DOCSLIB.ORG

The Judicial Bookshelf D Grier F

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Judicial Bookshelf D Grier F Courl (lSSN 1059-4329 ~ and November by the COLIn Inc., with MJlI1 Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA, and 9600 Call I -800835-6770 or 388-8206 or +441865381393 e-m"j1; Information for Subscribe" contact addresses The :)1 ot Worlc1 !'rlm onllne-onlv ratcs ,1rc [0 the Amrric"s rate or ofentitlement to exemption, Customers In the add VAT :It 5% to the Rest of \V01ld or inrlxmalion and terms and conditions, please "lSlr wWW,l)UCk institutions available on our W(bsltr, or on regutst from our customer service or +1 781 ,)()()-()LUI) +44 (0)[865251866 (UK such Back Issues rare, 02148-50 J8, All the purposes of rcs(,)cch or or tcallsmirtcd in "ny form 01 by any to photocopy itc'rm for il1tcmal and [he Copyright Clearance Faith Elliott, Blackwell c\OVerllSln or Fax: 802-864-7749, Abstracting and indexed or absrr;.lcrcd in the America: and Life; CatchWOld; EBSCO Abstracts; lnfoTrac Custom: InfoTrac OncFilc; ]STOR; Pcrllldicals & Books, SUPREME OURT 1ST 0 R CAL SOCIETY HONORARY CHAIRMAN William H. (HAIRMAN EMERITUS Dwight D. (HAIRMAN Leon Silverman PRESIDENT Frank C. VICE PRESIDENTS Vincem C. Jr Goldman E. Barrett Jr. SECRETARY \Varren Daly TREASURER Sheldon S. Cohen TRUSTEES Robert A. Gwinn Bernard Reese C. Hazard, Jr. Charles B. Renfrew Richards \Villiam Bradford Ruth Insel Rider Robb M. Peter A. Knowles Allen Lacovara Gene W. Lafitte 1. Lancaster. Jr. LaSalle Leffal! Kenneth Starr B. Libin Cathleen Stone Warren Seth P. \Vaxman Maureen E. Mahoney N. Williams Mrs. Marshall Wilson Marshall. Jr. vV'. Foster Wollen Donald Wnght Vincent L. McKusick Francis J. McNamara, Jr. Trustees Emeritus Michael William T. Coleman. Jr. William EclIund J. James D. Ellis Michael Mone A. Estrada W. Morris. III \V'. Thomas Evans M. Nannes General Counsel Charles 0. Galvin W. Nealon Frank B. Gilbert James B. O'HarJ David T. Pride L. Goldman Deval Patrick Executive Director John D Gordan. III Leon Polsky Kathleen Shurtleff Frank CJ1Jndlach M. Reasoner Assistant Director JOURNAL OF SUPREME COURT HISTORY 2004 vol. 29 no. 2 PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE E. Barrett Prettyman, J r. , Chairman D onald B. Ayer Louis R. Cohen Charles Cooper James J. Kilpatrick Lucas Morel David O'Brien Carter G. Phillips Teresa Rose borough Michael Russ D. Grier Stephenson, J r. Melvin 1. Urofsky BOARD OF EDITORS Melvin 1. Urofsky, Chairman H erman Belz David J. Bodenhamer Kermit Hall Craig Joyce Laura Kalman Maeva Marclls D avid O'Brien Michael Parrish EDITORIAL STAFF Clare Cushman, Managing Editor Patricia R . Evans, Rm archer Blackwl'UPu blishing, Bosro n, M :l.~s adl u s('tr.s & Oxford, UK GENERAL STATEMENT THE SUPREME COURT HJSTORlCAL SOClETY is a District of Columbia in The of the Court of the United States. The and awareness of the Court's conrributlOn to our nation's rich constitutional Since 1975, the has been publishing a newsletter, distributed to its mpmn,pr, on the Court and artides the programs and activities. In an annual coLlection of enmled the in [990 and became a trimester m 1999. The initiated the Documentary of the Court of the United States, grant from the National Hlstorical Publications and Records Court became a cosponsor in 1979, Slllce that time the several books with and features and other illustrations. In 2000. the of \Ve the Students: Supreme Comt Cases for and About Students, a Jam;n B. Raskm. Also in the Decisions and Women's Rights: Milestones to LAIUdJl!~Y for use by In addition to its with the Federal Center on a is also an active of the Court's permanent collection of busts and portraits, as weU papers, and other artifacts and memorabilia to the Court's These materials are Into by the Court Curator's Office for the benefit of the Come's one mrllion annual visitors. The also funds outside rcsearch, awards cash on the Court, and sponsors or cosponsors various lecture series and other educatIonal to further of the Court and its 5,000 members whose financial support and volunteer committees enables the to function. These committees report to an elected Board ofTrustees and an Executive Committee, the latter of which is for the permanent staff. D.C. 2.0003, The SOClelY has defcrmmcd e~igib:c to ,<IX 50! (c) (3) or the Infernal Rnenuc Code. JOURNAl OF Su M OUR ISTO y 2004. I. 29. no. 2 INTRODUCTION Melvin 1. v ARTIClES Unlikely William and the Dow11s 123 Will Provide": Lillian and Freedom James F Van Orden To Sit or Not to Sit: The Court of the United States and the Civil Rights Movement in the Upoer South Peler WalienSlrhl 1·j.5 and III LeWIS and the U!~rp,.r·"rp Pnina lA!;av 163 the First Draft Lewis as 177 The Lewis, Civil and the Sumeme Court 191 The Judicial Bookshelf D Grier F CONTRIBUTORS 226 PHOTO CREDITS 2004, by the Court Historical at House 224 East Street, N.E. nc. 20003 ISBN 0-914-785-35-4 ISSN 1059-4329 Introduction Melvin I. Urofsky Readers of this issue will note that there the .fournal for publication. For this ] thank are three articles devoted to a man who never them, as ] think the readers of the .fournal will sat on the Court, argued a case before as well. the or was even a to a suit that The other three articles came to us a the high court decided. Anthony variety of means and touch upon different as­ Lewis played a very important role in the his­ ofthe Court's history. Harry Downs sent tory of the Court, because he was the us his article about Justice William first reporter to cover the Court on a as part of a he has been about full-time basis. The stories he filed over more Justices and slavery. James Van Orden wrote than two decades about the Court for the New about Lillian Gobitas Klose for a book that] York Times not only made history, but also set a have edited on Americans who made constitu­ standard for all Court He is the tional history. He interviewed Mrs. Klose and Court reporter to have won a Pulitzer Prize for wrote a good article, but it was much too his his classic book, Gideon's Trumpet, for the space limits I had in the book. How­ is not only a model of a case but after ever, my hat as editor of this is never nearly four decades still widely used as a sup- far away, and I that in addition to In classes. the he was supposed to write, he pen a Lewis retired from full-time writing two lengthier one for the Journal, which he years ago, although he still contributes an oc­ consented to do. Finally, Peter Wallenstein and casional column. To mark that the I ran into one another at a meeting, and I American scheduled a asked him what he was on. Before session at its annual about him. Since I he told me, he said "You probably want some- knew all ofthe participants, I asked them-and for the don't The an­ r ..prt_~'" make their papers available to swer, was yes. The events he writes v vi JOURNAL OF SUPREME COURT HISTORY about in took dur­ OUf readers to be aware that to gIve us ing the time when Anthony Lewis covered the the sketches and reviews of a half-dozen or so Court. books, Grier must first go through the dozens All told, the meet the Journal's cri­ of books that appear each year on various as- teria in a broad manner to the ofthe Supreme Court and its It is ofthe Court and well written by a formidable task that he in addition both new and established scholars and eclectic to his regular duties as a teacher and scholar, in nature. And that is the condition of and one for which we are most grateful. on the Court today, as one can also tell by read­ Grier Steohenson's "Judicial Bookshelf." As usual, enjoy! ~ really going to miss getting steamed at Anthony Unlikely Abolitionist: William Cushing and the Struggle Against Slavery HARRY DOWNS* Introduction One of the differences between the federal Union established under the Constitution and the Confederation of States established under the Articles of Confederation is the creation under Article III of a judicial power of the United States and of a Supreme Court to exercise that power. to its power to determine the structure of that determined that the Court should consist of one Chief Justice and five Associate Justices, The six President Washington named to the Court l were members of the none achieved distinction reason of his service on the Court. Chief Justice for >-nc,,,,,",v, is best remembered for the treaty with England which bears his name; and when he in 1795 following his election as Governor of New local papers referred to his new office as "a promotion."2 William Cushing served far and away the (also named John) were justices of the of these original six: he in Court ofJudicature, the court his duties until his death in in the Massachusetts Bay Yet despite his having a half-century on His family also held slaves. The very week the provincial, state, and federal he is William was born his father John Mary little known nor long remembered. Thaxter £90 "for my woman servant or Cushing was born III slave named Phillis, to have and to hold ye sd Massachusetts on March I, the negro woman servant or slave to him ye sd son of John and Mary Cotton Cushing.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Political Effects of the Addition of Judgeships to the United States Supreme Court Following Electoral Realignments
    A Compliant Court: The Political Effects of the Addition of Judgeships to the United States Supreme Court Following Electoral Realignments Lauren Paige Joyce Judson Thesis submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of: Master of Arts In Political Science Jason P. Kelly, Chair Wayne D. Moore Karen M. Hult August 7, 2014 Blacksburg, Virginia Keywords: Judicial Politics, Electoral Realignment, Alteration to the Supreme Court Copyright 2014, Lauren J. Judson A Compliant Court: The Political Effects of the Addition of Judgeships to the United States Supreme Court Following Electoral Realignments Lauren J. Judson ABSTRACT During periods of turmoil when ideological preferences between the federal branches of government fail to align, the relationship between the three quickly turns tumultuous. Electoral realignments especially have the potential to increase tension between the branches. When a new party replaces the “old order” in both the legislature and the executive branches, the possibility for conflict emerges with the Court. Justices who make decisions based on old regime preferences of the party that had appointed them to the bench will likely clash with the new ideological preferences of the incoming party. In these circumstances, the president or Congress may seek to weaken the influence of the Court through court-curbing methods. One example Congress may utilize is changing the actual size of the Supreme The size of the Supreme Court has increased four times in United States history, and three out of the four alterations happened after an electoral realignment. Through analysis of Supreme Court cases, this thesis seeks to determine if, after an electoral realignment, holdings of the Court on issues of policy were more congruent with the new party in power after the change in composition as well to examine any change in individual vote tallies of the justices driven by the voting behavior of the newly appointed justice(s).
    [Show full text]
  • Justice Under Law William F
    College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Popular Media Faculty and Deans 1977 Justice Under Law William F. Swindler William & Mary Law School Repository Citation Swindler, William F., "Justice Under Law" (1977). Popular Media. 264. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/popular_media/264 Copyright c 1977 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/popular_media INL Chief Justice John Marshall, portrayed by Edward Holmes, is the star of the P.B.S. "Equal Justice under Law" series. By William F. Swindler T HEBuilding-"Equal MOTTO on the Justice facade under of-the Law"-is Supreme also Court the title of a series of five films that will have their pre- mieres next month on the Public Broadcasting Service network. Commissioned by the Bicentennial Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States and produced for public television by the P.B.S. national production center at WQED, Pittsburgh, the films are intended to inform the general public, as well as educational and professional audiences, on the American constitutional heritage as exemplified in the major decisions of the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Marshall. ABOVE: Marshall confers with Justice Joseph Story (left) and Jus- Four constitutional cases are dramatized in the tice Bushrod Washington (right). BELOW: Aaron Burr is escorted to series-including the renowned judicial review issue jail. in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, the definition of "nec- essary and proper" powers of national government in the "bank case" (McCulloch v.
    [Show full text]
  • Justice William Cushing and the Treaty-Making Power
    Vanderbilt Law Review Volume 10 Issue 2 Issue 2 - February 1957 Article 9 2-1957 Justice William Cushing and the Treaty-Making Power F. William O'Brien S.J. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation F. William O'Brien S.J., Justice William Cushing and the Treaty-Making Power, 10 Vanderbilt Law Review 351 (1957) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol10/iss2/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. JUSTICE WILLIAM CUSHING AND THE TREATY-MAKING POWER F. WILLIAM O'BRIEN, S.J.* Washington's First Appointees Although the work of the Supreme Court during the first few years was not great if measured in the number of cases handled, it would be a mistake to conclude that the six men who sat on the Bench during this formative period made no significant contribution to the develop- ment of American constitutional law. The Justices had few if any precedents to use as guides, and therefore their judicial work, limited though it was in volume, must be considered as stamped with the significance which attaches to all pioneer activity. Moreover, most of this work was done while on circuit duty in the different districts, and therefore from Vermont to Georgia the Supreme Court Justices were emissaries of good will for the new Constitution and the recently established general government.
    [Show full text]
  • Keep Reading Wilson As a Justice
    Wilson as a Justice MAEVA MARCUS* ABSTRACT James Wilson, a founding father of great intellect and promise, never ful®lled his potential as a Justice. This paper explores his experience on the Supreme Court and the reasons that led to his failure to achieve the distinction that was expected of him. James Wilson very much wanted to be the ®rst Chief Justice.1 But when George Washington denied him that honor and nominated him to be an Associate Justice, he accepted and threw himself into the work with characteristic industry.2 Other than a title and $500 more in annual salary3 (Wilson probably wanted this more than anything else), Wilson lost little. Life as an Associate Justice would be no different from life as the Chief. A Justice occupied one of the most exalted positions in the new government and was paid more than any other federal em- ployee, except the President and the Vice-President.4 Nominations were the sub- ject of ®erce competition.5 But in 1789 no one knew exactly what that job would entail. This paper gives the reader some idea of what a Justice, and speci®cally James Wilson, did in the 1790s.6 Wilson spent more of his time on the bench of circuit courts than he did on the Supreme Court bench; thus, this paper will focus signi®- cantly on his circuit court activities.7 And Wilson performed his circuit court * Currently Director of the Institute for Constitutional History at the New-York Historical Society and Research Professor at the George Washington University Law School and General Editor of the Oliver Wendell Holmes Devise History of the Supreme Court of the United States, Maeva Marcus previously edited The Documentary History of the Supreme Court of the United States, 1789-1800, an eight-volume series completed in 2006.
    [Show full text]
  • Biden Holds Steady, Warren Slips As the Iowa Caucuses Approach
    ABC NEWS/WASHINGTON POST POLL: 2020 Democrats EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE AFTER 12:01 a.m. Sunday, Jan. 26, 2020 Biden Holds Steady, Warren Slips As the Iowa Caucuses Approach Joe Biden’s holding his ground in preference nationally for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, with Bernie Sanders close by and a drop in support for Elizabeth Warren. Two new arrivals to the leaderboard come next in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll: Mike Bloomberg and Andrew Yang. With the Feb. 3 Iowa caucuses drawing near, 77 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents nationally say they’re satisfied with their choice of candidates. Far fewer, 24 percent, are very satisfied, although that’s near the average in ABC/Post polls since 2000. This poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, finds plenty of room for movement: Just about half of leaned Democrats are very enthusiastic about their choice, and 53 percent say they’d consider supporting a different candidate. Warren, while weaker as a first choice, leads in second-choice preference. Further, while Biden continues to prevail by a wide margin as the candidate with the best chance to defeat Donald Trump in the general election, his score on the measure has slipped slightly, from 45 percent in July to 38 percent now. Eighteen percent pick Sanders as best against Trump; 10 percent, Warren. Biden does best in vote preference among likely voters, defined here as those who say they’re registered and certain to vote in their state’s primary or caucuses. He has 34 percent support in this group, leading Sanders, at 22 percent, and Warren, 14 percent.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court Justices
    The Supreme Court Justices Supreme Court Justices *asterick denotes chief justice John Jay* (1789-95) Robert C. Grier (1846-70) John Rutledge* (1790-91; 1795) Benjamin R. Curtis (1851-57) William Cushing (1790-1810) John A. Campbell (1853-61) James Wilson (1789-98) Nathan Clifford (1858-81) John Blair, Jr. (1790-96) Noah Haynes Swayne (1862-81) James Iredell (1790-99) Samuel F. Miller (1862-90) Thomas Johnson (1792-93) David Davis (1862-77) William Paterson (1793-1806) Stephen J. Field (1863-97) Samuel Chase (1796-1811) Salmon P. Chase* (1864-73) Olliver Ellsworth* (1796-1800) William Strong (1870-80) ___________________ ___________________ Bushrod Washington (1799-1829) Joseph P. Bradley (1870-92) Alfred Moore (1800-1804) Ward Hunt (1873-82) John Marshall* (1801-35) Morrison R. Waite* (1874-88) William Johnson (1804-34) John M. Harlan (1877-1911) Henry B. Livingston (1807-23) William B. Woods (1881-87) Thomas Todd (1807-26) Stanley Matthews (1881-89) Gabriel Duvall (1811-35) Horace Gray (1882-1902) Joseph Story (1812-45) Samuel Blatchford (1882-93) Smith Thompson (1823-43) Lucius Q.C. Lamar (1883-93) Robert Trimble (1826-28) Melville W. Fuller* (1888-1910) ___________________ ___________________ John McLean (1830-61) David J. Brewer (1890-1910) Henry Baldwin (1830-44) Henry B. Brown (1891-1906) James Moore Wayne (1835-67) George Shiras, Jr. (1892-1903) Roger B. Taney* (1836-64) Howell E. Jackson (1893-95) Philip P. Barbour (1836-41) Edward D. White* (1894-1921) John Catron (1837-65) Rufus W. Peckham (1896-1909) John McKinley (1838-52) Joseph McKenna (1898-1925) Peter Vivian Daniel (1842-60) Oliver W.
    [Show full text]
  • 2-8-20 Final NH Tracking Cross Tabs
    Table Q5 Page 1 5. I'm going to read you a list of the major active candidates who are certified on the New Hampshire Democratic ballot for president. Please tell me who you would vote for or lean toward at this point. If you know who you would vote for, feel free to stop me at any time. BANNER 1 =============================================================================================== DEMOGRAPHICS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LIKELY TO GENDER AREA PARTY VOTE AGE ----------- ---------------------- ----------------- ----------- ----------------------------- FE- WEST/ CEN- HILLS ROCKI IND/ NOT OVER TOTAL MALE MALE NORTH TRAL BORO NGHAM DEM UNDCL REG VERY SMWT 18-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 65 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- Total 500 220 280 126 130 133 111 298 197 2 461 39 132 87 93 99 82 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Michael Bennet 1 1 - - - 1 - 1 - - 1 - - - - 1 - * * 1 * * 1 Joe Biden 52 19 33 15 13 15 9 38 14 - 48 4 5 5 8 18 16 10 9 12 12 10 11 8 13 7 10 10 4 6 9 18 20 Pete Buttigieg 109 50 59 17 36 31 25 61 48 - 100 9 25 18 25 24 13 22 23 21 13 28 23 23 20 24 22 23 19 21 27 24 16 Tulsi Gabbard 10 7 3 3 1 6 - 4 6 - 9 1 3 2 1 2 2 2 3 1 2 1 5 1 3 2 3 2 2 1 2 2 Amy Klobuchar 43 18 25 12 11 10 10 22 20 - 41 2 4 4 13 12 10 9 8 9 10 8 8 9 7 10 9 5 3 5 14 12 12 Deval Patrick 2 2 - 1 - - 1 2 - - 1 1 - 1 - 1 - * 1 1 1 1 * 3 1 1 Bernie Sanders 119 58 61 41 28 25 25 66 51
    [Show full text]
  • Voter Intent Posters
    envelope Democratic Sort 2 Mark one party declaration box (required) Democratic Party X decare that m art preference i the Democratic Part an wil not Tabulate articiate i the nomiatio roce o an other politica art for the 202 Presidentia election. Republican Party decare that am a Republica an have not particiate an wil not articiate i the 202 precict caucu or conventio system o an other arty. Declared-party Ballot, Declared-party Ballot, Declared-party Ballot ballot Write-in ballot Overvote ballot Deocratic Party Republican Party Deocratic Party Republican Party Deocratic Party Republican Party I you ared Deocratic Party on I you ared Republican Party on I you ared Deocratic Party on I you ared Republican Party on I you ared Deocratic Party on I you ared Republican Party on your return envelope, you ust vote your return envelope, you ust vote your return envelope, you ust vote your return envelope, you ust vote your return envelope, you ust vote your return envelope, you ust vote or O Deocratic candidate below. or O Republican candidate below. or O Deocratic candidate below. or O Republican candidate below. or O Deocratic candidate below. or O Republican candidate below. icae eet Doa Trm icae eet Doa Trm icae eet Doa Trm oe ie __________________________ oe ie __________________________ oe ie __________________________ icae oomer icae oomer icae oomer or ooer or ooer or ooer ete ttiie ete ttiie ete ttiie o Deae o Deae o Deae i aar i aar i aar m ocar m ocar m ocar Dea atric Dea atric Dea atric erie Saer erie Saer erie Saer om Steer om Steer om Steer iaet arre iaet arre iaet arre re a re a re a committe Deeate committe Deeate committe Deeate __________________________ __________________________A.
    [Show full text]
  • And I'm Calling from RKM Research and Communications
    Franklin Pierce University / Boston Herald / NBC10 Poll © 2020 RKM Research and Communications (1/23/-1/26) INT1 Hello, my name is ___________, and I'm calling from RKM Research and Communications. We’re conducting a very brief opinion poll on behalf of Franklin Pierce University, the Boston Herald, and NBC10 TV news and I’d like to speak to an adult age 18 or older. “Would that be you?” or “Is he / she available?” Type [next] to continue INT2 I assure you that this is not a sales call. We’re only interested in your opinions. Thank you for helping us. Your telephone number was chosen randomly, and all of your responses are completely confidential and anonymous. 01 Eligible respondent [continue] 02 Appointment [setup a call-back] 99 Refusal [thank and terminate] Q01 Are you currently registered to vote in New Hampshire? IF YES: Are you registered as a Democrat, independent, Republican, or something else? 00 No - not registered [thank and terminate] 01 Democrat [continue] 02 independent, or undeclared [continue] 03 Republican [continue] 88 Other [thank and terminate] 99 Do NOT live in New Hampshire [thank and terminate] 1 Q02 How likely is it that you will vote in the upcoming New Hampshire presidential primary? Do you think you: Read responses: 01 Definitely will [continue] 02 Probably will [continue] 03 You’re not sure yet [thank and terminate] 04 You probably won’t [thank and terminate] [If Q01 = 2 or Q01 = 88, skip to Q03]: [if Q01 = 1 or 3, skip to Q04] Q03 Do you plan to vote in the Democratic or Republican presidential primary? 01 Democratic [skip to Q04] 02 Republican [skip to Q04] 88 Other [thank and terminate] 99 Don=t know / unsure [thank and terminate] Q04 How closely have you followed the 2020 presidential race? Would you say: Read responses: 01 Very closely 02 Moderately closely 03 Only somewhat closely 99 Don’t know / unsure 2 [If Democratic primary voter: Q01 = 1 or Q03 = 1] ASK Q05 – Q19: Q05 Now I am going to read you a list of some candidates who are running in the Democratic presidential primary.
    [Show full text]
  • Biden and Warren Trail 2/9/2020
    CNN 2020 NH Primary Poll February 9, 2020 SANDERS'S LEAD OVER BUTTIGIEG IN NH HOLDING STEADY; BIDEN AND WARREN TRAIL By: Sean P. McKinley, M.A. [email protected] Zachary S. Azem, M.A. 603-862-2226 Andrew E. Smith, Ph.D. cola.unh.edu/unh-survey-center DURHAM, NH – With three days of campaigning le before the votes are counted in New Hampshire, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders maintains a slim lead over former South Bend (IN) Mayor Pete Bu gieg among likely Democra c voters. Former Vice President Joe Biden and Massachuse s Senator Elizabeth Warren con nue to trail, with Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, and entrepreneur Andrew Yang further back. Klobuchar has experienced a slight up ck in support since the last polling period and now sits in fi h place. Sanders con nues to hold a sizeable lead among self-described liberal likely Democra c voters while Bu gieg leads among moderates and conserva ves. These findings are based on the latest CNN 2020 New Hampshire Primary Poll*, conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center. Seven hundred sixty-five (765) randomly selected New Hampshire adults were interviewed in English by landline and cellular telephone between February 5 and February 8, 2020. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 3.5 percent. Included in the sample were 384 likely 2020 Democra c Primary voters (margin of sampling error +/- 5.0 percent) and 227 likely 2020 Republican Primary voters (margin of sampling error +/- 6.5 percent). Trend points prior to July 2019 reflect results from the Granite State Poll, conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center.
    [Show full text]
  • December 23, 2019 REVIEW of NOMINATING PETITION Deval
    December 23, 2019 REVIEW OF NOMINATING PETITION Deval Patrick Democratic Candidate for President of the United States March 10, 2020 Michigan Presidential Primary Michigan will conduct a Presidential Primary on March 10, 2020, which is limited to eligible candidates who affiliate with the two major political parties, the Democratic and Republican Parties. MCL 168.613a(2). Eligible candidates include those identified on the “list of the individuals generally advocated by the national news media to be potential candidates” that was issued by the Secretary of State on November 8, 2019, or those identified by each party’s state chairperson that was filed with the Secretary of State on November 12, 2019. MCL 168.614a. An individual who is not listed as a potential presidential candidate by the Secretary of State or his or her state party’s chairperson was required to file a nominating petition with the Secretary of State by December 13, 2019. MCL 168.615a(2). The minimum number of valid signatures required is based on the total number of votes cast for all candidates in each party’s primary who appeared on the ballot for Michigan’s 2016 Presidential Primary: for a Democratic Party candidate, a minimum of 11,345 is required.1 Deval Patrick, former Governor of Massachusetts, became a candidate for the Democratic Party nomination for President after the Secretary of State and state Democratic Party Chair published their lists of candidates. On December 13, 2019, Governor Patrick filed nominating petitions to qualify as a Democratic Party candidate in the March 10, 2020 Presidential Primary.
    [Show full text]
  • The Constitution in the Supreme Court: the Powers of the Federal Courts, 1801-1835 David P
    The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The Powers of the Federal Courts, 1801-1835 David P. Curriet In an earlier article I attempted to examine critically the con- stitutional work of the Supreme Court in its first twelve years.' This article begins to apply the same technique to the period of Chief Justice John Marshall. When Marshall was appointed in 1801 the slate was by no means clean; many of our lasting principles of constitutional juris- prudence had been established by his predecessors. This had been done, however, in a rather tentative and unobtrusive manner, through suggestions in the seriatim opinions of individual Justices and through conclusory statements or even silences in brief per curiam announcements. Moreover, the Court had resolved remark- ably few important substantive constitutional questions. It had es- sentially set the stage for John Marshall. Marshall's long tenure divides naturally into three periods. From 1801 until 1810, notwithstanding the explosive decision in Marbury v. Madison,2 the Court was if anything less active in the constitutional field than it had been before Marshall. Only a dozen or so cases with constitutional implications were decided; most of them concerned relatively minor matters of federal jurisdiction; most of the opinions were brief and unambitious. Moreover, the cast of characters was undergoing rather constant change. Of Mar- shall's five original colleagues, William Cushing, William Paterson, Samuel Chase, and Alfred Moore had all been replaced by 1811.3 From the decision in Fletcher v. Peck4 in 1810 until about 1825, in contrast, the list of constitutional cases contains a succes- t Harry N.
    [Show full text]