Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
United/States: A Revolutionary History Of American Statehood, Craig Green
United/States: A Revolutionary History Of American Statehood, Craig Green
Michigan Law Review
Where did states come from? Almost everyone thinks that states descended immediately, originally, and directly from British colonies, while only afterward joining together as the United States. As a matter of legal history, that is incorrect. States and the United States were created by revolutionary independence, and they developed simultaneously in that context as improvised entities that were profoundly interdependent and mutually constitutive, rather than separate or sequential.
“States-first” histories have provided foundational support for past and present arguments favoring states’ rights and state sovereignty. This Article gathers preconstitutional evidence about state constitutions, American independence, and territorial boundaries to challenge …
Translating The Constitution, Jack M. Balkin
Translating The Constitution, Jack M. Balkin
Michigan Law Review
Review of Lawrence Lessig's Fidelity and Constraint: How the Supreme Court Has Read the American Constitution.
Fixing America's Founding, Maeve Glass
Fixing America's Founding, Maeve Glass
Michigan Law Review
Review of Jonathan Gienapp's The Second Creation: Fixing the American Constitution in the Founding Era.
Coin, Currency, And Constitution: Reconsidering The National Bank Precedent, David S. Schwartz
Coin, Currency, And Constitution: Reconsidering The National Bank Precedent, David S. Schwartz
Michigan Law Review
Review of Eric Lomazoff's Reconstructing the National Bank Controversy: Politics and Law in the Early American Republic.
Segregation In The Galleries: A Reconsideration, Richard Primus
Segregation In The Galleries: A Reconsideration, Richard Primus
Michigan Law Review Online
When constitutional lawyers talk about the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment as applied to questions of race, they often men-tion that the spectators’ galleries in Congress were racially segregated when Congress debated the Amendment.1 If the Thirty-Ninth Congress practiced racial segregation, the thinking goes, then it probably did not mean to prohibit racial segregation.2 As an argument about constitutional interpretation, this line of thinking has both strengths and weaknesses. But this brief Essay is not about the interpretive consequences, if any, of segregation in the congressional galleries during the 1860s. It is about the factual claim that the galleries …