DOCSLIB.ORG

150 Years of Research : a Bibliography of the Indiana University School of Law Faculty, 1842-1992

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
150 Years of Research : a Bibliography of the Indiana University School of Law Faculty, 1842-1992 Maurer School of Law: Indiana University Digital Repository @ Maurer Law 150 Years of Research: A Bibliography of Indiana University School of Law Faculty, Law Library Publications 1842-1992 1992 150 years of research : a bibliography of the Indiana University School of Law Faculty, 1842-1992 Linda K. Fariss Indiana University Maurer School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/bibliography Part of the Legal Biography Commons, Legal Education Commons, Legal History Commons, Legal Profession Commons, and the Legal Writing and Research Commons Recommended Citation Fariss, Linda K., "150 years of research : a bibliography of the Indiana University School of Law Faculty, 1842-1992" (1992). 150 Years of Research: A Bibliography of Indiana University School of Law Faculty, 1842-1992. 1. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/bibliography/1 This Brochure is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Library Publications at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in 150 Years of Research: A Bibliography of Indiana University School of Law Faculty, 1842-1992 by an authorized administrator of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 150 Years of Research: A Bibliography of the Indiana University School of Law Faculty, 1842-1992 Indiana University School of Law Bloomington, Indiana 150 Years of Research: A Bibliography of the Indiana University School of Law Faculty, 1842-1992 compiled by: Keith A. Buckley Mitchell E. Counts Ralph F. Gaebler Michael M. Maben Marianne Mason F. Richard Vaughan Nona K. Watt edited by: Linda K. Fariss Indiana University School of Law Bloomington, Indiana 1992 Copyright © 1992 by Linda K. Fariss et al TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction . ; . i Alphabetical List of Faculty . iii Chronological List of Faculty . viii Bibliography . 1 Aman, Alfred C., Jr. 1 Arnold, Morris Sheppard . 3 Ashman, Jean . 5 Baker, John Lewis . 6 Baker, John Thomas . 7 Banta, David Demaree . 8 Baude, Patrick L. 10 Bauman, John Andrew . 12 Beeler, William Henry . 13 Bethel, Terry A. 14 Bicknell, George Augustus . 15 Birmingham, Robert Lewis . 16 Boshkoff, Douglass George . 17 Bowman, Milo Jesse . 22 Bradley, Craig M. 23 Britton, William Everett . 25 Brodley, Joseph Franklin . 26 Bronston, Byron E. 27 Brown, Kevin D. 28 Brown, Robert Coleman . 29 Bryant, James Ray Mccorkle . 34 Buckley, Keith A. 35 Campbell, Morton Carlisle . 36 Carlton, Ambrose Bolivar . 37 Carrico, Michael Dicharry . 38 Carrington, Paul DeWitt . 39 Cate, Fred H. 40 Clapham, William Elsworth . 42 Clements, Herdis Frederick . 43 Clifford, Austin Vincent . 44 Conkle, Daniel O. 45 Conrad, Steven . 47 Counts, Mitchell E. 49 Cutright, Karen B. 50 Dau-Schmidt, Kenneth G. 51 Davis, Ritchie Gilruth . 52 Delbriick, Jost . 53 Dickerson, Frederick Reed . 66 Dunham, Allison ...................................... ,,, 72 Dutton, Clarence ;Benjamin, Jr. 73 Dworkin, Roger Barnett . 74 Eckels, Delana R. 76 Ehrlich, Thomas . 77 Evens, Alfred . 80 Fariss, Linda K. 81 Fatouros, Arghyrios A. 82 Fedynskyj, Jurij . 88 Fergenson, Arthur Friend . 91 Fickle, Stanley C. 92 Fischman, Robert . 93 Flood, John . 94 Fox, Merritt Baker . 95 Fraher, Richard M. 96 Frank, John Paul . 98 Fromm, Leonard D. 100 Fuchs, Ralph Pollen . 101 Gaebler, Ralph F. .................. ~ . 111 Garth, Bryant Geoffrey . 112 Gavit, Bernard Campbell . 116 Gellis, Ann J. 121 Getman, Julius Gerson . 122 Gjerdingen, Donald H. 124 Golden, William Carl . 125 Gordon, James S. 126 Greenebaum, Edwin Henry . 127 Hall, Jerome . 128 Harper, Fowler Vincent . 139 Hartog, Hendrik . 146 Harvey, William Burnett . 147 Heidt, Robert H. 150 Henderson, Lynne N. 151 Hepburn, Charles McGuffey . 152 Hershey, Amos Shartle . 154 Hicks, J. William . 156 Hirschoff, Jon Taggert . 158 Hirschoff, Mary-Michelle Upson . 159 Hoffmann, Joseph . • . 160 Hogate, Enoch George . 162 Holland, Maurice James, Jr. 163 Hopson, Dan W. .' . 164 Horack, Frank Edward, Jr. 166 Howie, Barbara J. ..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Joint Committee on the Handling of Security-Relevant Research Publishing Information
    October 2016 | Progress Report Joint Committee on the Handling of Security-Relevant Research Publishing information Published by Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina e. V. President: Prof. Jörg Hacker – German National Academy of Sciences – Jägerberg 1, 06108 Halle (Saale), Germany Editor Dr Johannes Fritsch, Yvonne Borchert German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina Contact Office of the Joint Committee on the Handling of Security-Relevant Research German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina Head: Dr Johannes Fritsch Reinhardtstraße 14, 10117 Berlin, Germany Tel.: +49 (0)30 2038 997-420 [email protected] www.leopoldina.org/de/ausschuss-dual-use Contact at the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) Dr Ingrid Ohlert German Research Foundation Kennedyallee 40, 53175 Bonn, Germany Tel.: +49 (0)228 885-2258 [email protected] www.dfg.de Design and setting unicom Werbeagentur GmbH, Berlin Recommended form of citation German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina and Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) (2016): “Joint Committee on the Handling of Security- Relevant Research”, progress report of 1 October 2016, Halle (Saale), 22 pages Joint Committee on the Handling of Security-Relevant Research Preface 3 Preface This progress report begins with a summary in Chapter A of the developments leading up to the establishment of the Joint Committee on the Handling of Security-Relevant Research by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Founda- tion) and the German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina in November 2014. Chapter B reports on the tasks of the Joint Committee and its activities up to 1 Octo- ber 2016, with particular focus on the progress of implementing the DFG and the Leo- poldina’s “Recommendations for Handling Security-Relevant Research” of June 2014.
    [Show full text]
  • Jahresbericht 2020
    BaFin Jahresbericht der Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht 2020 Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht der Bundesanstaltfür Jahresbericht 2020 © Pixabay/antelope-canyon iStock-996573506_ooddysmile Jahresbericht 2020 der Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht Inhaltsverzeichnis Vorwort 11 Die BaFin in Kürze 12 Die BaFin als integrierte Aufsicht und Nationale Abwicklungsbehörde 13 1 Aufgaben 13 2 Ein Blick auf die zentralen Aufgaben 14 2.1 Die Bankenaufsicht 14 2.2 Die Versicherungsaufsicht 15 2.3 Die Wertpapieraufsicht 15 2.4 Kollektiver Verbraucherschutz 15 2.5 Gegen Geldwäsche und unerlaubte Geschäfte 16 2.6 Abwicklung 16 2.7 Die BaFin international 17 2.8 Innere Verwaltung und Recht 17 Zahlen im Überblick 18 I. Schlaglichter 22 1 COVID-19 23 1.1 BaFin passt Rahmenbedingungen in der Krise an 23 1.1.1 Bankenaufsicht 23 1.1.2 Versicherungs- und Pensionsfondsaufsicht 25 1.1.3 Wertpapieraufsicht 26 1.1.4 Geldwäschebekämpfung 27 1.1.5 Erlaubnispflicht 27 2 Wirecard 27 3 Brexit 29 4 Digitalisierung 30 5 Sustainable Finance 32 6 Niedrigzinsumfeld 32 6.1 Lage der Kreditinstitute 32 6.2 Lage der Versicherer und Pensionskassen 32 7 Geldwäscheprävention 33 8 Solvency-II-Review 34 9 Bessere Liquiditätssteuerung bei offenen Investmentvermögen 35 II. Die BaFin international 40 1 Deutsche EU-Ratspräsidentschaft 41 1.1 MiCA – Märkte für Kryptowerte 41 1.2 DORA – Digitale operationelle Resilienz des Finanzsektors 42 1.3 Europäische Kapitalmarktunion 42 2 Bilaterale und multilaterale Zusammenarbeit 43 3 Arbeiten der drei ESAs 46 3.1 EBA 46 3.2 EIOPA 46 3.3 ESMA 47 3.4 Nachhaltigkeitsbezogene Offenlegungspflichten 47 4 Arbeiten der globalen Standardsetzer 48 4.1 Basler Ausschuss zieht Schlussstrich 48 4.2 IAIS setzt neue Rahmenwerke um 48 4.3 IOSCO im Pandemiejahr 49 4.4 FSB untersuchte Folgen der Corona-Pandemie 49 III.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Paradigm for Fairness: the First National Conference on Eliminating Racial and Ethnic Bias in the Courts
    1.-.- 3 -4185 00322265-I 9 J A New Paradigm for Fairness: The First National Conference on Eliminating Racial and Ethnic Bias in the Courts , P A New Paradigm for Fairness: The First National Conference on Eliminating Racial and Ethnic Bias in the Courts H. Clifton Grandy, J.D Edited by Dawn Spinozza I Chuck Campbell National Center for State Courts State Justice Institute t Q 1995 National Center for State Courts ISBN 0-89656- 160-7 National Center Publication Number 'R- 180 These proceedings were prepared and reproduced with finds fiom the State Justice Insti- tute, Grant Number SJI-93- 12A-C-B- 198-P94-( l -3), for the First NationaZ Conference on Eliminating Racial and Ethnic Bias in the Courts. The points of view expressed are those of the presenters and author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the National Center for State Courts or the State Justice Institute. Planning Committee Honorable Veronica Simmons McBeth Chair, Planning Committee Los Angeles Municipal Court, California Honorable Benjamin Aranda 111 Dr. Yolande P. Marlow South Bay Municipal Court Project Director, Task Force on Minority California Concerns, New Jersey Marilyn Callaway Honorable Jon J. Mayeda Director, Juvenile Court Services Los Angeles Municipal Court, California San Diego, California Honorable Carl J. Character Joseph A. Myers, Esq. Court of Common Pleas, Cleveland, Ohio Executive Director National Indian Justice Center Honorable Charles R Cloud Rose M. Ochi, Esq. Norfolk General District Court, Virginia Associate Director Office of National Drug Control Policy Honorable Lewis L. Douglass Honorable Charles 2.Smith King’s County Supreme Court, New York Justice, Supreme Court of Washington Dolly M.
    [Show full text]
  • Spine for Bulletin of Medieval Canon Law
    Spine for Bulletin of Medieval Canon Law Top to Bottom Vol. 32 Bulletin of Medieval Canon Law 2015 THE STEPHAN KUTTNER INSTITUTE OF MEDIEVAL CANON LAW MÜNCHEN 2015 BULLETIN OF MEDIEVAL CANON LAW NEW SERIES VOLUME 32 AN ANNUAL REVIEW PUBLISHED BY THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA PRESS FOR THE STEPHAN KUTTNER INSTITUTE OF MEDIEVAL CANON LAW BULLETIN OF MEDIEVAL CANON LAW THE STEPHAN KUTTNER INSTITUTE OF MEDIEVAL CANON LAW MÜNCHEN 2015 BULLETIN OF MEDIEVAL CANON LAW NEW SERIES VOLUME 32 AN ANNUAL REVIEW PUBLISHED BY THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA PRESS FOR THE STEPHAN KUTTNER INSTITUTE OF MEDIEVAL CANON LAW Published annually at the Stephan Kuttner Institute of Medieval Canon Law Editorial correspondence should be addressed to: STEPHAN-KUTTNER INSTITUTE OF MEDIEVAL CANON LAW Professor-Huber-Platz 2 D-80539 München PETER LANDAU, Editor Universität München [email protected] or KENNETH PENNINGTON, Editor The School of Canon Law The Catholic University of America Washington, D.C. 20064 [email protected] Advisory Board PÉTER CARDINAL ERDP PETER LINEHAN Archbishop of Esztergom St. John’s College Budapest Cambridge University JOSÉ MIGUEL VIÉJO-XIMÉNEZ ORAZIO CONDORELLI Universidad de Las Palmas de Università degli Studi Gran Canaria Catania FRANCK ROUMY KNUT WOLFGANG NÖRR Université Panthéon-Assas Universität Tübingen Paris II Inquiries concerning subscriptions or notifications of change of address should be sent to the Bulletin of Medieval Canon Law Subscriptions, PO Box 19966, Baltimore, MD 21211-0966. Notifications can also be sent by email to [email protected] Telephone (410) 516-6987 or 1-800-548-1784 or fax 410-516-3866.
    [Show full text]
  • A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Satisfaction of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO PUBLIC CATHOLICISM AND RELIGIOUS PLURALISM IN AMERICA: THE ADAPTATION OF A RELIGIOUS CULTURE TO THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF DIVERSITY, AND ITS IMPLICATIONS A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology by Michael J. Agliardo, SJ Committee in charge: Professor Richard Madsen, Chair Professor John H. Evans Professor David Pellow Professor Joel Robbins Professor Gershon Shafir 2008 Copyright Michael J. Agliardo, SJ, 2008 All rights reserved. The Dissertation of Michael Joseph Agliardo is approved, and it is acceptable in quality and form for publication on microfilm and electronically: Chair University of California, San Diego 2008 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Signature Page ......................................................................................................................... iii Table of Contents......................................................................................................................iv List Abbreviations and Acronyms ............................................................................................vi List of Graphs ......................................................................................................................... vii Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................. viii Vita.............................................................................................................................................x
    [Show full text]
  • Relations with Other State Powers
    THE BULLETIN The Venice Commission was requested by the Constitutional Court of Romania, currently holding the presidency of the Conference of European Constitutional Courts (CECC), to produce a working document on the topic chosen by its Circle of Presidents at the preparatory meeting in Bucharest in October 2009 for the XV th Congress of the CECC. The topic was the following: “The relations of the Constitutional Court with other state authorities. Sub-topic 1: relations between the Constitutional Court and parliament. Sub-topic 2: conflicts of competence. Sub-topic 3: the execution of judgments.” The present working document is a contribution by the Venice Commission to the success of the Congress. Constitutional courts are the independent guarantors of the constitution and their main task is to protect the supremacy of the constitution over ordinary law. Over time, however, these courts have taken on further tasks, such as safeguarding the individual against the excess of the executive or providing a safeguard against judicial errors. Another very important role of these courts is to act as a neutral arbiter in cases of conflict between state bodies. Parties to such a conflict know that they can turn to the Constitutional Court for a decision that will help them in resolving their conflict based on the constitution. The possibility of turning to the court in itself sometimes incites them to settle their disputes before they even reach the court. In order to function correctly as an effective institution that stands above the parties in such a dispute, Constitutional Courts need to be independent and need to be seen as being independent.
    [Show full text]
  • Written Statement of Hannah C. Smith Senior Counsel, Becket
    Written Statement of Hannah C. Smith Senior Counsel, Becket Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice of the Committee on the Judiciary U.S. House of Representatives Hearing on “The State of Religious Liberty in America” February 16, 2017 * * * * * Chairman King, Ranking Member Cohen, and Distinguished Members of the Subcommittee: Good afternoon and thank you for the invitation and opportunity to offer testimony at today’s hearing on “The State of Religious Liberty in America.” My name is Hannah Smith, and I am Senior Counsel at Becket, a non- profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting religious liberty for people of all faiths. At Becket, we have defended Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians. We have litigated several cases before the United States Supreme Court, all of which have resulted in favorable decisions, including the Little Sisters of the Poor in Zubik v. Burwell,1 Holt v. Hobbs,2 Burwell v. Hobby Lobby,3 and Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC.4 Today, I’d like to illuminate the state of religious liberty in America through the prism of recent cases to focus on two principles. The first principle is that government must provide equivalent legal protections to religious groups when it provides those same protections to secular groups. The second principle is that 1 Zubik v. Burwell, 136 S. Ct. 1557 (2016) (religious ministries’ RFRA challenge to the Affordable Care Act’s HHS mandate). 2 Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853 (2015) (a Muslim prisoner’s RLUIPA challenge to a ban on religious beards).
    [Show full text]
  • James G. Blaine and Justice Clarence Thomas‟ „Bigotry Thesis
    Forum on Public Policy Public Financing of Religious Schools: James G. Blaine and Justice Clarence Thomas‟ „Bigotry Thesis‟ Kern Alexander, Professor, Educational Organization and Leadership, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Abstract United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas writing for a plurality of the Court in Mitchell v. Helms in 2000 advanced the idea that state constitutional prohibitions against public funding of religious schools were manifestations of anti-Catholic bigotry in the late 19th century. Thomas‟ reading of history and law led him to believe that James G. Blaine a political leader in the United States of that era who advanced a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would have prohibited states from funding Catholic schools was himself imbued with anti-Catholic bigotry and that his proposed amendment was a well-spring of religious intolerance that today prevents public funding of Catholic schools. This article attempts to look further into the issue to determine whether Thomas‟ understanding is accurate and whether it comports with the reality of conditions of the era and whether Blaine in fact had such motivations as ascribed to him by Justice Thomas. The article concludes that Thomas‟ view is overly simplistic and is based on an insular perception of Protestant versus Catholic intolerance in the United States and leaves out of consideration the fact that the real and larger issue of the era in the western world was the struggle between secularism and sectarianism, modernity and tradition, science and superstition, and individual liberty and clerical control. Importantly, the article concludes that Thomas‟s narrow thesis ignores international dimensions of conflicts of the era that pitted the impulse of nationalism and republican government against control of ecclesiastics regardless of whether they were Catholic or Protestant.
    [Show full text]
  • TR2010/0136.01-01/001- Technical Assistance for Improved Strategic
    National Programme for Turkey 2010 under the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance This project is co-financed by the European Union and the Republic of Turkey TR2010/0136.01-01/001- Technical Assistance for Improved Strategic Management Capacity Germany Country Report 30/01/2015 1 Table of Contents Page 1. General Information 4 1.1. Sources and Aims 4 1.2. Structural Aspects of the German State 4 1.3. Area and Population 7 1.4. GDP and Financial and Budgetary Situation 10 1.5. Main Economic and Commercial Characteristics 12 2. Government and Public Administration of the Federal Level 15 2.1. Federal Constitutional Structure (head of state, head of government, parliament, judiciary) 15 2.2. Central Bodies (chancellor, ministers) 16 2.3. Public Administration 17 2.3.1. Public Administration: employees 17 2.3.2. Public Administration: assessment and training 19 2.4. Reforms to the Structure of Government (past, in progress, planned) 22 3. Four Examples of Länder/Federal States (according to size, history, economic structure and geographic direction) 26 3.1. Baden-Württemberg - General Structure 28 3.1.1. Government and Public Administration 28 3.1.2. Reforms 30 3.2. Brandenburg - General Structure 32 3.2.1. Government and Public Administration 32 3.2.2. Reforms 33 3.3. Lower Saxony - General Structure 34 3.3.1. Government and Public Administration 35 3.3.2. Reforms 36 3.4. Saarland - General Structure 38 3.4.1. Government and Public Administration 38 3.4.2. Reforms 39 4. Strategic Planning and Public Budgeting 41 4.1.
    [Show full text]
  • Trinity Lutheran and the Future of Educational Choice: Implications for State Blaine Amendments Richard D
    Mitchell Hamline Law Review Volume 44 | Issue 2 Article 4 2018 Trinity Lutheran and the Future of Educational Choice: Implications for State Blaine Amendments Richard D. Komer Follow this and additional works at: https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/mhlr Part of the Education Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, and the Religion Law Commons Recommended Citation Komer, Richard D. (2018) "Trinity Lutheran and the Future of Educational Choice: Implications for State Blaine Amendments," Mitchell Hamline Law Review: Vol. 44 : Iss. 2 , Article 4. Available at: https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/mhlr/vol44/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at Mitchell Hamline Open Access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Mitchell Hamline Law Review by an authorized administrator of Mitchell Hamline Open Access. For more information, please contact [email protected]. © Mitchell Hamline School of Law Komer: Trinity Lutheran and the Future of Educational Choice: Implicatio TRINITY LUTHERAN AND THE FUTURE OF EDUCATIONAL CHOICE: IMPLICATIONS FOR STATE BLAINE AMENDMENTS Richard D. Komer† I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................... 551 II.STATE BLAINE AMENDMENTS ................................................. 554 A. The Protestant Public Schools and Proto-Blaines ................ 555 B. The Federal Blaine Amendment ...................................... 569 C. Interpretation of State Blaine Amendments: The Good, the Bad, and the Unknown .......................................................
    [Show full text]
  • School Choice and State Constitutions
    School Choice and State Constitutions A joint publication of The Institute for Justice and The American Legislative Exchange Council by Richard D. Komer and Clark Neily reference guide School Choice and State Constitutions A Guide to Designing School Choice Programs The Institute for Justice and The American Legislative Exchange Council April 2007 by Richard D. Komer and Clark Neily table of contents Foreword 1 Introduction 2 How to Use This Report 7 State Summaries Alabama 10 Alaska 11 Arizona 12 Arkansas 14 California 15 Colorado 17 Connecticut 19 Delaware 21 Florida 22 Georgia 24 Hawaii 26 Idaho 27 Illinois 29 Indiana 31 Iowa 33 Kansas 34 Kentucky 35 Louisiana 38 table of contents Maine 39 Maryland 41 Massachusetts 42 Michigan 44 Minnesota 46 Mississippi 48 Missouri 49 Montana 52 Nebraska 53 Nevada 55 New Hampshire 56 New Jersey 57 New Mexico 58 New York 60 North Carolina 62 North Dakota 64 Ohio 65 Oklahoma 67 Oregon 69 Pennsylvania 70 Rhode Island 72 South Carolina 73 South Dakota 75 Tennessee 77 Texas 78 Utah 79 Vermont 81 Virginia 82 Washington 84 West Virginia 87 Wisconsin 88 Wyoming 91 Model Legislation 93 Glossary 95 Additional Resources 97 About the Authors 99 Acknowledgments 100 About IJ 101 About ALEC 102 foreword Whenever school choice legislation is considered, the stakes are enormous. Children, parents, teachers and taxpayers all stand to benefit dramatically from well-designed programs. That’s why it is so important for all school choice legislation to be very carefully crafted, starting with an eye toward its constitutionality under relevant state constitutional provisions.
    [Show full text]
  • Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos (A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants)
    Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants by Junius Brutus VINDICIAE, CONTRA TYRANNOS: SIVE, DE PRINCIPIS IN Populum, Populique in Principem, legitima postestate STEPHANO IVNIO Bruto Celta, Autore. < 2 > Contents Question One: Whether subjects are bound to obey princes... 3 The Covenant between God and Kings 7 Question Two: Whether it is lawful to resist a prince who infringes the law of God. 15 Whether private men may resist by arms. 29 Whether it be lawful to take arms for religion. 31 Question Three: Whether it is lawful to resist a prince who oppresses or ruins a public state. 33 Kings are made by the people. 34 The whole body of the people is above the king. 38 The assembly of the three estates. 44 Whether prescription of time can take away the right of the people. 46 Why kings are created. 48 Kings receive laws from the people. 53 If the prince may make new laws. 55 Whether the prince have the power of life and death over his subjects. 56 If the king may pardon those whom the law condemns. 57 Subjects are the king's brethren, and not his slaves. 58 Whether the goods of the people belong to the king. 60 Whether the king be the proper owner of the kingdom. 61 Whether the king be the usufructer of the kingdom. 67 Question Four: Whether neighbor princes may, or are bound by law to aid the subjects of other princes. 96 < 3 > A DEFENCE OF LIBERTY AGAINST TYRANTS THE FIRST QUESTION Whether subjects are obligated to obey rulers who issue commands contrary to the law of God.
    [Show full text]