Law Commons^™

Property, Dignity, And Human Flourishing, Gregory S. Alexander

Cornell Law Review

Human flourishing and human dignity are not empty phrases. They have real content, and they matter in real lives. The facts are that we want to live flourishing lives and we want to live lives of dignity. We cannot live such lives, however, unless certain conditions are fulfilled. Among these conditions, flourishing is personal autonomy, understood in the sense of self-authorship. Autonomy in that sense itself requires certain conditions. Property is among the conditions intimately connected with self-authorship. A person who lacks basic forms of property such as food and adequate shelter is denied self-authorship, without which she cannot experience …

Dignity And Social Meaning: Obergefell, Windsor, And Lawrence As Constitutional Dialogue, Steve Sanders

Articles by Maurer Faculty

The U.S. Supreme Court’s three most important gay and lesbian rights decisions—Obergefell v. Hodges, United States v. Windsor, and Lawrence v. Texas—are united by the principle that gays and lesbians are entitled to dignity. Beyond their tangible consequences, the common constitutional evil of state bans on same-sex marriage, the federal Defense of Marriage Act, and sodomy laws was that they imposed dignitary harm. This Article explores how the gay and lesbian dignity cases exemplify the process by which constitutional law emerges from a social and cultural dialogue in which the Supreme Court actively participates. In doing …

There Are No Ordinary People: Christian Humanism And Christian Legal Thought, Richard W. Garnett

Journal Articles

This short essay is a contribution to a volume celebrating a new casebook, "Christian Legal Thought: Materials and Cases", edited by Profs. Patrick McKinley Brennan and William S. Brewbaker.

Dignity, Vol 1, Issue 1, 2016, Donna M. Hughes Dr.

Donna M. Hughes

Capital Punishment: A Critique Of The Political And Philosophical Thought Supporting The Justices' Positions., Samuel J.M. Donnelly

St. Mary's Law Journal

Since Gregg v. Georgia, the Supreme Court has developed what could be described as a subparadigm for capital punishment. This subparadigm is now at a point of crisis for two enduring and mutually supporting reasons. The dissents by Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall represent the convergence of the better modern thought in regard to capital punishment. Even with the retirement of both Justices, the criticism found in their dissenting opinions presents a continuing challenge to the plurality’s position. Those using the plurality’s rhetoric are now split into two groups. Justices Blackmun and Stevens regularly vote against capital punishment, while focusing …