, Davison M. Douglas, Paul Finkelman, and William G. Ross © 2016 Carolina Academic Press TABLE OF CONTENTS Contents Volume I ......................................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2. National Power. ............................................................................................................. 1 Section II-G. The Commerce Clause and the Great Society. ..................................................... 1 The Civil Rights Act of 1964: Note ........................................................................................ 1 Section II-H. Dual Federalism and the Commerce Power: The Rehnquist Revolution ............. 2 United States v. Morrison ....................................................................................................... 2 U.S. v. Morrison: Questions .................................................................................................. 15 National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius .................................................... 16 Section IV. Other Delegated Sources of National Power: The Power to Spend, the War Power, and the Treaty Power. ............................................................................................................... 38 A. The Taxing and Spending Power ..................................................................................... 38 Buckley v. Valeo .................................................................................................................... 41 South Dakota v. Dole ............................................................................................................ 43 National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius .................................................... 46 The Spending Power: Questions ........................................................................................... 62 King v. Burwell (2015): Note ................................................................................................ 62 Chapter 3. Limits on Federal Power: The Federal Structure, the 10th Amendment, and State Sovereign Immunity...................................................................................................................... 65 Section II. National Power and State Power: State Sovereign Immunity ............................. 65 Copyright © 2016 Michael Kent Curtis, J. Wilson Parker, Davison M. Douglas, Paul Finkelman, and William G. Ross. All rights reserved. Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy v. Stewart (2011): Note ................................. 65 Sassamon v. Texas (2011): Note ........................................................................................... 66 Section IV. A Unifying Theme? Dual Sovereignty. ................................................................. 67 Chapter 4. Powers and Limits of the Federal Courts. ................................................................... 72 Section III-B. Political and Similar Questions. ..................................................................... 72 After United States v. Stanley (1987): Note .......................................................................... 72 Section III-C-1. Citizen and Taxpayer Standing: The Personal Injury Requirement ............... 72 Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn: Background ................................ 72 Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn ...................................................... 74 Winn: Notes .......................................................................................................................... 81 Section III-C-2. What Constitutes a Cognizable Injury? ...................................................... 82 United States v. Windsor (2013) and Hollingsworth v. Perry (2013): Note ......................... 82 Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus (2014): Note .................................................................. 84 Bond v. United States (2011): Note ...................................................................................... 85 Clapper v. Amnesty International USA (2013): Note ........................................................... 86 Chapter 5. The Role of the President ............................................................................................ 88 Section I. The Scope of Power .................................................................................................. 88 Zivotofsky v. Kerry (2015): Note .......................................................................................... 88 Section III. Appointments and the Separation of Powers ......................................................... 89 NLRB v. Noel Canning (2014): Note .................................................................................... 89 Chapter 6. Limits on State Power: Preemption, the Dormant Commerce Clause, and the Privileges and Immunities Clause ................................................................................................. 91 Section I. Preemption ................................................................................................................ 91 Williamson v. Mazda (2011): Note ....................................................................................... 91 AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion (2011): Note......................................................................... 93 Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC ...................................................................................................... 96 Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting (2011): Note ................................................................ 100 Arizona v. United States (2012): Note ................................................................................ 102 Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett (2013): Note ......................................................... 104 Northwest, Inc. v. Ginsberg (2014): Note ........................................................................... 105 Oneok, Inc. v. Learjet, Inc. (2015): Note ............................................................................ 106 Copyright © 2016 Michael Kent Curtis, J. Wilson Parker, Davison M. Douglas, Paul Finkelman, and William G. Ross. All rights reserved. Section III-B. The Current Approach to the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, §2 ................................................................................................................................................. 107 McBurney v. Young (2013): Note ....................................................................................... 107 Chapter 7: The Incorporation of the Bill of Rights ..................................................................... 109 Section VI-C. Early Interpretation of the 14th Amendment .................................................... 109 A Note on United States v. Cruikshank (1875)................................................................... 109 Chapter 8. Substantive Due Process. .......................................................................................... 111 SectionV. Liberty and Sexual Privacy .................................................................................... 111 Poe v. Ullman: Background ................................................................................................ 112 Poe v. Ullman...................................................................................................................... 112 Griswold v. Connecticut: Background and Questions ........................................................ 116 Griswold v. Connecticut...................................................................................................... 116 Griswold v. Connecticut: Notes .......................................................................................... 123 Eisenstadt v. Baird .............................................................................................................. 123 Roe v. Wade: Background and Questions ........................................................................... 125 Roe v. Wade ........................................................................................................................ 126 The Evolution of Privacy Holdings from Griswold to Casey: The Expansion and Subsequent Contraction of Privacy as a Fundamental Right .............................................. 132 Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey: Background and Questions 132 Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey ............................................ 133 Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstadt: Background .......................................................... 143 Whole
Load more

Recommended publications
  • MEDICATION ABORTION Overview of Research & Policy in the United States
    MEDICATION ABORTION Overview of Research & Policy in the United States Liz Borkowski, MPH Julia Strasser, MPH Amy Allina, BA Susan Wood, PhD Bridging the Divide: A Project of the Jacobs Institute of Women’s Health December 2015 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 2 OVERVIEW OF MEDICATION ABORTION ...................................................................... 2 MECHANISM OF ACTION .............................................................................................................................. 2 SAFETY AND EFFICACY ................................................................................................................................. 4 FDA DRUG APPROVAL PROCESS ....................................................................................... 6 FDA APPROVAL OF MIFEPREX ................................................................................................................... 6 GAO REVIEW OF FDA APPROVAL PROCESS FOR MIFEPREX ................................................................ 8 MEDICATION ABORTION PROCESS: STATE OF THE EVIDENCE ............................ 9 FDA-APPROVED LABEL ............................................................................................................................... 9 EVIDENCE-BASED PROTOCOLS FOR MEDICATION ABORTION ........................................................... 10 Dosage .......................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Law in Context Carolina Academic Press Law Casebook Series Advisory Board ❦
    Constitutional Law in Context Carolina Academic Press Law Casebook Series Advisory Board ❦ Gary J. Simson, Chairman Cornell Law School Raj K. Bhala University of Kansas School of Law John C. Coffee, Jr. Columbia University School of Law Randall Coyne University of Oklahoma Law Center John S. Dzienkowski University of Texas School of Law Paul Finkelman University of Tulsa College of Law Robert M. Jarvis Shepard Broad Law Center Nova Southeastern University Vincent R. Johnson St. Mary’s University School of Law Michael A. Olivas University of Houston Law Center Kenneth Port William Mitchell College of Law Michael P. Scharf Case Western Reserve University Law School Peter M. Shane H. J. Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management Carnegie Mellon University Emily L. Sherwin University of San Diego School of Law John F. Sutton, Jr. Emeritus, University of Texas School of Law David B. Wexler University of Arizona College of Law Constitutional Law in Context Volume 1 Michael Kent Curtis Wake Forest University School of Law J. Wilson Parker Wake Forest University School of Law Davison M. Douglas William & Mary School of Law Paul Finkelman University of Tulsa College of Law Carolina Academic Press Durham, North Carolina Copyright © 2003 Michael Kent Curtis, J. Wilson Parker, Davison M. Douglas, and Paul Finkelman All rights reserved. Volume 1 0-89089-420-5 Volume 2 0-89089-522-8 LCCN: 2003109809 Carolina Academic Press 700 Kent Street Durham, North Carolina 27701 Telephone: (919) 489-7486 Fax: (919) 493-5668 Email: [email protected] www.cap-press.com Printed in the United States of America.
    [Show full text]
  • Hayley White* Mark Schrad, from Villanova, Pennsylvania, Was
    \\jciprod01\productn\G\GMC\29-1\GMC101.txt unknown Seq: 1 11-DEC-18 15:09 A CRITICAL REVIEW OF OHIO’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL “RIGHT TO LIFE DOWN SYNDROME NON-DISCRIMINATION” BILL Hayley White* INTRODUCTION Mark Schrad, from Villanova, Pennsylvania, was expecting the birth of his daughter when he got the news.1 His pregnant wife, Jen- nifer, had undergone a routine prenatal ultrasound a week earlier when the test revealed “soft markers,” which sometimes suggest genetic abnormalities in an unborn fetus.2 Then, as many expectant mothers have done before her, Jennifer nervously underwent addi- tional prenatal tests to get a more definitive result.3 Following these tests, Jennifer and Mark’s physicians explained that they were expecting a child with Down Syndrome.4 Not only would their future daughter have cognitive impairments, need special educational programs, face social ostracism, and have a host of other medical issues, but the physicians explained that her life would be far shorter than the typical child’s life.5 This would be the best-case sce- nario because an in utero diagnosis of Down Syndrome means a fifty- fifty chance of a miscarriage or stillbirth.6 Reflecting on this conversa- tion, and his now eight-year-old daughter Sophia, who has Down Syn- drome, Mark wrote in his New York Times opinion piece that he believed “[h]ammering home the momentous difficulties that would await us as parents was clearly a tactical move by the doctor to push us toward an abortion.”7 * Antonin Scalia Law School, J.D. expected, 2019. I would like to dedicate my paper to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
    [Show full text]
  • SUMMARY CHART 45 Amicus Briefs Filed in the Supreme Court in Opposition to Texas’S Abortion Clinic Shutdown Law Whole Woman’S Health V
    SUMMARY CHART 45 Amicus briefs filed in the Supreme Court in opposition to Texas’s abortion clinic shutdown law Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole A diverse and impressive set of stakeholders have filed 45 amicus briefs urging the Supreme Court to once again affirm longstanding precedent and uphold a woman’s constitutional right to access safe and legal abortion services. This term, the United States Supreme Court will review provisions of a sweeping Texas law that imposes numerous restrictions on access to abortion. This case challenges two provisions in that law: (1) the requirement that doctors who provide abortion services must obtain admitting privileges at local hospitals no farther than 30 miles away from the clinic; and (2) the requirement that abortion facilities must meet building specifications to essentially become mini-hospitals (also known as ambulatory surgical centers, or ASCs). The law, commonly referred to as “HB 2”, was designed to shut down abortion clinics and has already forced more than half of Texas’ clinics to close their doors. If the challenged provisions are upheld, it will leave 10 or fewer abortion clinics open in Texas, the second-most populous state in the nation, and will gravely harm women in Texas. A broad array of organizations and individuals – including leading medical experts, social scientists, legal experts, federal/state and local governmental entities and officeholders, Republican voices, military officers, religious leaders, ethicists, reproductive rights and other civil rights advocates, and many others – have filed briefs in support of Whole Woman’s Health and other Texas providers – the Petitioners in the case – in what will be the most consequential reproductive rights case in the last two decades.
    [Show full text]
  • Abortion in the United States – Protecting and Expanding Access
    ABORTION IN THE UNITED STATES – PROTECTING AND EXPANDING ACCESS by Anand Cerillo Sharma A capstone project submitted to Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Public Management Baltimore, Maryland December 2019 © 2019 Anand Cerillo Sharma All Rights Reserved Abstract Access to abortion in the United States is becoming increasingly determined by the state legislatures. Restrictive abortion laws at the state level that impose onerous requirements on providers and restrict women and girls’ access to the procedure have been on the rise. The 2019 state legislative session saw an unprecedented level of such laws being passed by state lawmakers committed to restricting access, some attempting to criminalize abortion at 6 weeks of gestation when most women wouldn’t even have learnt of their pregnancy. Much of the activity at the state level seems to be a concerted effort to bring the abortion issue back to the Supreme Court, attempting to challenge the legal status of abortion at the federal level. With Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation, the court has a strong conservative majority which has the potential to have a lasting impact on abortion access in the United States. Research shows that abortion is a routine medical procedure, and restricting legal access only results in an increase in unsafe/illegal procedures. Coercing women to continue an unintended pregnancy to term by limiting abortion access results in a negative impact on their lives, and a high cost to the taxpayers when such unintended births are publicly funded. Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) was a key vote in Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation, and a change in the legal landscape for abortion resulting from Justice Kavanaugh’s actions on the Supreme Court is likely to be politically damaging to the Senator.
    [Show full text]
  • Republican-Majority-For-Choice-Morvillo-Abramowitz.Pdf
    No. 15-274 In the Supreme Court of the United States WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH; AUSTIN WOMEN’S HEALTH CENTER; KILLEEN WOMEN’S HEALTH CENTER; NOVA HEALTH SYSTEMS d/b/a REPRODUCTIVE SERVICES; SHERWOOD C. LYNN, JR., M.D.; PAMELA J. RICHTER, D.O.; and LENDOL L. DAVIS, M.D., on behalf of themselves and their patients, Petitioners, – v. – KIRK COLE, M.D., Commissioner of the Texas Department of State Health Services; MARI ROBINSON, Executive Director of the Texas Medical Board, in their official capacities, Respondents. ____________________________ ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT BRIEF OF REPUBLICAN MAJORITY FOR CHOICE AND ITS NATIONAL CHAIRS, FORMER REPUBLICAN MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, AND CURRENT AND FORMER REPUBLICAN STATE OFFICEHOLDERS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS CATHERINE M. FOTI Counsel of Record ROBERT M. RADICK ASHLEY C. BURNS MORVILLO ABRAMOWITZ GRAND IASON & ANELLO P.C. 565 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10017 (212) 856-9600 [email protected] i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................... iii STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ................................................. 1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ...................................................... 5 ARGUMENT ............................................................... 9 I. THE LIBERTY PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION ENCOMPASSES THE RIGHT TO MAKE DEEPLY PERSONAL AND SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS WITHOUT UNWARRANTED INTERFERENCE BY THE STATE ................. 9 II. A WOMAN’S RIGHT TO CHOOSE WHETHER TO TERMINATE A PREGNANCY IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION ............................................ 14 A. The Constitutional Right First Recognized in Roe v. Wade Was Reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey .............................. 14 B. Casey Clarified That the Government May Enact Only Those Regulations That Do Not Unduly Burden the Woman’s Right to Terminate Her Pregnancy ........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Anderson Tx Declaration
    Case 1:14-cv-00284-LY Document 23-4 Filed 04/14/14 Page 1 of 43 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH, et al. ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) CIVIL ACTION v. ) ) CASE NO. 1:14-cv-0284 DAVID LAKEY, M.D., et al. ) ) Defendants. ) DECLARATION OF JAMES ANDERSON, M.D. JAMES ANDERSON, M.D., declares under penalty of perjury that the following statements are true and correct: 1. For 22 years I have been an Emergency Room Physician in the Commonwealth of Virginia. I received my M.D. from the University of Virginia, School of Medicine in 1978. I have been board certified in Family Practice since 1981 and board certified in Emergency Medicine since 1996 by the American Association of Physician Specialists. I have been certified in Advanced Trauma Life Support since 1992 and in Advanced Cardiac Life Support since 1984. 2. I am a Clinical Professor in the Department of Family Medicine & Population Health at Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, having served on the clinical faculty since 1995. In 2002, I joined the U.S. Army Reserves. In 2005, I resigned from U.S. emergency rooms due to the time demands of my military responsibilities and have served in the emergency departments of the U.S. Army’s Combat Support Hospitals (CSH) while deployed to Iraq in 2007 and 2009. In 2011, I served in the out-patient department at Craig Hospital at Case 1:14-cv-00284-LY Document 23-4 Filed 04/14/14 Page 2 of 43 Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan and held the rank of Colonel, USAR.
    [Show full text]
  • American Medical Association, American Academy of Family Physicians, and American Osteopathic Association in Support of Petitioners
    No. 15-274 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH, et al., Petitioners, v. KIRK COLE, M.D., et al., Respondents. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT BRIEF FOR AMICI CURIAE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS AND GYNECOLOGISTS, AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, AMERICAN ACADEMY OF FAMILY PHYSICIANS, AND AMERICAN OSTEOPATHIC ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS KIMBERLY A. PARKER Counsel of Record SKYE L. PERRYMAN EMILY L. STARK JESSICA E. NOTEBAERT WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20006 (202) 663-6000 [email protected] TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................... iii STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ....................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF AR- GUMENT ...................................................................... 4 ARGUMENT ....................................................................... 5 I. H.B. 2’S ASC REQUIREMENT IMPOSES MEDICALLY UNNECESSARY DEMANDS ON ABORTION FACILITIES AND SERVES NO MEDICAL PURPOSE ...................................................... 5 A. Abortion Is An Extremely Safe Medi- cal Procedure And No Medical Evi- dence Suggests That Abortion Would Be Safer If Performed In An ASC Set- ting .......................................................................... 6 B. H.B. 2’s ASC Requirement Imposes Medically Unnecessary Demands On Abortion Facilities ...............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Not in the Name of Women's Safety: Whole Woman's Health As a Model
    \\jciprod01\productn\H\HLG\40-2\HLG203.txt unknown Seq: 1 12-SEP-17 15:15 NOT IN THE NAME OF WOMEN’S SAFETY: WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH AS A MODEL FOR TRANSGENDER RIGHTS SHAYNA MEDLEY* The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hel- lerstedt struck down two burdensome Texas regulations on abortion provid- ers that would have closed seventy-five percent of clinics in the state. The decision has been lauded by the reproductive justice community, not only as a victory for abortion rights, but also as a victory for science, data, and evidence. The Court acknowledged the consensus in the medical community that abortion is a safe procedure, that the clinic regulations could not be proven to increase the safety of even one patient, and that women’s health and safety would dramatically suffer because of, rather than be improved by, the laws. In this Article, I draw connections between the abortion restric- tions at issue in Whole Woman’s Health and the recent anti-transgender “bathroom bills” that have cropped up in a number of states over the past couple of years—from the myths and fear campaigns that propel them, to the women’s health and safety justifications that attempt to sustain them— and propose that a correct application of the Whole Woman’s Health prece- dent similarly necessitates striking these laws down. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .................................................... 442 R I. WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH AND ITS IMPACT ............... 445 R A. The Undue Burden Standard ......................... 445 R B. The Myths Behind TRAP Laws and the Court’s Response: A Victory For Science, Data, and Evidence.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Law: Principles and Policy, Cases and Materials
    Copyright © 2021 Carolina Academic Press, LLC. All rights reserved. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: PRINCIPLES AND POLICY, CASES AND MATERIALS EIGHTH EDITION 2021 Supplement Jerome A. Barron Harold H. Greene Emeritus Professor of Law The George Washington University Law School The Late C. Thomas Dienes Lyle T. Alverson Professor Emeritus of Law The George Washington University Law School Wayne McCormack E.W. Thode Professor of Law University of Utah, S.J. Quinney College of Law Martin H. Redish Louis and Harriet Ancel Professor of Law and Public Policy Northwestern Pritzker School of Law Copyright © 2021 Carolina Academic Press, LLC. All rights reserved. Copyright © 2021 Carolina Academic Press, LLC All Rights Reserved Carolina Academic Press 700 Kent Street Durham, North Carolina 27701 Telephone (919) 489-7486 Fax (919) 493-5668 E-mail: [email protected] www.cap-press.com Copyright © 2021 Carolina Academic Press, LLC. All rights reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 JUDICIAL REVIEW: INSTRUMENT OF AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONALISM ............................................................................................................................ 8 Rucho v. Common Cause ..................................................................................................................... 8 Zivotofsky v. Kerry ................................................................................................................................ 9 Chapter 2 NATIONAL POWERS & FEDERALISM ............................................................. 10 Arizona
    [Show full text]
  • Page 159, "Flight-Lieutenant H
    T H E C O L O P H O N B O O K S H O P Robert and Christine Liska P. O. B O X 1 0 5 2 E X E T E R N E W H A M P S H I R E 0 3 8 3 3 ( 6 0 3 ) 7 7 2 8 4 4 3 World War I Aviation All items listed have been carefully described and are in fine collector’s condition unless otherwise noted. All are sold on an approval basis and any purchase may be returned within two weeks for any reason. Member ABAA and ILAB. All items are offered subject to prior sale. Please add $4.00 shipping for the first book, $1.00 for each additional volume. New clients are requested to send remittance with order. All shipments outside the United States will be charged shipping at cost. We accept VISA, MASTERCARD and AMERICAN EXPRESS. (603) 772-8443; FAX (603) 772-3384; e-mail: [email protected] Additional images for many of these items can be seen at our website. http://www.colophonbooks.com/aviation-military.php 1. (1 SQUADRON RNAS). VINEY, Flight Lieutenant Taunton Elliot, DSO. Autograph air letter written "30.VII. 15" to his mother. A very early RNAS letter in Viney's holograph "No. I Squadron R.N.A.S." "My very dear Mother, Had a very nice crossing to Boulogne, where a Rolss Royce met us, or rather another man in the boat, and brought us here. Had a joy-ride of 40 minutes this morning...Dunkirk is very deserted.
    [Show full text]
  • The Register of the Kentucky Historical Society Index 1997-2006 Volumes 95-104
    The Register of the Kentucky Historical Society Index 1997-2006 Volumes 95-104 A A&M College (Lexington, Ky.), 96:55–58 in American Foreign Policy, by John T. Abbott, Augustus H., 97:270 McNay: reviewed, 100:249–50 Abbott, Dorothy: Thomas D. Clark Acker, Caroline Jean: Creating the letter to, 103:400 American Junkie: Addiction Research Abbott, Richard H.: For Free Press and in the Classic Era of Narcotic Control, Equal Rights: Republican Newspapers reviewed, 101:185–87 in the Reconstruction South, reviewed, acroosteolysis: at B. F. Goodrich plant, 103:803–5 102:159–63; investigation of, 102:161– Abernathy, Jeff: To Hell and Back: Race 67; medical journal article about, and Betrayal in the American Novel, 102:165; symptoms of, 102:161; and reviewed, 101:558–60 vinyl chloride, 102:166–69 Abernathy, Ralph David, 99:29 Across Fortune's Tracks: A Biography of abolitionists, 96:224, 225, 228, 229 William Rand Kenan Jr., by Walter E. Abraham Lincoln, Constitutionalism, Campbell: reviewed, 95:110–11 and Equal Rights in the Civil War Era, Actors, Audiences, & Historic Theatres by Herman Belz: reviewed, 96:201–3 of Kentucky, by Marilyn Casto: Abraham Lincoln and a New Birth of reviewed, 99:81–82 Freedom: The Union and Slavery in the Acts of God: The Unnatural History of Diplomacy of the Civil War, by Howard Natural Disaster in America, by Ted Jones: reviewed, 98:431–32 Steinberg: reviewed, 99:442–44 Abraham Lincoln: Redeemer President, Adair, John, 100:341 by Allen C. Guelzo: reviewed, 98:432– Adair County, Ky., 98:396, 399; school 34 integration, 101:254–55 Abram, Morris B., 99:41 Adams, George Rollie: General William Abrams, Douglas Carl: book review by, S.
    [Show full text]