Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Decreasing Ontological Density Of The State In Catholic Social Doctrine, Patrick Mckinley Brennan
The Decreasing Ontological Density Of The State In Catholic Social Doctrine, Patrick Mckinley Brennan
Working Paper Series
Over the last century-plus, Catholic social thought has gradually reduced the ontological density of the state, to the point that the state now appears to have only a tentative grasp on the natural law basis of its legitimacy. During the first part of the twentieth century, Catholic social doctrine tended to view the legitimate state as a participant in the divine rule; although draped in a sacred mantle, the state was subject to the limits imposed by the divine and natural law. In response to the totalitarian states’ transgressing of those limits at mid-century, Catholic thinkers reduced the scope and …
The Reemergence Of Restitution: Theory And Practice In The Restatement (Third) Of Restitution, Chaim Saiman
The Reemergence Of Restitution: Theory And Practice In The Restatement (Third) Of Restitution, Chaim Saiman
Working Paper Series
The ALI’s Restatement (Third) of Restitution provides one of the most interesting expressions of contemporary legal conceptualism. This paper explores the theory and practice of post-realist conceptualism through a review and critique of the Restatement. At the theoretical level, the paper develops a typology of different forms of conceptualism, and shows that the Restatement has more in common with the high formalism of the nineteenth century than with contemporary modes of private law discourse. At the level of substantive doctrine, the paper explains why labels in fact make a difference, and assesses which recoveries are more (and less) likely under …
The Pragmatic Populism Of Justice Stevens' Free Speech Jurisprudence, Gregory P. Magarian
The Pragmatic Populism Of Justice Stevens' Free Speech Jurisprudence, Gregory P. Magarian
Working Paper Series
In his three decades on the Supreme Court, Justice John Paul Stevens has developed a distinctive approach to the First Amendment. During his tenure, the Court’s majority has crystallized a theory of First Amendment speech protection as an abstract, negative protection of individual autonomy against government interference. In contrast, Justice Stevens’ pragmatic judicial methodology has caused him to place greater emphasis on free speech decisions’ practical consequences, particularly their effectiveness in making democratic debate inclusive as to both participants and subject matter in order to ensure robust, well-informed public discourse. Alone on the present Court, Justice Stevens manifests a deep …