Law Commons^™

Pluralism And Public Legal Reason, Lawrence B. Solum

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Constitution And The Other Constitution, Michael Kent Curtis

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In this article, Professor Michael Kent Curtis examines how laws that shape the distribution of wealth intersect with and affect popular sovereignty and free speech and press. He presents this discussion in the context of the effect of the Other Constitution on The Constitution. Professor Curtis begins by taking a close-up look at the current campaign finance system and the concentration of media ownership in a few corporate bodies and argues that both affect the way in which various political issues are presented to the public, if at all. Professor Curtis continues by talking about the origins of our constitutional …

Recalibrating The Cost Of Harm Advocacy: Getting Beyond Brandenburg, S. Elizabeth Wilborn Malloy, Ronald J. Krotoszynski Jr.

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Moral Failure Of The Clear And Present Danger Test, David R. Dow

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The clear and present danger test has been used for almost a century to determine the speech the government may restrain. This test assumes that at some point speech transforms into an act and at that moment the speech becomes punishable. Under the clear and present danger test, the First Amendment does not protect speech that is an incitement to imminent lawless action. Professor Dow suggests that the clear and present danger test protects too little speech. He posits that speech should be protected unless the following three conditions are met: (1) the speaker's specific intent in uttering the words …

Justice Or Injustice For The Poor?: A Look At The Constitutionality Of Congressional Restrictions On Legal Services, J. Dwight Yoder

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Upon enacting the Legal Services Corporation Act in 1974, Congress created the Legal Services Corporation (LSC), which provides federal funding to grantees that perform legal services for low-income individuals. In recent years, Congress has enacted restrictions upon grantees' receipt of such federal funding, limiting the legal services these legal aid attorneys can provide to their clients. This move has sparked great debate. Proponents of the restrictions argue that they are needed to correct abuse and misuse of the legal services program, while opponents argue that the restrictions only harm low-income individuals.

In this Note, the author addresses this controversial issue …