Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Legal History
Advocacy Revalued, Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr., Dana A. Remus
Advocacy Revalued, Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr., Dana A. Remus
All Faculty Scholarship
A central and ongoing debate among legal ethics scholars addresses the moral positioning of adversarial advocacy. Most participants in this debate focus on the structure of our legal system and the constituent role of the lawyer-advocate. Many are highly critical, arguing that the core structure of adversarial advocacy is the root cause of many instances of lawyer misconduct. In this Article, we argue that these scholars’ focuses are misguided. Through reflection on Aristotle’s treatise, Rhetoric, we defend advocacy in our legal system’s litigation process as ethically positive and as pivotal to fair and effective dispute resolution. We recognize that advocacy …
Interpretation And Construction: Originalism And Its Discontents, Kermit Roosevelt Iii
Interpretation And Construction: Originalism And Its Discontents, Kermit Roosevelt Iii
All Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
What If Slaughter-House Had Been Decided Differently?, Kermit Roosevelt Iii
What If Slaughter-House Had Been Decided Differently?, Kermit Roosevelt Iii
All Faculty Scholarship
In The Slaugherhouse Cases, the Supreme Court gutted the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Though academics continue to argue that Slaughterhouse was wrongly decided and should be overruled, the practical consequences of doing so might not be enormous. The constitutional rights the dissenters found in the Privileges or Immunities Clause are part of our current law anyway, through the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. But this does not mean that Slaughterhouse cost us nothing. This article explores how our law might be different had Slaughterhouse been decided differently. Rather than taking up the role that Privileges …