Jurisprudence Commons^™

Public Reason, Rawlsian Restraint, And The Judiciary: The Influence Of Political Philosophy On Legal Scholars And Judges In Relation To Religious Liberty, Marc A. Clauson

Helm's School of Government Conference - American Revival: Citizenship & Virtue

This paper concerns the political theory of public reason in its application to religious freedom issues. Public reason, or its related idea, public justification, is in my estimation, just the latest extension of the problem of religious toleration in its particular relationship to the right of religious liberty. This latest expression of the toleration debate began, by most estimates, with John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice.[1] I will argue that in its Rawlsian form, public reason contains some serious flaws, which can be corrected by the work of political philosophers such as Gerald Gaus, Kevin Vallier and Michael Perry, …

Self-Determination In American Discourse: The Supreme Court’S Historical Indoctrination Of Free Speech And Expression, Jarred Williams

Honors Theses

Within the American criminal legal system, it is a well-established practice to presume the innocence of those charged with criminal offenses unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Such a judicial framework-like approach, called a legal maxim, is utilized in order to ensure that the law is applied and interpreted in ways that legislative bodies originally intended.

The central aim of this piece in relation to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution is to investigate whether the Supreme Court of the United States has utilized a specific legal maxim within cases that dispute government speech or expression regulation. …

Anti-Modalities, David E. Pozen, Adam Samaha

Faculty Scholarship

Constitutional argument runs on the rails of “modalities.” These are the accepted categories of reasoning used to make claims about the content of supreme law. Some of the modalities, such as ethical and prudential arguments, seem strikingly open ended at first sight. Their contours come into clearer view, however, when we attend to the kinds of claims that are not made by constitutional interpreters – the analytical and rhetorical moves that are familiar in debates over public policy and political morality but are considered out of bounds in debates over constitutional meaning. In this Article, we seek to identify the …