Law Commons^™

Dred Scott, John San(D)Ford, And The Case For Collusion, David T. Hardy

David T. Hardy

Dred Scott v. John F. A. Sandford was one of the most critical cases in Supreme Court history, “an astonisher,” as Lincoln phrased it. In the “Opinion of the Court,” which was not actually the opinion of the Court (parts of it mustered only three votes), Chief Justice Taney stretched to insulate slavery in every way manageable. The ruling became instead an application of the “law of unintended consequences.” It led to the rise of Abraham Lincoln (who devoted much of his “House Undivided” speech to it), the destruction of Stephen Douglas’ presidential campaign (since it held his core position …

Original Popular Understanding Of The 14th Amendment As Reflected In The Print Media Of 1866-1868, David T. Hardy

David T. Hardy

The controversy between 14th Amendment total incorporation under the privileges or immunities clause, and selective incorporation under its due process clause, has remained quiescent in recent years. Now, two cases pending in the lower Federal courts are making bids to revive the controversy that once generated a feud between Justice Black and Justice Frankfurter. Both the 7th and the 9th Circuits have ordered expedited review of these appeals; one is being argued in January, the other in April.

In the last Term, a majority of the Supreme Court accepted a variant of original public meaning as the key to ascertaining …

The Lecture Notes Of St. George Tucker; A Framing Period View Of The Bill Of Rights, David T. Hardy

David T. Hardy

This article reflects a transcription of the lecture notes of St. George Tucker, relevant to the newly ratified Bill of Rights. Tucker lectured law at the College of William and Mary from 1790 to 1804, and was well informed on the legal events of his day, with a brother in the first Senate and a friend in the First House. Tucker's notes reflect an astonishingly modern, and broad, view of the Bill of Rights' protections. His notes recently came to some prominence, being debated last term by majority and dissent in District of Columbia v. Heller.