Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Abortion--Law and legislation (1)
- Analysis (Philosophy) (1)
- Art (1)
- Constitution. 1st Amendment (1)
- Constitutional history (1)
-
- Constitutional law (1)
- Discrimination (1)
- Equality before the law--United States (1)
- Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1)
- Federal government (1)
- Freedom of speech (1)
- Jurisdiction--United States (1)
- Language and languages (1)
- Law (1)
- Law--Interpretation and construction (1)
- Law--United States--States (1)
- Linguistics (1)
- Ludwig Wittgenstein (1)
- Representative government and representation (1)
- Reproductive rights (1)
- Roe v. Wade (1)
- Separation of powers (1)
- State governments (1)
- Supreme Court (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Jurisprudence
The New Textualism, Progressive Constitutionalism, And Abortion Rights: A Reply To Jeffrey Rosen, Neil S. Siegel
The New Textualism, Progressive Constitutionalism, And Abortion Rights: A Reply To Jeffrey Rosen, Neil S. Siegel
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Nonsense And The Freedom Of Speech: What Meaning Means For The First Amendment, Joseph Blocher
Nonsense And The Freedom Of Speech: What Meaning Means For The First Amendment, Joseph Blocher
Faculty Scholarship
A great deal of everyday expression is, strictly speaking, nonsense. But courts and scholars have done little to consider whether or why such meaningless speech, like nonrepresentational art, falls within “the freedom of speech.” If, as many suggest, meaning is what separates speech from sound and expression from conduct, then the constitutional case for nonsense is complicated. And because nonsense is so common, the case is also important — artists like Lewis Carroll and Jackson Pollock are not the only putative “speakers” who should be concerned about the outcome.
This Article is the first to explore thoroughly the relationship between …
A General Defense Of Erie Railroad Co. V. Tompkins, Ernest A. Young
A General Defense Of Erie Railroad Co. V. Tompkins, Ernest A. Young
Faculty Scholarship
Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins was the most important federalism decision of the Twentieth Century. Justice Brandeis’s opinion for the Court stated unequivocally that “[e]xcept in matters governed by the Federal Constitution or by acts of Congress, the law to be applied in any case is the law of the state. . . . There is no federal general common law.” Seventy-five years later, however, Erie finds itself under siege. Critics have claimed that it is “bereft of serious intellectual or constitutional support” (Michael Greve), based on a “myth” that must be “repressed” (Craig Green), and even “the worst decision …