Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Supreme Court (2)
- 1792 (1)
- 1983 (1)
- Article IV (1)
- Bivens (1)
-
- Brissot (1)
- Brown v. Board of Education (1)
- Capital punishment (1)
- Civil rights (1)
- Constitutional (1)
- Constitutionality (1)
- Corfield v. Coryell (1)
- County of Sacramento v. Lewis (1)
- Death penalty (1)
- Desegregation (1)
- Dred Scott (1)
- Dumouriez (1)
- Edmond-Charles-Edouard Genet (1)
- Eighth Amendment (1)
- Evolving standards (1)
- FRAP 32.1 (1)
- Federal rules of appellate procedure (1)
- Frederick Jackson Turnerm (1)
- French National Convention (1)
- Kentucky (1)
- Lebrun (1)
- Legislation (1)
- Louisiana (1)
- Louisiana Cession Act (1)
- Mississippi River (1)
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Origin Of Citizen Genet’S Projected Attack On Spanish Louisiana: A Case Study In Girondin Politics, Jud Campbell
The Origin Of Citizen Genet’S Projected Attack On Spanish Louisiana: A Case Study In Girondin Politics, Jud Campbell
Law Faculty Publications
In 1792 the Girondin ministry decided to send Edmond Genet to the United States with plans to recruit western frontiersmen and invade Spanish Louisiana. The episode is well known in American history, but the literature on its French origin is sparse and overemphasizes the contribution of revolutionary leader Jacques- Pierre Brissot. This essay contextualizes the French decision within the debate between Brissot, Minister of Foreign Affairs Pierre Lebrun, and General Charles-François Dumouriez over whether France should send troops against Spanish colonies in South America. The essay argues that Lebrun promoted the western scheme in order to attack Spanish interests without …
Clear As Mud: How The Uncertain Precedential Status Of Unpublished Opinions Muddles Qualified Immunity Determinations, David R. Cleveland
Clear As Mud: How The Uncertain Precedential Status Of Unpublished Opinions Muddles Qualified Immunity Determinations, David R. Cleveland
Law Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Resurrecting The Promise Of Brown: Understanding And Remedying How The Supreme Court Reconstitutionalized Segregated Schools, Kimberly J. Robinson
Resurrecting The Promise Of Brown: Understanding And Remedying How The Supreme Court Reconstitutionalized Segregated Schools, Kimberly J. Robinson
Law Faculty Publications
The Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education held that separate educational facilities were "inherently unequal." After tolerating substantial delay and evasion of the requirements of Brown, the Court eventually required school districts to dismantle the dual systems by eliminating all traces of separate schools and creating integrated schools. In contrast to numerous scholars that have contended that many of the Court's later school desegregation decisions withdrew from or grew weary of school desegregation, this Article argues that the effect of many of the Court's leading school desegregation decisions was to reconstitutionalize segregated schools. Furthermore, the Court's …
Lessons Learned From The Evolution Of Evolving Standards, Corinna Barrett Lain
Lessons Learned From The Evolution Of Evolving Standards, Corinna Barrett Lain
Law Faculty Publications
In the discussion that follows, I explore the evolution of the "evolving standards" doctrine to make a point about its legitimacy and Supreme Court decisionmaking under the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause more generally. In Part I, I trace the origins of the doctrine to its present state. In Part II, I turn to lessons learned from the evolution of "evolving standards," questioning the textual defense of the doctrine and the constraining power of law itself. I conclude that while the "evolving standards" doctrine is problematic, it is not the crux of the problem. Supreme Court decisionmaking in the death …
Partial Unconstitutionality, Kevin C. Walsh
Partial Unconstitutionality, Kevin C. Walsh
Law Faculty Publications
Courts often hold legislation unconstitutional, but nearly always only part of the statute offends. The problem of partial unconstitutionality is therefore pervasive and persistent. Yet the exclusive doctrinal tool for dealing with this problem--severability doctrine-is deeply flawed. To make matters worse, severability doctrine is purportedly necessary for any workable system of judicial review. The accepted view is that severance saves: A court faced with a partially unconstitutional law must sever and excise the unconstitutional provisions or applications so that the constitutional remainder can be enforced going forward. Absent severance and excision, a law must fall in its entirety. This excision-based …
The Origins Of The Privileges Or Immunities Clause, Part I: “Privileges And Immunities” As An Antebellum Term Of Art, Kurt T. Lash
The Origins Of The Privileges Or Immunities Clause, Part I: “Privileges And Immunities” As An Antebellum Term Of Art, Kurt T. Lash
Law Faculty Publications
Historical accounts of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment generally assume that John Bingham based the text on Article IV of the original Constitution and that Bingham, like other Reconstruction Republicans, viewed Justice Washington’s opinion in Corfield v. Coryell as the definitive statement of the meaning of Article IV. According to this view, Justice Miller in the Slaughterhouse Cases failed to follow both framers’ intent and obvious textual meaning when he distinguished Section One’s privileges or immunities from Article IV’s privileges and immunities.
A close analysis of antebellum law, however, suggests that Justice Miller’s …
Time To Bury The Shocks The Conscience Test, Rosalie Berger Levinson
Time To Bury The Shocks The Conscience Test, Rosalie Berger Levinson
Law Faculty Publications
The Supreme Court has acknowledged that "the Due Process Clause, like its forebear in the Magna Carta, was 'intended to secure the individual from the arbitrary exercise of the powers of government'...to prevent governmental power from being 'used for purposes of oppression.'"1 Historically, Magna Carta was aimed a·t limiting the power of the king. Today, substantive due process is invoked to challenge arbitrary deprivations of life, liberty, and property by officials, such as police officers, jail guards, public-school educators, public employers, and members of zoning boards. However, the Supreme Court has emasculated its efficacy as a limitation on executive …