Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Fourteenth Amendment (2)
- Andrew Johnson (1)
- Base (1)
- Candidate (1)
- Candidates (1)
-
- Central Hudson Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Service Commission (1)
- City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network (1)
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center (1)
- Civil Rights Act (1)
- Constitution (1)
- Craig v. Boren (1)
- Discourse (1)
- Discriminatory (1)
- Dolan v. City of Tigard (1)
- Due Process Clause (1)
- Edenfield v. Fane (1)
- Equal Protection Clause (1)
- First Amendment (1)
- Free Speech (1)
- Freedom of Assembly (1)
- Intent (1)
- Lie (1)
- Memphis Riot (1)
- Metro Broadcasting v. FCC (1)
- Middle (1)
- Office (1)
- Political (1)
- Politicians (1)
- Politics (1)
- President (1)
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Fourteenth Amendment
Is It Bad Law To Believe A Politician? Campaign Speech And Discriminatory Intent, Shawn E. Fields
Is It Bad Law To Believe A Politician? Campaign Speech And Discriminatory Intent, Shawn E. Fields
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Origins Of The Privileges Or Immunities Clause, Part Iii: Andrew Johnson And The Constitutional Referendum Of 1866, Kurt T. Lash
The Origins Of The Privileges Or Immunities Clause, Part Iii: Andrew Johnson And The Constitutional Referendum Of 1866, Kurt T. Lash
Law Faculty Publications
This Article divides the events of 1866 into four phases. First, I discuss the early framing debates and the political rupture between congressional Republicans and President Andrew Johnson that occurred in the spring of 1866. Johnson’s March 27 veto of the Civil Rights Act and the congressional override were major public events and signaled what would become the central issue in the fall elections: whether the southern states should be readmitted without condition, or whether they must first be forced to protect the rights of citizens of the United States. The second Part discusses the final framing and initial public …
Considerations Of Legislative Fit Under Equal Protection, Substantive Due Process, And Free Speech Doctrine: Separating Questions Of Advancement, Relationship And Burden, R. Randall Kelso
University of Richmond Law Review
Whenever a court reviews legislation under an equal protection, substantive due process, or free speech analysis, the court considers whether the fit between the legislature's chosen means and intended ends is sufficient to pass constitutional muster. The Supreme Court analyzes these "fit" questions by considering the manner in which the statute achieves its benefits and burdens in terms of whom the statute regulates and whom the statute fails to regulate. Of course, these "fit" questions are different depending upon whether the Court uses minimum rationality review, "heightened" rational review, intermediate review, or strict scrutiny. But in all cases, the question …