Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Absolute Freedom Of Opinion And Sentiment On All Subjects: John Stuart Mill’S Enduring (And Ever-Growing) Influence On The Supreme Court’S First Amendment Free Speech Jurisprudence, Eric T. Kasper, Troy A. Kozma
Absolute Freedom Of Opinion And Sentiment On All Subjects: John Stuart Mill’S Enduring (And Ever-Growing) Influence On The Supreme Court’S First Amendment Free Speech Jurisprudence, Eric T. Kasper, Troy A. Kozma
University of Massachusetts Law Review
A majority of Justices on the contemporary U.S. Supreme Court have increasingly adopted a largely libertarian view of the constitutional right to the freedom of expression. Indeed, on issues ranging from campaign finance to offensive speech to symbolic speech to commercial speech to online expression, the Court has struck down many laws on free speech grounds. Much of the reasoning in these cases mirrors John Stuart Mill’s arguments in On Liberty. This is not new, as Mill’s position on free speech has been advocated by some members of the Court for a century. However, the advocacy of Mill’s position …
2007 National Lawyer’S Convention The Federalist Society And Its Federalism And Separation Of Powers Practice Groups Present A Panel Debate On Federalism: Religion, Early America And The Fourteenth Amendment, John Eastman, Marci Hamilton, William H. Pryor Jr.
2007 National Lawyer’S Convention The Federalist Society And Its Federalism And Separation Of Powers Practice Groups Present A Panel Debate On Federalism: Religion, Early America And The Fourteenth Amendment, John Eastman, Marci Hamilton, William H. Pryor Jr.
University of Massachusetts Law Review
Transcript of the Federalist Society and its Federalism and Separation of Powers Practice Groups panel debate at the 2007 National Lawyers Convention including panelists Dean John Eastman of Chapman University School of Law, Professor Marci Hamilton of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, and moderated by Hon. William H. Pryor Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
In Impartiality We Trust: A Commentary On Government Aid And Involvement With Religion, Thomas J. Cleary
In Impartiality We Trust: A Commentary On Government Aid And Involvement With Religion, Thomas J. Cleary
University of Massachusetts Law Review
Ultimately, because true neutrality is not possible, nearly all government interaction with religion is to some degree friendly or hostile. One could argue, therefore, that government interaction with religion is inherently friendly or hostile in nature. As a consequence, establishing neutrality as the ideal misses the mark and has produced a swinging pendulum in the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence. At one end of its arc the pendulum produces hostility towards religion and at the other end of the arc it produces friendliness towards religion. This is reflected in case law and in both early and modern government practices. Ultimately, the pendulum …