Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Election law (2)
- Equality (2)
- African American law students (1)
- Apportionment (Election law) (1)
- Civil rights (1)
-
- Democracy (1)
- Discrimination in higher education (1)
- Federal government (1)
- Law reviews (1)
- Minorities (1)
- Political questions and judicial power (1)
- Race awareness--Study and teaching (1)
- Race discrimination—Law and legislation (1)
- Reynolds v. Sims (1)
- Scholarly periodicals--Publishing (1)
- Shelby County v. Holder (1)
- Social movements (1)
- Sociological jurisprudence (1)
- Voting (1)
- Voting Rights Act of 1965 (United States) (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Habermas, The Public Sphere, And The Creation Of A Racial Counterpublic, Guy-Uriel Charles, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer
Habermas, The Public Sphere, And The Creation Of A Racial Counterpublic, Guy-Uriel Charles, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer
Faculty Scholarship
In The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, Jürgen Habermas documented the historical emergence and fall of what he called the bourgeois public sphere, which he defined as “[a] sphere of private people come together as a public . . . to engage [public authorities] in a debate over the general rules governing relations in the basically privatized but publicly relevant sphere of commodity exchange and social labor.” This was a space where individuals gathered to discuss with each other, and sometimes with public officials, matters of shared concern. The aim of these gatherings was not simply discourse; these gatherings …
Reynolds Reconsidered, Guy-Uriel E. Charles, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer
Reynolds Reconsidered, Guy-Uriel E. Charles, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Race, Federalism, And Voting Rights, Guy-Uriel E. Charles, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer
Race, Federalism, And Voting Rights, Guy-Uriel E. Charles, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer
Faculty Scholarship
In Shelby County v. Holder, the Court struck down an important provision of the Voting Rights Act, section 4, on federalism grounds. The Court argued that Congress no longer had the power to enact section 4 because of the “federalism costs” imposed by the Act and because the Act violated "basic principles" of federalism. Unfortunately, the Court failed to articulate the costs to federalism imposed by the Act, much less conduct a cost-benefit analysis in order to determine whether the benefits of the Act outweighed its costs. Moreover, the Court failed to discuss whether the Reconstruction Amendments ought to matter …
Foreword: Reflections On Our Founding, Guy-Uriel Charles, Luis E. Fuentes-Rohwer
Foreword: Reflections On Our Founding, Guy-Uriel Charles, Luis E. Fuentes-Rohwer
Faculty Scholarship
Law Journals have been under heavy criticism for as long as we can remember. The criticisms come from all quarters, including judges, law professors, and even commentators at large. In an address at the Fourth Circuit Judicial Conference almost a decade ago, for example, Chief Justice Roberts complained about the “disconnect between the academy and the profession.” More pointedly, he continued, “[p]ick up a copy of any law review that you see, and the first article is likely to be, you know, the influence of Immanuel Kant on evidentiary approaches in 18th Century Bulgaria, or something, which I’m sure was …