Legal History Commons^™

The Framers' Search Power: The Misunderstood Statutory History Of Suspicion & Probable Cause, Fabio Arcila, Jr.

Scholarly Works

Originalist analyses of the Framers’ views about governmental search power have devoted insufficient attention to the civil search statutes they promulgated for regulatory purposes. What attention has been paid concludes that the Framers were divided about how accessible search remedies should be. This Article explains why this conventional account is mostly wrong and explores the lessons to be learned from the statutory choices the Framers made with regard to search and seizure law. In enacting civil search statutes, the Framers chose to depart from common law standards and instead largely followed the patterns of preceding British civil search statutes. The …

Suspending The Rule Of Law - Temporary Immunity As Violative Of Montesquieu's Republican Virtue As Embodied In George Washington, Joseph P. Rodgers

Cleveland State Law Review

This Note offers a somewhat unique perspective on the notion of clemency. This inquiry contemplates the merit of temporary immunity from civil suits for acts which eventuated outside the scope of one's official responsibilities and argues that such an unprecedented expansion of civil immunity is antithetical to Montesquieu's conception of public virtue as evinced in The Spirit of Laws. This Note also reflects on the iconic role of Washington at the Constitutional Convention as emblematic of quintessential republican virtue. Part II briefly traces the evolution of absolute, qualified, and temporary immunity from an historical perspective. Part III acclimates the reader …

Compelling The Testimony Of Political Deviants, O. John Rogge

Michigan Law Review

At the last term the United States Supreme Court in Ullmann v. United States upheld the constitutionality of paragraph (c) of a federal act of August 1954 which seeks to compel the testimony of communists and other political deviants. Paragraph (c) relates to witnesses before federal courts and grand juries. The Court specifically left open the question of the validity of paragraphs (a) and (b) relating to congressional witnesses. Justice Frankfurter delivered the Court's opinion. Justice Douglas, with the concurrence of Justice Black, wrote a dissent.

It is our purpose to consider the background, history and terms of this compulsory …