首页 > 最新文献

Journal of Supreme Court History最新文献

英文 中文
The Judicial Bookshelf 司法书架
IF 0.1 Pub Date : 2022-04-13 DOI: 10.1111/jsch.12288
Donald Grier Stephenson Jr.
{"title":"The Judicial Bookshelf","authors":"Donald Grier Stephenson Jr.","doi":"10.1111/jsch.12288","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jsch.12288","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41873,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Supreme Court History","volume":"47 1","pages":"71-87"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"137510229","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Contributors 贡献者
IF 0.1 Pub Date : 2022-04-13 DOI: 10.1111/jsch.12289
{"title":"Contributors","authors":"","doi":"10.1111/jsch.12289","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jsch.12289","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41873,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Supreme Court History","volume":"47 1","pages":"88"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"137510228","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Peter S. Canellos, The Great Dissenter: The Story of John Marshall Harlan, America's Judicial Hero. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2021, 495 pp. + acknowledgments, notes, bibliography, and index Peter S. Canellos,《伟大的异议者:美国司法英雄约翰·马歇尔·哈兰的故事》。纽约:西蒙和舒斯特,2021年,495页+致谢,注释,参考书目和索引
IF 0.1 Pub Date : 2022-04-13 DOI: 10.1111/jsch.12287
Paul Kens
{"title":"Peter S. Canellos, The Great Dissenter: The Story of John Marshall Harlan, America's Judicial Hero. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2021, 495 pp. + acknowledgments, notes, bibliography, and index","authors":"Paul Kens","doi":"10.1111/jsch.12287","DOIUrl":"10.1111/jsch.12287","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41873,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Supreme Court History","volume":"47 1","pages":"65-70"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42808811","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Earl Warren's Last Stand: Powell v. McCormack, Race, and the Political Question Doctrine 厄尔·沃伦的最后一战:鲍威尔诉麦科马克、种族和政治问题主义
IF 0.1 Pub Date : 2022-04-13 DOI: 10.1111/jsch.12292
Olivia O'Hea
Chief Justice Earl Warren had great expectations for Powell v. McCormack.1 According to his clerks, the Chief believed the case would be his swansong.2 He hoped the opinion would become an illustrious historical document, revered as canonical by future constitutional scholars.3 To Warren’s credit, the case contained all the trappings of a great constitutional showdown. At its center: the gregarious Congressman Adam Clayton Powell, who was formally excluded from his seat after allegations of mismanaging funds.4 And the question—who had the power to unseat a fairly elected congressman?— highlighted the escalating tension between Congress and the Court.5 In a jab at the Court, the House report recommending Powell’s sanctions noted that the final vote would be immune to judicial review.6 By the time the Supreme Court granted cert, New York’s 18th Congressional District had reelected Powell, and by the time the justices heard the oral argument Powell was Handsome and charismatic, Adam Clayton Powell was a Baptist pastor elected to Congress from Harlem, New York, in 1944.
首席大法官厄尔·沃伦(Earl Warren)对鲍威尔诉麦科马克案(Powell v.McCormack)寄予厚望。1据他的书记员称,首席大法官相信这起案件将是他的绝唱。2他希望这一意见能成为一份杰出的历史文件,被未来的宪法学者尊为典范。3值得称赞的是,这起案件包含了一场伟大的宪法对决的所有表象。其核心是:合群的国会议员亚当·克莱顿·鲍威尔,他因被指控资金管理不善而被正式排除在外。4还有一个问题——谁有权罢免一位公正当选的国会议员?——强调了国会和最高法院之间不断升级的紧张关系。5在对最高法院的抨击中,众议院建议对鲍威尔实施制裁的报告指出,最终投票将不受司法审查,当法官们听到鲍威尔英俊而富有魅力的口头辩论时,亚当·克莱顿·鲍威尔是1944年从纽约哈莱姆当选为国会议员的浸礼会牧师。
{"title":"Earl Warren's Last Stand: Powell v. McCormack, Race, and the Political Question Doctrine","authors":"Olivia O'Hea","doi":"10.1111/jsch.12292","DOIUrl":"10.1111/jsch.12292","url":null,"abstract":"Chief Justice Earl Warren had great expectations for Powell v. McCormack.1 According to his clerks, the Chief believed the case would be his swansong.2 He hoped the opinion would become an illustrious historical document, revered as canonical by future constitutional scholars.3 To Warren’s credit, the case contained all the trappings of a great constitutional showdown. At its center: the gregarious Congressman Adam Clayton Powell, who was formally excluded from his seat after allegations of mismanaging funds.4 And the question—who had the power to unseat a fairly elected congressman?— highlighted the escalating tension between Congress and the Court.5 In a jab at the Court, the House report recommending Powell’s sanctions noted that the final vote would be immune to judicial review.6 By the time the Supreme Court granted cert, New York’s 18th Congressional District had reelected Powell, and by the time the justices heard the oral argument Powell was Handsome and charismatic, Adam Clayton Powell was a Baptist pastor elected to Congress from Harlem, New York, in 1944.","PeriodicalId":41873,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Supreme Court History","volume":"47 1","pages":"44-64"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45192035","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
“Commonly Estimated as One Judge”: Bushrod Washington and the Marshall Court “通常被认为是一个法官”:布什罗德·华盛顿和马歇尔法院
IF 0.1 Pub Date : 2022-04-13 DOI: 10.1111/jsch.12284
Gerard N. Magliocca

In 1822, Justice William Johnson gave Thomas Jefferson a brief description of his colleagues from his early years on the Supreme Court.1 After dismissing almost all of them as “incompetent,” “slow,” or unable to “think or write,” Justice Johnson told Jefferson that Chief Justice John Marshall and Justice Bushrod Washington “are commonly estimated as one judge.”2 One way of understanding Johnson's comment is that he thought that Justice Washington simply followed Chief Justice Marshall's lead, which is consistent with the idea that Marshall dominated his Supreme Court unlike any previous or subsequent Chief Justice. In researching my forthcoming biography of Bushrod Washington, I instead reached the conclusion that Justice Johnson called Washington and Marshall “one judge” because they were close collaborators.3 Indeed, the Marshall Court is best understood as a partnership created by these two remarkable Virginians.

My claim challenges three cliches about the Marshall Court. The first is that Justice Washington was, in the words of Albert Beveridge, “slow-thinking” and dim-witted.4 The second is that Associate Justice Joseph Story was Chief Justice Marshall's principal ally during Story's entire tenure on the Court.5 While Story was an important member of the Marshall Court and was the Chief Justice's right-hand-man after Justice Washington's death in 1829, he was not the linchpin of that institution while Washington was on the bench. The third is that Chief Justice Marshall alone was the Marshall Court. Nobody thinks Earl Warren did everything on the Warren Court. Instead, we recognize that Chief Justice Warren worked with many other talented colleagues to fashion the jurisprudence of that era.6 The same is true for John Marshall, and his alter ego was Bushrod Washington.

Washington and Marshall's working relationship began well before they reached the Supreme Court. They first met in 1780 at the College of William and Mary, where they attended Professor George Wythe's law lectures and engaged in debates as members of Phi Beta Kappa.7 In 1787, they were reunited as members of the Virginia House of Burgesses when Washington was elected to the legislature.8 A year later, they both were chosen as delegates to Virginia's ratifying convention for the Constitution, where they strongly supported ratification.9 But Washington and Marshall did not become close until Washington moved his legal practice to Richmond in 1792. Soon thereafter they were frequently arguing cases as a team or against each other in the Virginia Court of Appeals (Virginia's highest court).10 They also served together on the Richmond City Council from 1794 to 1795, including a committee about local police reform.11 When Marshall returned from his diplomatic mission in France now known of the “XYZ Affair,” Washington welcomed him home with a rousing

马歇尔确实拒绝了,但他告诉司法部长,华盛顿会同意,而且“找不到更合适的人选”。华盛顿接受了这一提名,退出了国会竞选,并得到了参议院的确认。几年后,当最高法院大法官职位空缺时,马歇尔答应了亚当斯总统的请求,并加入了华盛顿的法官行列。华盛顿和马歇尔之间现存的通信是以一种相互尊重的语气写的。在那个时代,大法官们一年中的大部分时间都是作为巡回法官在全国指定地区进行审判和审理上诉。当华盛顿和马歇尔在各自的巡回法院审理新案件时,他们互相通报情况,互相寻求帮助马歇尔在一封信中感谢华盛顿“在我向您咨询的案件中”提出的意见。我从一开始就认为[这个问题]有疑问,但我会根据你的意见来决定。当华盛顿向马歇尔询问他对一个宪法问题的见解时,这位首席大法官答应了,但最后得出的结论是:“你自己的判断,你已经听到了争论,比我的判断更值得信赖。”这是平等的语言,而不是领导者对追随者的指示。华盛顿后来告诉出版商,他“去了里士满,继续和马歇尔先生在一起,直到我们完成了第三卷的阅读和修改。”为了制作目录表,我刚刚把它读了一遍。人们不禁要问,马歇尔和华盛顿在撰写意见书时是否采用了同样的方法,但我们无从得知,因为马歇尔的最高法院意见书草稿没有一份保存下来。要理解华盛顿和马歇尔的职业关系如何延续到他们在最高法院的工作中,最好的起点是让马歇尔法院与众不同的两个习惯。一个是通过首席大法官撰写的单一意见尽可能多地发言。华盛顿和马歇尔都熟悉埃德蒙·彭德尔顿总统对弗吉尼亚上诉法院的领导,他努力为每一个案件写出一致的意见在威廉·约翰逊大法官将华盛顿和马歇尔描述为“同一位法官”的同一封信中,他说,在彭德尔顿死后,他自己写不同意见的倾向遭到了“法官相互中伤的不体面行为以及弗吉尼亚上诉法院因采取这种做法而蒙受的名誉损失”的训诫几乎可以肯定,最高法院的两位维吉尼亚人是这些演讲的来源,因为他们在维吉尼亚上诉法院有相当多的实践经验。没有首席大法官的支持,华盛顿大法官无法建立以一个声音沟通的习惯,但如果没有华盛顿的支持,马歇尔可能也无法维持这种习惯。正如斯托里大法官后来所说,“华盛顿大法官认为(而且非常正确),在普通场合发表不同意见的习惯削弱了法院的权威。华盛顿法官负责安排这些住宿,可能是因为他住在弗农山庄,是所有法官中离首都最近的。1814年英国人烧毁这座城市后,马歇尔的第一反应是写信给布什罗德,问他是否还能找到合适的寄宿公寓。“我们必须依靠你,”首席法官说,“去询问,如果你有能力安排我们的住宿。如果让我们在一起是可行的,你知道这将是多么令人向往。如果那不可行,我们必须尽可能靠近对方。如果我们不得不住在不同的房子里,也许我们可以一起吃饭……请把你掌握的关于这个有趣问题的所有情报都告诉我。35 .华盛顿在寄宿生活方式中所起的重要作用可以从以下事实中看出:在他1829年去世后不久,一些法官在法院开庭期间开始独自生活,而且他们再也没有住在一起了这表明,华盛顿,而不是首席大法官,是推动最高法院公共生活的力量。既然马歇尔是首席大法官,为什么他需要华盛顿大法官的同意才能批准律师的请求?最合理的回答是,有一种非正式的谅解,即华盛顿将保留口头辩论的笔录供法院内部使用。无论华盛顿法官履行这一职能多久,当他的笔记被用于讨论和起草意见时,他都能够(有意或无意)形成意见。华盛顿和马歇尔在最高法院的“平等第一”地位进一步得到证实,因为他们愿意在不征求所有同事意见的情况下采取敏感行动。
{"title":"“Commonly Estimated as One Judge”: Bushrod Washington and the Marshall Court","authors":"Gerard N. Magliocca","doi":"10.1111/jsch.12284","DOIUrl":"10.1111/jsch.12284","url":null,"abstract":"<p>In 1822, Justice William Johnson gave Thomas Jefferson a brief description of his colleagues from his early years on the Supreme Court.<sup>1</sup> After dismissing almost all of them as “incompetent,” “slow,” or unable to “think or write,” Justice Johnson told Jefferson that Chief Justice John Marshall and Justice Bushrod Washington “are commonly estimated as one judge.”<sup>2</sup> One way of understanding Johnson's comment is that he thought that Justice Washington simply followed Chief Justice Marshall's lead, which is consistent with the idea that Marshall dominated his Supreme Court unlike any previous or subsequent Chief Justice. In researching my forthcoming biography of Bushrod Washington, I instead reached the conclusion that Justice Johnson called Washington and Marshall “one judge” because they were close collaborators.<sup>3</sup> Indeed, the Marshall Court is best understood as a partnership created by these two remarkable Virginians.</p><p>My claim challenges three cliches about the Marshall Court. The first is that Justice Washington was, in the words of Albert Beveridge, “slow-thinking” and dim-witted.<sup>4</sup> The second is that Associate Justice Joseph Story was Chief Justice Marshall's principal ally during Story's entire tenure on the Court.<sup>5</sup> While Story was an important member of the Marshall Court and was the Chief Justice's right-hand-man after Justice Washington's death in 1829, he was not the linchpin of that institution while Washington was on the bench. The third is that Chief Justice Marshall alone was the Marshall Court. Nobody thinks Earl Warren did everything on the Warren Court. Instead, we recognize that Chief Justice Warren worked with many other talented colleagues to fashion the jurisprudence of that era.<sup>6</sup> The same is true for John Marshall, and his alter ego was Bushrod Washington.</p><p>Washington and Marshall's working relationship began well before they reached the Supreme Court. They first met in 1780 at the College of William and Mary, where they attended Professor George Wythe's law lectures and engaged in debates as members of Phi Beta Kappa.<sup>7</sup> In 1787, they were reunited as members of the Virginia House of Burgesses when Washington was elected to the legislature.<sup>8</sup> A year later, they both were chosen as delegates to Virginia's ratifying convention for the Constitution, where they strongly supported ratification.<sup>9</sup> But Washington and Marshall did not become close until Washington moved his legal practice to Richmond in 1792. Soon thereafter they were frequently arguing cases as a team or against each other in the Virginia Court of Appeals (Virginia's highest court).<sup>10</sup> They also served together on the Richmond City Council from 1794 to 1795, including a committee about local police reform.<sup>11</sup> When Marshall returned from his diplomatic mission in France now known of the “XYZ Affair,” Washington welcomed him home with a rousing","PeriodicalId":41873,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Supreme Court History","volume":"47 1","pages":"7-19"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jsch.12284","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45535298","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Illustrations 插图
IF 0.1 Pub Date : 2022-04-13 DOI: 10.1111/jsch.12290
{"title":"Illustrations","authors":"","doi":"10.1111/jsch.12290","DOIUrl":"10.1111/jsch.12290","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41873,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Supreme Court History","volume":"47 1","pages":"89"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42782076","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
The Judicial Bookshelf 司法书架
IF 0.1 Pub Date : 2022-02-09 DOI: 10.1111/jsch.12281
Donald Grier Stephenson, Jr.
{"title":"The Judicial Bookshelf","authors":"Donald Grier Stephenson, Jr.","doi":"10.1111/jsch.12281","DOIUrl":"10.1111/jsch.12281","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41873,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Supreme Court History","volume":"46 3","pages":"350-367"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43262667","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Contributors 贡献者
IF 0.1 Pub Date : 2022-02-09 DOI: 10.1111/jsch.12282
{"title":"Contributors","authors":"","doi":"10.1111/jsch.12282","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jsch.12282","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41873,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Supreme Court History","volume":"46 3","pages":"368"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"137816622","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Trop v. Dulles: How Earl Warren's Contradicting Legal Opinions Secured Trop's Victory 特洛普诉杜勒斯:厄尔·沃伦自相矛盾的法律意见如何确保了特洛普的胜利
IF 0.1 Pub Date : 2022-02-09 DOI: 10.1111/jsch.12280
Courtney Christensen
On March 31, 1958, the Supreme Court held in Trop v. Dulles that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishment” barred Congress from denaturalizing citizens as a punishment.1 It was an important result, albeit one announced by a highly regarded chief justice, Earl Warren, who in this instance could marshal the support of only three other members of the Court. The result was important, and the principles for which Trop stands are worthy of our respect. But there is so much more to the story, of a chief justice’s struggle to reach the result he wished and what that process tells us about the Court and the manner in which it functions. Albert Trop, the plaintiff in the case, was denaturalized a result of his courtmartial conviction for desertion in the time of war.2 The Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice Earl Warren, held that his punishment violated the Eighth Amendment and restored Trop’s lost citizenship.3 Today, Trop is known for its contribution to the Eighth-Amendment jurisprudence, with a particular focus on the plurality’s statement that the “amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.”4 However, at the time Trop and its companion cases, Perez v. Brownell5 and Nishikawa v. Dulles,6 were argued, Trop was considered among the most important and controversial cases of the term,7 not due to the EighthAmendment question, but because the case represented fundamental questions of constitutional law, including “What’s the nature of Congress’ power? What’s the structure of the Constitution?”8 Despite the unexpected nature of the issue, Warren’s determination to decide the case in Trop’s favor and his willingness to change his theoretical views regarding congressional power led the case to be decided
1958年3月31日,最高法院在特罗普诉杜勒斯案(Trop v. Dulles)中裁定,宪法第八修正案禁止“残忍和不寻常的惩罚”,禁止国会将使公民变性作为一种惩罚手段这是一个重要的结果,尽管这个结果是由备受尊敬的首席大法官厄尔·沃伦(Earl Warren)宣布的,在这种情况下,他只能获得最高法院其他三名法官的支持。结果很重要,特罗普所代表的原则值得我们尊重。但是,首席大法官为达到他想要的结果而奋斗的故事,以及这个过程告诉我们的关于最高法院及其运作方式的更多内容。本案的原告阿尔伯特·特罗普(Albert Trop)因战争期间的逃兵罪被军事法庭定罪而被变性在首席大法官厄尔·沃伦(Earl Warren)的意见中,法院认为对特罗普的惩罚违反了第八修正案,并恢复了特罗普失去的公民身份今天,特洛普因其对第八修正案法理学的贡献而闻名,尤其关注多数法官的陈述,即“修正案必须从标志着成熟社会进步的不断发展的体面标准中汲取其意义”。然而,在特罗普案及其同类案件——佩雷斯诉布朗内尔案和西川诉杜勒斯案——被辩论的时候,特罗普案被认为是这一时期最重要和最具争议的案件之一,不是因为第八修正案的问题,而是因为这个案件代表了宪法的基本问题,包括“国会权力的本质是什么?”宪法的结构是什么?尽管这个问题的性质出乎意料,但沃伦做出有利于特洛普的判决的决心,以及他愿意改变自己对国会权力的理论观点,导致了这个案件的判决
{"title":"Trop v. Dulles: How Earl Warren's Contradicting Legal Opinions Secured Trop's Victory","authors":"Courtney Christensen","doi":"10.1111/jsch.12280","DOIUrl":"10.1111/jsch.12280","url":null,"abstract":"On March 31, 1958, the Supreme Court held in Trop v. Dulles that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishment” barred Congress from denaturalizing citizens as a punishment.1 It was an important result, albeit one announced by a highly regarded chief justice, Earl Warren, who in this instance could marshal the support of only three other members of the Court. The result was important, and the principles for which Trop stands are worthy of our respect. But there is so much more to the story, of a chief justice’s struggle to reach the result he wished and what that process tells us about the Court and the manner in which it functions. Albert Trop, the plaintiff in the case, was denaturalized a result of his courtmartial conviction for desertion in the time of war.2 The Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice Earl Warren, held that his punishment violated the Eighth Amendment and restored Trop’s lost citizenship.3 Today, Trop is known for its contribution to the Eighth-Amendment jurisprudence, with a particular focus on the plurality’s statement that the “amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.”4 However, at the time Trop and its companion cases, Perez v. Brownell5 and Nishikawa v. Dulles,6 were argued, Trop was considered among the most important and controversial cases of the term,7 not due to the EighthAmendment question, but because the case represented fundamental questions of constitutional law, including “What’s the nature of Congress’ power? What’s the structure of the Constitution?”8 Despite the unexpected nature of the issue, Warren’s determination to decide the case in Trop’s favor and his willingness to change his theoretical views regarding congressional power led the case to be decided","PeriodicalId":41873,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Supreme Court History","volume":"46 3","pages":"331-349"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43100735","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Brown v. Board of Education and the Politics That Created a Constitutional Icon 布朗诉教育委员会案和创造宪法象征的政治
IF 0.1 Pub Date : 2022-02-09 DOI: 10.1111/jsch.12279
Jeffrey Hockett
Few scholars or educators of law or politics would dispute the contention of the authors of a recent retrospective on Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka that the Supreme Court’s 1954 school desegregation ruling was “the most important decision of the 20th century.”1 Indeed, Brown can be said to have achieved canonical status within the legal academy, as evidenced by the fact that no other ruling has been regarded by so many individuals as, to borrow one of many similar encomiums, “the greatest moral triumph constitutional law ha[s] ever produced.”2 The 88 percent approval rating that Brown received in a Gallup opinion poll taken forty years after the decision was rendered supports the view that the ruling is “largely sacred” not only among academics but “in American political culture” as well.3 The contrast between that supermajority figure and the 62 percent of Americans that approved of Brown in 1961 (the last time Gallup sought that information until 1994) reveals that the ruling’s reputation developed over time.4 In fact, Brown generated enormous controversy for a number of years after it was rendered. Even journalists and scholars who favored desegregation conceded the charge of southern politicians that the justices had circumvented traditional legal constraints in declaring segregation unconstitutional.5 Gerald Rosenberg observes that the conventional explanation for Brown’s eventual elevation to canonical or iconic status is that the decision and related desegregation rulings “played a crucial role in producing both changes in civil rights and an active civil rights movement.”6 Yet, pervasive and current as the belief may be within the academy that Brown inspired activists who then prompted Congress to pass important civil rights legislation, the wider public is unlikely to be familiar with the written opinions that accompany even well-publicized rulings,
很少有学者或法律或政治教育工作者会对最近一篇关于布朗诉托皮卡教育委员会的回顾文章的作者的论点提出异议,即最高法院1954年的学校废除种族隔离裁决是“20世纪最重要的裁决”,事实证明,没有其他裁决被如此多的人视为“有史以来最伟大的道德胜利宪法”,借用许多类似的赞美之一。“2在做出这一决定40年后,盖洛普民意调查显示,布朗获得了88%的支持率,这支持了这样一种观点,即这一裁决不仅在学术界“基本上是神圣的”,而且在“美国政治文化”中也是如此。3这一绝对多数数字与1961年支持布朗的62%美国人之间的对比(直到1994年,盖洛普最后一次寻求这些信息)表明,该裁决的声誉随着时间的推移而发展。4事实上,布朗在裁决后的几年里引发了巨大的争议。即使是支持废除种族隔离的记者和学者也承认了南方政客的指控,即大法官在宣布种族隔离违宪时规避了传统的法律约束。5 Gerald Rosenberg认为,对布朗最终提升为规范或标志性地位的传统解释是,这一决定和相关的废除种族隔离裁决“在促成民权变革和积极的民权运动方面发挥了至关重要的作用。”6然而,尽管学术界普遍认为布朗激励了活动家,促使国会通过了重要的民权立法,但广大公众不太可能熟悉伴随着广为宣传的裁决而来的书面意见,
{"title":"Brown v. Board of Education and the Politics That Created a Constitutional Icon","authors":"Jeffrey Hockett","doi":"10.1111/jsch.12279","DOIUrl":"10.1111/jsch.12279","url":null,"abstract":"Few scholars or educators of law or politics would dispute the contention of the authors of a recent retrospective on Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka that the Supreme Court’s 1954 school desegregation ruling was “the most important decision of the 20th century.”1 Indeed, Brown can be said to have achieved canonical status within the legal academy, as evidenced by the fact that no other ruling has been regarded by so many individuals as, to borrow one of many similar encomiums, “the greatest moral triumph constitutional law ha[s] ever produced.”2 The 88 percent approval rating that Brown received in a Gallup opinion poll taken forty years after the decision was rendered supports the view that the ruling is “largely sacred” not only among academics but “in American political culture” as well.3 The contrast between that supermajority figure and the 62 percent of Americans that approved of Brown in 1961 (the last time Gallup sought that information until 1994) reveals that the ruling’s reputation developed over time.4 In fact, Brown generated enormous controversy for a number of years after it was rendered. Even journalists and scholars who favored desegregation conceded the charge of southern politicians that the justices had circumvented traditional legal constraints in declaring segregation unconstitutional.5 Gerald Rosenberg observes that the conventional explanation for Brown’s eventual elevation to canonical or iconic status is that the decision and related desegregation rulings “played a crucial role in producing both changes in civil rights and an active civil rights movement.”6 Yet, pervasive and current as the belief may be within the academy that Brown inspired activists who then prompted Congress to pass important civil rights legislation, the wider public is unlikely to be familiar with the written opinions that accompany even well-publicized rulings,","PeriodicalId":41873,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Supreme Court History","volume":"46 3","pages":"292-330"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48158218","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
期刊
Journal of Supreme Court History
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1