Swanson on The Tulsa Race Massacre of 1921: A Lesson in the Law of Trespass @KaraWSwanson @ConnLRev

Kara W. Swanson, Northeastern University School of Law, is publishing The Tulsa Race Massacre of 1921: A Lesson in the Law of Trespass in the Connecticut Law Review. Here is the abstract.

In my remarks today, I am focusing on this symposium’s subtitle: “What’s Law Got to Do with It?” In one sense, the answer to that question is easy. Since 1921, Black Tulsans have been looking to law and lawyers to address harms suffered during the Tulsa Race Massacre, largely unsuccessfully. This starting panel, though, is not about redress, as important as that topic is, but rather about the startling lack of recognition of the Massacre, that is, the seemingly impossible feat of forgetting the racially motivated wholesale destruction of a community. I want to focus on one space of non-recognition, law schools, and particularly, on the property law classroom. US lawyers learn what property is and how the law defines, shapes, and protects it without any knowledge of the Tulsa Race Massacre. Without knowledge of the Massacre, lawyers are ill-equipped to answer “what’s law got to do with it?” We cannot use law to change injustices that we cannot see. The costs of such ignorance on the part of lawyers reach beyond the bounds of Tulsa and “its search for justice,” however, as important as those localized discussions are. To explore these deeper costs, I have rewritten our starting question to ask: what might we learn if property law was taught with knowledge of the Tulsa Race Massacre? My short answer is that we all, as lawyers, would learn about race and property in ways that would not only better equip us to engage in the crucial on-going tasks of reevaluation, reparations, and redress with respect to Tulsa, but also to understand how property works in each community in the United States. The events in Tulsa on May 31 and June 1, 1921 offer new insights into how, as Professor Cheryl I. Harris demonstrated, “rights in property are contingent on, intertwined with, and conflated with race.” As my long answer, I invite you to follow me on a thought experiment into a lesson that is included early in most property courses, a lesson on the law of trespass. By adding the Tulsa Race Massacre to this lesson, we consider Black Americans as successful property owners, a role in which they seldom appear in a property course. I consider how, once students have learned the definition and purpose of trespass doctrine, often considered foundational to the very meaning of property, we could then review the lesson with attention to the events of the Massacre, asking who committed trespass against whose property and what the legal consequences were. The revised lesson encourages us as lawyers to be attentive to our roles in defining and enforcing property rights in racialized ways. By recognizing the conflation of property rights and race in US law, a truth grounded in history, we gain the power not just to address history – as important as that task is – but also to avoid repeating it, that is, to make a different future by disrupting historic relationships that have tied property and power to racial identity.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Risinger on The Welles of Belleville: A Black New Jersey Family of Substance in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

D. Michael Risinger, Seton Hall University School of Law, has published The Wellses of Belleville: A Black New Jersey Family of Substance in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. Here is the abstract.

The Wells family that is the subject of this article was a free Black family originating in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania in the early 19th Century.. This article follows the Wells family saga over the course of nearly a century and a half, including involvement in the bold act of resistance to the fugitive Slave act of 1850 which occurred in Christiana (Lancaster County) Pennsylvania in 1851, service in the U.S. Colored Troops in the Civil War, family separation and lost children in the period after the war, a surprising reunification after 20 years, an extended family exodus to Newark, New Jersey in the early 1880s, a further exodus as an extended family to Belleville, New Jersey, Newark’s neighbor to the north, in the late 1880s, and a variety of fraternal business and religious activities in New Jersey over 50 years, including the establishment of the first Black church in Belleville in 1886, It is the story of a Black family that persevered and found a way to flourish in the face of the social conditions it encountered over the course of a century and more.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Katz on Mary Lou Graves, Nolen Breedlove, and the Nineteenth Amendment @UMichLaw

Ellen D. Katz, University of Michigan Law School, is publishing Mary Lou Graves, Nolen Breedlove, and the Nineteenth Amendment in volume 20 of the Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy. Here is the abstract.

This close examination of two cases is part of a larger ongoing project to provide a distinct account of the Nineteenth Amendment. In 1921, the Alabama Supreme Court held the Nineteenth Amendment required that any poll tax be imposed equally on men and women. Sixteen years later, the Supreme Court disagreed. Juxtaposing these two cases, and telling their story in rich context, captures my larger claim that – contrary to the general understanding in the scholarly literature – the Nineteenth Amendment was deliberately crafted as a highly circumscribed measure that would eliminate only the exclusively male franchise while serving steadfastly to preserve and promote social hierarchies more generally, specifically those based on race and gender.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Ross on The Foundations of Criminal Law Epistemology @ErgoEditors

Lewis Ross, London School of Economics & Political Science (LSE), is publishing The Foundations of Criminal Law Epistemology in ERGO. Here is the abstract.

Legal epistemology has been an area of great philosophical growth since the turn of the century. But recently, a number of philosophers have argued the entire project is misguided, claiming that it relies on an illicit transposition of the norms of individual epistemology to the legal arena. This paper uses these objections as a foil to consider the foundations of legal epistemology, particularly as it applies to the criminal law. The aim is to clarify the fundamental commitments of legal epistemology and suggest a way to vindicate it.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Zietlow on Freedom Seekers: The Transgressive Constitutionalism of Fugitives From Slavery @ProfessorRZ @utoledolaw @NotreDameLRev

Rebecca E. Zietlow, University of Toledo College of Law, is publishing Freedom Seekers: The Transgressive Constitutionalism of Fugitives From Slavery in volume 97 of the Notre Dame Law Review (2022). Here is the abstract.

In the years leading up to the Civil War, fugitives from slavery ("freedom seekers") put their lives on the line to improve their own status and that of their families in their quest for freedom. Freedom seekers were constitutional actors who made constitutional claims with their actions when they transgressed borders from slave states to free spaces, and across Civil War battle lines to volunteer for the Union army. By transgressing these borders, fugitives from slavery triggered constitutional controversy over issues of interstate comity, federalism, citizenship rights, and fundamental human rights, and made rights claims for themselves with their actions. Their actions destabilized the structure of our country, leading to the Civil War. After the war, members of the Reconstruction Congress cited the sacrifices of freedom seekers as they debated measures to protect the rights that they claimed. Freedom seekers engaged in civil disobedience, resisting law that they believed to be unjust and inhumane. In the North, free Black people and their white allies supported freedom seekers by engaging in civil disobedience of their own. The transgressive actions of freedom seekers sparked constitutional controversy during the antebellum era over issues of interstate comity, federalism, citizenship rights, and fundamental human rights, Their actions were central to the antislavery struggle, and their sacrifices send a profound message which inspired other activists and strengthened their cause. Eventually, the Reconstruction Congress enshrined their claims into constitutional law. Until now, fugitives form slavery have largely been absent from virtually all of the legal scholarship about the antebellum and Reconstruction eras. This article seeks to remedy that oversight.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Roberts on The Global Red Scare and the Anti-Worker Repressive Model, 1913-1927 @CUHKLaw

Christopher M. Roberts, The Chinese University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law, is publishing The Global Red Scare and the Anti-Worker Repressive Model, 1913-1927 in volume 5 of the Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law (2022). Here is the abstract.

This article considers the extensive repressive measures enacted around the world during and in the wake of the First World War. While repressive developments in the World War I and post-war periods have previously been examined in different national contexts, little scholarship has adopted a more global lens. To better organize and consider the relevant developments, this article develops a typology of six different categories of public order governance into which the majority of the repressive measures of the period may be classified: the passage of new laws; the development of new institutions; raids, arrests, prosecutions, and other judicial and administrative measures taken against suspected dissidents; direct suppression via the deployment of state force; the development of new ideological formations; and the creation and strengthening of parastatal organizations. Considering developments around the world during and in the aftermath of World War I with the help of this typology helps to make clear how extensive in both kind and scope the innovations and extensions of repressive public order governance in the period were. Global study of such developments helps to reveal, moreover, how little such measures were solely or even primarily concerned with wartime exigencies, and how much, in contrast, they were concerned with clamping down on labor unrest, socialist agitation, and anti-colonial resistance. The developments of the period are not only a historical curiosity; rather, they continue to inform key components of repressive governance in numerous states today. As such, more directly confronting and addressing the history of such laws is essential to achieving greater respect for human rights in the contemporary world.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Craig and Dhonchak on A Feminist Theory of Moral Rights, Creative Agency, and Attribution @craigcarys @AnupriyaDh_19 @Elgar_Law @OsgoodeNews @NLUDofficial

Carys J. Craig, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, and Anupriya Dhonchak, Faculty of Law, University of Oxford; National Law University, Delhi, are publishing Against Integrity: A Feminist Theory of Moral Rights, Creative Agency, and Attribution in the Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and Moral Rights (Ysolde Gendreau, ed., Edward Elgar) (Forthcoming).

The term “moral rights” captures a collection of personal rights of the author that run parallel to economic copyright interests. These moral rights include the right of attribution (the right to be associated with the work as its author) and the right of integrity (the right to object to modifications of the work that may prejudice the author's honor or reputation). It is generally agreed that moral rights occupy a unique place (the moral high ground, if you will) within the copyright realm, reflecting an intimate and ongoing personal connection between the author and their work that is deserving of acknowledgement and respect. Yet it is not generally recognized that feminist theory has something to say about the nature of this intimate personal connection and the rights that it seemingly entails. This Chapter explores insights that feminist theories can bring to the study and development of moral rights protections in copyright law. We begin by explaining why certain facets of conventional moral rights theory (typically based on the writings of Kant and Hegel) are ill-suited to—indeed inconsistent with—a feminist approach in both concept and effect. Conceptually, they demand and support an individualized and romanticized conception of the (patriarchal) author-figure. In practice, to the extent that strong moral rights of integrity and association limit dialogic engagement and transformation of protected works, they risk suppressing the kind of critical and counter-hegemonic expression that is vital to a feminist political agenda. Employing alternative feminist conceptions of situated selfhood, relationality, and dialogic authorship, we then explore what it might mean to reimagine moral rights in a way that resists claims to exclusion and control, but reflects the personal, social, and political value of creative agency. We present a limited defense of the right of attribution on these terms, and conclude with a call for attribution as feminist praxis.

Download the chapter from SSRN at the link.

Rebeiro on Frederick Douglass and the Original Originalists @RebeiroBradley @BYULaw

Bradley Rebeiro, Brigham Young University Law School, is publishing Frederick Douglass and the Original Originalists in volume 48 of the Brigham Young University Law Review. Here is the abstract.

Constitutional scholars incessantly grapple over the significance of the Constitution’s original meaning. More specifically, they are preoccupied with, on the one hand, what that meaning is (if such meaning exists) and, on the other hand, the exact nature of that meaning’s authority (if any) over the Constitution and its interpreters. But this debate is hardly novel. In fact, one of the most compelling voices in U.S. history was immersed in similar debates and, out of the constitutional sparring of his time, forged an arresting theory of constitutional interpretation. Frederick Douglass, once a fierce opponent of the U.S. Constitution, evolved into a defender of the Constitution with a robust theory of constitutional interpretation that addressed the constitutional evil of slavery. For example, in 1847, Douglass stated: “The Constitution I hold to be radically and essentially slave-holding . . . [t]he language of the Constitution is you shall be a slave or die.” Yet, five years later in his famous speech, “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?”, Douglass declared: “interpreted as it ought to be interpreted, the Constitution is a glorious liberty document.” Because Douglass was primarily a political and constitutional actor that never wrote a treatise of jurisprudence, his understanding of constitutionalism must be gleaned from his many speeches and other writings. I therefore take on the task of welding together these speeches and writings to demonstrate how Douglass’s theory fuses historical meaning, established legal rules of interpretation, natural rights principles, and a conception of justice into a cohesive approach that addresses the problem of constitutional interpretation and construction. Though Douglass was one of the most prominent political thinkers and constitutional actors of the 19th century, his constitutional thought has been overlooked by most legal scholars and mostly mischaracterized by political scientists. Due to the aforementioned lack of a singular treatise on the subject, as well as Douglass’s constitutional transformation over the course of his life, this comes as no surprise. Legal scholars tend either to dismiss his constitutional theory as incoherent or to assume that Douglass’s reformed theory was not sincere, but merely a smokescreen for political purposes. Others have referred to Douglass as a living constitutionalist or offered wholly new categories to explain Douglass’s position, such as “reform textualism.” However, Douglass’s theory, similar to his contemporaries, may be seen as anticipating the modern shift to originalism. But this claim challenges the conventional scholarly wisdom in two ways. First, the current literature mostly characterizes Douglass as, at the very least, anti-originalist. Second, though Douglass’s theory shares many elements with originalism, originalism’s current formulations leave little room for philosophical inquiry, which Douglass’s theory admittedly does. His theory does not fit perfectly into any of the many variations of originalism today, thereby offering present-day originalists new possibilities. I will thus refer to Douglass’s theory as “natural rights originalism.” Natural rights originalism deviates most importantly in not abandoning the original philosophical principles that animated the Constitution’s framing. This theory, the product of an insatiably inquisitive mind, transformed Douglass’s constitutional thinking—no longer was the Constitution an instrument of oppression, but one of freedom.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Ban and Belavusau on Memory Laws @BloomsburyBooks

Marina Bán, University of Copenhagen, and Uladzislau Belavusau, T.M.C. Asser Institute - University of Amsterdam; University of California, Berkeley - Berkeley Center on Comparative Equality & Anti-Discrimination Law, have published Memory Laws in Bloomsbury History: Theory and Method (2022). Here is the abstract.

This entry provides an ample and detailed analysis on the emerging phenomenon of memory laws. It outlines how these legal measures, the symbols of interaction between history and law, have developed in the last two centuries and how their scope have drastically expanded. It further reflects of the consequences of states’ growing reliance on the legal governance of historical memory. First, by tying memory laws to their impact on different fundamental rights, then by demonstrating how the increasing breadth and potential misuse of these provisions appears in debates around constitutionalism, citizenship and the rule of law. Finally, the contribution highlights how this initially European phenomenon have captured increasing attention around the world and what its future may hold.

Download the essay from SSRN at the link.

ICYMI: Frohnen on Tocqueville's Law: Integrative Jurisprudence in the American Context

ICYMI: Bruce P. Frohnen, Ohio Northern University College of Law, published Tocqueville's Law: Integrative Jurisprudence in the American Context at 39 American Journal of Jurisprudence 241 (1994). Here is the abstract.

This article examines the jurisprudence of nineteenth century scholar and magistrate Alexis de Tocqueville. Best known for his analysis of American democratic society, Tocqueville brought to his work a lawyer’s eye for legal rules and structures, and their impact on public life. Tocqueville’s jurisprudence, integrating moral, political, and historical practices and influences, enabled him to explain the role of law and lawyers in maintaining stability in a society permeated by egalitarian and individualist impulses. Central to this stabilization, according to Tocqueville, were the legalistic norms inculcated through administrative decentralization and the jury system in a society that accorded high status to legal practitioners.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Kinsinger on Bringing About a Reformation? Religious Freedom and Canadian Constitutionalism, 1759-1774 @kkinsinger @RunnymedeSoc

Kristopher Kinsinger, Runnymede Society; Cardus, has published Bringing About a Reformation? Religious Freedom and Canadian Constitutionalism, 1759-1774 at 105 SCLR 2d 395 (2022). Here is the abstract.

The human rights and civil liberties guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms did not spring into existence in 1982. Although this assertion might seem trite, the Charter has engulfed how scholars study constitutional rights and freedoms in Canada. As a result, many jurists are not fully aware of the broader history of Canadian civil liberties. This article seeks to remedy this amnesia through a study of the constitutionally significant statutes and documents enacted following the Seven Years’ War which promised varying degrees of religious freedom to British North America’s Roman Catholic population. Geopolitics played an undeniable role in shaping imperial policy regarding religious freedom in Canada. But it would be a mistake to conclude (as the Quebec Superior Court did in its 2021 ruling in Hak c. Procureur général du Québec) that these guarantees were little more than the product of a political calculus. While many colonial leaders in late 18th century Canada appeared to largely value religious freedom for its political utility, others came to articulate a decidedly aspirational vision for these guarantees. It was to the efforts of these latter individuals that the late W.P.M. Kennedy referred when he asserted that this period of history establishes “religious toleration [as] one of the corner-stones of the Canadian constitution”.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Rawlings on The Highwayman's Case: John Everett--Soldier, Robber, Publican, Gaoler @QMSchoolofLaw

Philip Rawlings, Queen Mary University of London, School of Law, has published The Highwayman's Case: John Everett - Soldier, Robber, Publican, Gaoler. Here is the abstract.

Of the two parties named in The Highwayman's Case, only John Everett (or Everet) has left a significant trace. Born in Hitchin in 1690, he abandoned his wife and an apprenticeship in around 1709, becoming a soldier, then a court bailiff, a robber, an informer, an alehouse keeper, an inmate of the Fleet prison, a gaoler, a thieftaker, and, finally, around the age of 40, he returned to robbery, was arrested, convicted, and executed. His life provides insights into the relationship between criminals and the justice system. In the 1720s, when Everett was active, the authorities became increasingly concerned about gangs of robbers believed to be infesting London, and breaking these gangs meant depending on robbers like Everett giving evidence against their former comrades. But it was his work as a keeper in the Fleet prison that made him notorious. He was brought before the first parliamentary inquiry into the prisons, and, although never prosecuted, his involvement in the abuse of prisoners brought the financial ruin that, according to Everett, led him to commit his final robbery.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Call For Abstracts: Law and Magic II

 Call For Abstracts:  Law and Magic II

 

Do you remember this book? Whether or not you do, the editor (Christine Corcos) is calling for abstracts for essays to fill a second volume of

 

 

 

 

                                                                 

Suggested topics might include, but are not limited to:

·       The law of fortune telling, tarot, phrenology, or other crafty sciences

·       The history of law and magic

·       Law and religion

·       Law as magic

·       Law and magic in popular culture

·       Law and magic in anthropology

·       Literature reviews of law and magic topics

·       Magic in the courtroom (using magic in advocacy)

 

 

 

For your convenience, here’s the table of contents from the first volume of Law and Magic (published 2010).

Loren A. Smith, Law and Magic: An Introduction Out of a Hat

Julie D. Cromer, It’s In the Cards: The Law of Tarot (and Other Fortunes Told)

Craig Freeman and Stephen A. Banning, Rogues, Vagabonds, and Lunatics: How the Right to Listen Cleared the Way For Fortunetellers

Pamela Edwards, Non-Mainstream Religions and the Law

Indra Spiecker genannt Doehmann, The Effects of Freedom of Information Laws on Corruption and the Quality of Decision-Making under U.S., E.U., and German Freedom of Information Laws

Christine A. Corcos,  “Ghostwriters”: Spiritualists, Copyright Infringement, and Rights of Publicity

F. Jay Dougherty, Now You Own It, Now You Don’t: Copyright and Related Rights in Magic Productions and Performances

Jacob Loshin, Secrets Revealed: Protecting Magicians’ Intellectual Property without Law

Florian Faust, Selling Secrets: Legal Problems of the Magic Market

Frederick A. Brodie, The Magic of Civil Procedure

Robert M. Jarvis, The Case of the Magician’s Assistant: McAfoos v. Canadian Pacific Steamships, Ltd.

Jessie Allen, Magical Realism

Wendy J. Turner, The Legal Regulation and Licensing of Alchemy in Late Medieval England

Eric J. Gouvin, On Death and Magic: Law, Necromancy, and the Great Beyond

Susan D. Rozelle, The Type of Possession Is Nine-Tenths of the Law: Criminal Responsibility for Acts Performed under the Influence of Hypnosis or Bewitchment

Garrett Epps,  “When You Awake You Will Feel No Remorse”: Stage Hypnotism and the Law

Peter W. Edge, Unsympathetic Magic: Charitable Status and Magical Practice in the United Kingdom  

Rebekah Heiser Hanley, Principled Conjuring Tails: A Twenty-First Century Lawyer’s View of the History of Animals in Magic

Lisa Johnson, Taking the Rabbit out of the Hat: Let the Animals Disappear from Magic Acts

Noel Marcovecchio, Hocus Ipsa Loquitur: The Affinity between Law and Magic

Kenneth M. Trombly, Conjuring and the Courtroom: All I Needed to Know about Trying Cases I Learned by Doing Magic Shows

We invite abstracts of up to 500 words on any topic linked to law and magic. 

 

Deadline for submission of abstracts: December 31, 2022

Send your submission as well as any questions about the project to: Christine Corcos, Richard C. Cadwallader and Judge Albert Tate Foundation Associate Professor of Law, LSU Law Center,  at ccorcos@lsu.edu

 

We’ll let you know of acceptances no later than January 15, 2023.

 Final essays may be up to 15,000 words in length, not including references, although we might consider some deviations from that length. The deadline for submission of final essays would be December 31, 2023.

 

Oren on No-Fault Divorce Reform in the 1950s: The Lost History of the "Greatest Project" of the National Association of Women Lawyers @UHLawCenter

Laura E. Oren, University of Houston Law Center, has published No-Fault Divorce Reform in the 1950s: The Lost History of the 'Greatest Project' of the National Association of Women Lawyers as U of Houston Law Center No. 2022-A-. Here is the abstract.

In the 1950s, the National Association of Women Lawyers (“NAWL”) undertook what it considered its 'greatest project', the drafting and promotion of a model no-fault divorce law. It launched its campaign at a time when post-war realities and the law in practice were putting increasing pressure on the law on the books which lagged behind contemporary sensibilities. NAWL acted two decades before the no-fault divorce 'revolution' of the 1970s. It did so in the 1950s when women were said to be both 'domestic' and 'quiescent'. The Article has three aims. First, it considers NAWL’s project as a missing piece in the history of divorce law, the no-fault revolution, and the rise of mass divorce in mid-twentieth century America. Second, it reflects on the implications of NAWL’s undertaking for the standard narrative of 'domesticity' in the 1950s, an account that has been questioned in recent years. Last, it tells a story of women’s activism in the depth of the so-called 'doldrums' of the organized women’s movement. Focusing on NAWL’s 'greatest project', this Article demonstrates the fallacies of an Equal Rights Amendment-centric account of women’s activism in the 1950s. It contributes to the evidence of continuity and transition that has led historians to question the 'waves' theory of women’s movement history.

The full text is not available from SSRN.

Tobia, Slocum, and Nourse on Progressive Textualism @kevin_tobia @vicnourse @GeorgetownLJ

Kevin Tobia, Georgetown University Law Center; Georgetown University, Department of Philosophy, Brian G. Slocum, University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law, and Victoria Nourse, Georgetown University Law Center,are publishing Progressive Textualism in volume 110 of the Georgetown Law Journal. Here is the abstract.

Textualism is now the Court’s lingua franca. In response, some have proposed a “progressive textualism,” defined by the use of traditional textualist methods to reach politically progressive results. This Article explores a different kind of “progressive textualism.” Rather than starting with the desired policy outcome—politically progressive or conservative—we begin from one of modern textualism’s central values: A commitment to “democratic” interpretation. As Justice Barrett argues, this commitment views textualists as “agents of the people” who “approach language from the perspective of an ordinary English speaker.” Textualists thereby claim to promote democracy by interpreting law consistently with what it communicates to the ordinary public. However, recent empirical studies reveal discrepancies between textualist interpretive commitments and how ordinary people understand legal texts. These discrepancies undermine claims that textualists’ methodology is committed to democratic interpretation. A textualism centered on democratic interpretation would be methodologically more progressive if it centered facts rather than fictions about how ordinary people interpret language. It would recognize that people understand legal language in light of linguistic “(co)text” and “(con)text,” and sometimes nonliterally; they often understand ambiguous terms in law to have legal, not ordinary, meanings; and their understanding of law is informed by its apparent purpose and sometimes by interpretive rules that are conventionally justified on normative grounds. In contrast, current textualism is often methodologically regressive, crafting a fictional “ordinary person” more closely connected to ideological policy goals than facts about ordinary language comprehension.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Solum on The Public Meaning Thesis: An Originalist Theory of Constitutional Meaning @lsolum @BULawReview

Lawrence B. Solum, University of Virginia School of Law, has published The Public Meaning Thesis: An Originalist Theory of Constitutional Meaning at 101 Boston University Law Review 1953 (2021). Here is the abstract.

Public Meaning Originalism is the predominant form of constitutional originalism. What makes Public Meaning Originalism distinctive is the Public Meaning Thesis—the claim that the best understanding of constitutional meaning focuses on the meaning communicated by the constitutional text to the public at the time each constitutional provision was framed and ratified. This Article provides a precise formulation of the Public Meaning Thesis, supplies reasons for affirming the thesis, and answers objections. The constitutional record strongly supports the claim that the constitutional text was intended to communicate to the public. The Constitution begins with “We the People” and the ratification process included intense popular participation. Jurists and scholars emphasized the public nature of the Constitution. The communication of public meaning is made possible by two features of constitutional communication. The first of these features is a shared language: the drafters of the constitutional text could rely on the fact that American English was spoken by most Americans and was accessible via translation to those who spoke German and Dutch. The second feature is a shared public context of constitutional communication: the drafters could rely on widely shared understandings of the circumstances in which the Constitution was framed and ratified. These features enable the creation of public meaning. Common objections to the Public Meaning Thesis, including the “summing problem,” are based on mistaken assumptions about the way linguistic communication works. In sum, the central claim of the Article is that Public Meaning Originalism provides the best understanding of original meaning and hence the most attractive form of originalist constitutional theory.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Want More Jeremy Bentham? Check Out UCL Press's Website @UCLpress @TranscriBentham

UCL Press has a number of open-access titles on Jeremy Bentham available, including the Journal of Bentham Studies. Explore them here. 

ICYMI: Murray on The Legal Gaze and Women's Bodies @murrayyxta @LoyolaLawSchool @ColumbiaJGL

ICYMI: Yxta Maya Murray, Loyola Law School, has published 'We Just Looked at Them as Ordinary People Like We Were:' The Legal Gaze and Women's Bodies at 32 Columbia Journal of Gender and Law 252 (2017). Here is the abstract.

This article analyzes the struggles of two female musicians who were caught in the criminal justice system because they revealed their bodies. Using archival research and personal interviews, I tell the story of punk rocker Wendy O. Williams’ 1981-1984 obscenity and police brutality court battles. I also relay the life of Lorien Bourne, a disabled and lesbian rock-n-roller who was charged with disorderly conduct in Bowling Green, Ohio in 2006. I examine how legal actors, including courts and jurors, viewed Williams and Bourne using classed, ableist, sexist, and homophobic optics. In so doing, I extend my previous work on legal “gazes,” or what I have called the legal practice of “peering.” I end the article by looking to the women’s art and lives as correctives to oppressive manners of legal seeing.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Brazeal on The Politics of Crime Stories: Book Review of Andrew Pepper, Unwilling Executioner (OUP, 2016) @TheNewRambler @OxUniPress

Gregory Brazeal, University of South Dakota Law School, has published The Politics of Crime Stories in The New Rambler. Here is the abstract.

Book review of "Unwilling Executioner: Crime Fiction and the State," by Andrew Pepper. To what extent has popular crime fiction served to defamiliarize and critique the everyday injustices of criminal justice? "Unwilling Executioner" offers a wide-ranging global tour of the development of crime fiction over the last three centuries, with a focus on the political orientations of specific writers and works. But the book has relatively little to say about how crime fiction has responded to the changing politics and institutions of criminal justice. Instead, the book’s main interest is how various works of crime fiction express a tension between “Marxist” and “liberal” views of markets and the state. Literary scholarship would be well-equipped to contribute to our understanding of historical differences in the ideology of crime and punishment, in part because close attention to language and literary form can reveal subtleties, contradictions, ambiguities, and conflicting ways of thinking that sometimes receive too little attention in social scientific analyses. Can comparisons of U.S. and European crime fiction shed any light on why the culture of criminal justice in the United States has tended to be harsher than in Europe? Can the global development of crime fiction help us understand the apparently universal tendency to condemn subordinated groups as “criminals”?

Download the review from SSRN at the link.

The review is also available at The New Rambler website here. 

Jouet on A Lost Chapter in Death Penalty History: Furman v. Georgia, Albert Camus, and the Normative Challenge to Capital Punishment @MugambiJouet @AmJCrimL @LawMcGill

Mugambi Jouet, McGill Faculty of Law, is publishing A Lost Chapter in Death Penalty History: Furman v. Georgia, Albert Camus, and the Normative Challenge to Capital Punishment in the American Journal of Criminal Law. Here is the abstract.

Overlooked historical sources call into question the standard narrative that the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Furman v. Georgia (1972), which temporarily abolished the death penalty, reflected a challenge to its arbitrary, capricious, and discriminatory application. This Article examines materials that scholars have neglected, including the main brief in Aikens v. California, a companion case to Furman that presented the fundamental constitutional claim: the death penalty is inherently cruel and unusual. Aikens was largely forgotten to history after it became moot, leaving Furman as the main case before the Court. The Aikens brief’s humanistic claims and rhetoric are at odds with the widespread idea that Furman was a case about administrative or procedural problems with capital punishment. This is truer of the Furman decision itself than of the way the case was litigated. Depicting any execution as “barbarity,” as an “atavistic horror,” the Aikens brief marshaled an argument that has garnered much less traction in modern America than Europe: the death penalty is an affront to human dignity. Yet the transatlantic divergence in framing abolitionism was not always as pronounced as it came to be in Furman’s aftermath. Since the Enlightenment, American and European abolitionists had long emphasized normative arguments against capital punishment, thereby revealing why they played a central role in Aikens-Furman. Strikingly, the Aikens brief insistently quoted a European figure whose role in this seminal Supreme Court case has received no attention: Albert Camus. “Reflections on the Guillotine,” Camus’s denunciation of the death penalty’s inhumanity, is among the sources prominently featured in the Aikens-Furman briefs. The architect of this strategy was Anthony Amsterdam, a famed litigator. Subsequent generations of American abolitionists have placed less weight on humanistic objections to executions, instead stressing procedural and administrative claims. This shift has obscured how a lost chapter in death penalty history unfolded. These events are key to understanding the evolution of capital punishment, from its resurgence in the late twentieth century to its present decline as the number of executions nears record lows. On Furman’s fiftieth anniversary, the Article offers another window into the past as scholars anticipate a future constitutional challenge to the death penalty in one or two generations.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Munir on The Necessary Connections Between Law and Morality: Assessing the Hart-Fuller Debate

Muhammad Munir, International Islamic University, Islamabad, Department of Law, has published The Necessary Connections between Law and Morality: Assessing the Hart-Fuller Debate. Here is the abstract,

This work examines Hart’s argument that law and morality are totally separate from each other. It discusses Hart’s views on whether there are some necessary connections between law and morality; what is the minimum content of natural law for Hart? What is Hart’s methodology regarding the grudge Nazi informer case? Would Hart’s methodology regarding the grudge Nazi informer case make any difference as far as the outcome of the case is concerned? What are Lon Fuller’s eight conditions of inner morality? What are Fuller’s arguments in support of the view that law and morality are inseparable? How did Hart respond to Fuller’s eight conditions of inner morality? The main findings of this work are that Hart believes that the necessary connection between law and morality is that both have common terminology as well as content but it does not mean that morality has influenced law. Hart argues that any legal system must have the minimum content of natural law in order to be good. He invokes a moral principle to justify his methodology regarding the grudge Nazi informer case and to tell the naturalists that they are wrong. Fuller argues that there are eight conditions or principles of inner morality in making a law that must be satisfied by every legal system. He mentions that no compliance with any principle of inner morality means that there is no legal system, however, complete compliance may be difficult in practice. Hart’s rejection of Fuller’s position is absurd and unacceptable.

Download the paper from SSRN at the link.

Jeon on Legal Aid Without Lawyers: How Boston's Nonlawyers Delivered and Shaped Justice for the Poor, 1879-1921 @PovertyLaw_Jrnl @kelppsea @StanfordLaw

Kelsea A. Jeon, Stanford Law School, has published Legal Aid Without Lawyers: How Boston’s Nonlawyers Delivered and Shaped Justice for the Poor, 1879–1921 at 29 Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law and Policy 122 (2022). Here is the abstract.

Women nonlawyers were some of the first actors to provide organized legal aid to America’s poor. Yet, today, unauthorized practice of law statutes bar nonlawyers from providing legal help, citing concerns about malpractice and public harm. This Article uses a historical case study to challenge conceptions that nonlawyers cannot provide effective legal services to the people. The study focuses on the development of legal aid in Boston via two organizations, the nonlawyer-led Women’s Educational and Industrial Union and the lawyer-centric Boston Legal Aid Society. Although organized legal aid in Boston began with the nonlawyers at the Union, they were eventually overtaken by the lawyer-centric Legal Aid Society. This paper examines this transition in legal aid practitioners, emphasizing how nonlawyers provided effective legal help. In doing so, it challenges the modern-day conception that access to justice requires access to an attorney and serves as a powerful counter to claims that nonlawyer practitioners endanger the public.

Download the article from the journal's website at the link.

Robbins on Explaining Florida Man @AUWCL @fsulawreview

Ira P. Robbins, American University College of Law, is publishing Explaining Florida Man in the Florida State University Law Review. Here is the abstract.

“Florida Man” is a popular cultural phenomenon in which journalists report on Floridians’ unusual (and often criminal) behavior, and readers relish in and share the stories, largely on social media. A meme based on Florida Man news stories emerged in 2013 and continues to capture people’s attention nationwide. Florida Man is one of the latest unique trends to come from the Sunshine State and contributes to Florida’s reputation as a quirky place. Explanations for Florida Man center on Florida’s Public Records Law, which is known as one of the most expansive open records laws in the country. All states and the District of Columbia have open records laws that establish procedures for individuals to obtain access to public records in the spirit of government transparency. Because many Florida Man stories are based on arrest records and incident reports and incorporate mugshots, those who have written about Florida Man claim that the Florida Public Records Law, which allows reporters to access those records, is behind the trend. The problem with this theory is that it incorrectly implies that Florida’s Public Records Law offers journalists advantages in writing stories that other states’ laws do not. Despite the broad grant of access to police documents that Florida’s open records law provides, other states’ open records laws similarly provide the public with access to arrest records, incident reports, and, although to a lesser extent, mugshots. Other provisions of Florida’s Public Records Law that contribute to the ease of access to Florida’s public records compared with other states’ equivalent laws are largely irrelevant to Florida Man’s existence. Even coupled with the characteristics of Florida and its residents that many people claim are unique, the open records law-based theory for Florida Man’s existence falls short of explaining the phenomenon. This Article posits that the primary reasons for Florida Man’s popularity are preexisting popular culture trends and the venue in which Florida Man rose to fame: the internet. Internet platforms allow a wide audience—which may already have been receptive to jokes about Florida due to its reputation for being a newsworthy state—to easily consume, share, and re-share Florida Man content, inspiring journalists to continue to write Florida Man stories. This cycle of generation and consumption of Florida Man stories has allowed Florida Man to become one of the longest-living memes in internet history. While the Florida Public Records Law and characteristics of Florida and its people work together to provide raw material for Florida Man articles, the heretofore unmentioned popular culture and internet trend factors of the phenomenon complete the story behind Florida Man’s existence.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Palmer on The Legal History and Framework of the New Zealand Constitution

Sir Geoffrey Palmer, QC, Victoria University of Wellington Faculty of Law, has published The Legal History and Framework of the New Zealand Constitution as Victoria University of Wellington Legal Research Paper 30/2022. Here is the abstract.

A paper presented to the “Building the Constitution” conference, held on 7–8 April 2000. The paper provides an overview of New Zealand’s constitutional history and system. It notes that uncertainty surrounding New Zealand's constitution renders any assessment of its adequacy quite challenging. Nevertheless, it ends by posing a number of questions for reformers to consider.

Download the paper from SSRN at the link.

Levinson and Graber on Justice Accused at 45: Reflections on Robert Cover's Masterwork @TouroLawReview @UTexasLaw @mgraber_ @UMDLaw

Sanford Levinson, University of Texas Law School, and Mark Graber, University of Maryland School of Law, have published Justice Accused at 45: Reflections on Robert Cover's Masterwork at 37 Touro Law Review 1851 (2022). Here is the abstract.

We raise some questions about Robert Cover’s Justice Accused, not to criticize magnificent and audacious scholarship motivated by the most pressing moral concerns, but to consider the timeliness and timelessness of certain themes explored in that masterwork. Our concern is how the issues Cover raised when exploring the ways antislavery justices decided fugitive slave cases played out in the antebellum United States, played out in the United States when Cover was writing, and play out in the United States today. Cover’s opus was a work of the Great Society, even if the text discusses the American judiciary of more than a century before. The moral-formal dilemma faced by the justices Cover studied when adjudicating cases arising from the Fugitive Slave Acts of 1793 and 1850 was whether judicial decision-makers should interpret the law in light of the antislavery values of many northern constituencies or defer to laws that reflected the moral values of politicians eager to compromise on slavery to preserve a bisectional consensus. As times change, so does the moral-formal dilemma. The civil rights movement and, for many, the anti-War movement, at least as viewed from the academy in the 1960s, presented the moral-formal dilemma in pure form. Jim Crow laws were unjust. Young men were being drafted to fight an immoral war. Every respectable ethicist and every decent lawyer, at least as defined by the bulk of the academy, understood that morality and law were opposed. The sole question in the academy was whether laws widely agreed to be immoral should be respected and obeyed. One feature of much contemporary civil disobedience—consider illegal protests at abortion clinics or a public willingness to disobey state bans on abortion—is that the moral debate is marked by good faith disagreement on both sides. Pro-choice and pro-life activists in this environment face the same more-formal dilemma, as each decides the extent to which the Constitution reflects the values they cherish and the extent to which they have obligations to respect the Constitution or official decisions interpreting the Constitution that either fail to protect all women from exercising their fundamental right to reproductive choice or fail to prevent the wholesale slaughter of the unborn. Donald Trump and the contemporary Republican party may be providing Americans with a new variation on the moral-formal dilemma grappled with by nineteenth century justices in fugitive slave cases and twentieth century justices in civil rights cases. The moral-formal dilemma many Americans in institutions far remote from courts are facing is whether to follow the letter of the law and retain the basic structure of constitutional law in the United States even when following and maintaining the letter of the law threatens to warp the constitutional fabric, undermine the political regime, and risk an environmental catastrophe that could easily leave humans near extinction.

Download the article from the Touro Law Review website at the link.

Balkin on Constitutional Memories @jackbalkin @YaleLawSch

Jack M. Balkin, Yale University Law School, has published Constitutional Memories. Here is the abstract.

Many arguments in constitutional law invoke collective memory. Collective memory is what a group—for example, a religion, a profession, a people, or a nation— remembers and forgets about its past. This combination of remembering and forgetting helps constitute the group’s identity and structures its values and its commitments. Precisely because memory is selective, it may or may not correspond to the best account of historical facts. The use of memory in constitutional argument is constitutional memory. It shapes people’s views about what the law means and why people have authority. Lawyers and judges continually invoke and construct memory; judicial decisions both rely on constitutional memory and produce constitutional memory. What is remembered and what is erased has powerful normative effects. It shapes our understanding of who we are and how things came to be; what is traditional and what is an innovation; who has committed wrongs and who has been wronged; what we owe to others and what they owe to us. What is erased from memory, by contrast, can make no claims on us. Many of the most important forms of constitutional interpretation— arguments from precedent, arguments from tradition, and arguments from original meaning or understanding—involve an mixture of memory and erasure. They emphasize certain elements of the past while effacing others. Yet the selectivity and erasure of constitutional memory can have ideological effects, and can bestow on constitutional claims a legitimacy that they do not always deserve. The scope of constitutional memory matters to legitimacy because many features of constitutional legitimacy depend, whether directly or indirectly, on implicit notions of societal consensus, majority opinion, and the consent of the governed. But if the consensus is not real, if the majority is artificially constructed, and if the consent of the governed is not genuine, this undermines assumptions about legitimacy. At stake in constitutional memory is which historical figures and movements will count as makers of constitutional meaning for the present. If the memory of the adoption of the Constitution and its amendments features only a small group of white men as the central actors, the American constitutional tradition belongs to them and it is their views that matter. Women and racial minorities have constitutional rights only because these white men allowed them to have them. This is a false portrait of the country’s history. When we engage in constitutional construction therefore, we should embrace an expansive conception of collective constitutional memory, including the views and experiences of people left out of formal constitution-making, as well as the claims of social and political movements that have shaped our constitutional tradition. These can provide both positive and negative examples for the present. Not all of the lessons of constitutional memory are positive. Not everyone in the past was heroic, and even people and groups that we celebrate today had serious flaws and failings. Some of the lessons of constitutional memory are deeply ambivalent. But all can be grist for the mill of constitutional construction. When we implement and apply the Constitution in our own time, many different groups and many different people can be makers of constitutional meaning. What matters is what their ideas and experiences mean for the present, and whether they can serve as positive or negative examples for us today.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Forthcoming, June 2022: Jessica Silbey, Against Progress: Intellectual Property and Fundamental Values in the Information Age (2022) @JSilbey @stanfordpress @BU_Law

Forthcoming: Jessica Silbey, Professor of Law, Boston University, is publishing Against Progress: Intellectual Property and Fundamental Values in the Information Age (Stanford University Press, 2022). Here from the publisher's website is a description of the book's contents.

When first written into the Constitution, intellectual property aimed to facilitate "progress of science and the useful arts" by granting rights to authors and inventors. Today, when rapid technological evolution accompanies growing wealth inequality and political and social divisiveness, the constitutional goal of "progress" may pertain to more basic, human values, redirecting IP's emphasis to the commonweal instead of private interests. Against Progress considers contemporary debates about intellectual property law as concerning the relationship between the constitutional mandate of progress and fundamental values, such as equality, privacy, and distributive justice, that are increasingly challenged in today's internet age. Following a legal analysis of various intellectual property court cases, Jessica Silbey examines the experiences of everyday creators and innovators navigating ownership, sharing, and sustainability within the internet eco-system and current IP laws. Crucially, the book encourages refiguring the substance of "progress" and the function of intellectual property in terms that demonstrate the urgency of art and science to social justice today.

ICYMI: Jefferson on Hidden Women of History: Flos Greig, Australia's First Female Lawyer and Early Innovator @reneeknake

ICYMI: Renee (Newman) Knake Jefferson, University of Houston Law Center, has published Hidden Women of History: Flos Greig, Australia’s First Female Lawyer and Early Innovator at The Conversation (July 23, 2019). Here is the abstract.

When Grata Flos Matilda Greig walked into her first law school class at the University of Melbourne in 1897, it was illegal for women to become lawyers. But though the legal system did not even recognize her as a person, she won the right to practice and helped thousands of other women access justice. In defying the law, Greig literally changed its face. That she did so is a story worthy of history books. And how she achieved this offers key insights for women a century later as they navigate leadership roles in the legal profession and beyond. This short essay tells her overlooked story.

Download the essay from SSRN at the link. 

Schwartz on Gouverneur Morris, The Committee of Style, and the Federalist Constitution: A Commentary on Treanor's "Dishonest Scrivener" @WisconsinLaw

David S. Schwartz, University of Wisconsin Law School, is publishing Gouverneur Morris, The Committee of Style, and the Federalist Constitution: A Commentary on Treanor's 'Dishonest Scrivener' in volume 120 of the Michigan Law Review Online (2022). Here is the abstract.

Dean William Treanor's masterful article, The Case of the Dishonest Scrivener: Gouverneur Morris and the Creation of the Federalist Constitution, makes a major contribution to scholarship on the founding. He uncovers a body of constitutional interpretations favored by advocates of a strong national government and emphasized by the Federalist party in the early decades of politics and policy under the Constitution, raising significant questions about present-day originalism in the process. Treanor particularly emphasizes how Constitutional Convention delegate Gouverneur Morris, acting as primary draftsman on the 'Committee of Style' which put the finishing touches on the draft 'Constitution' crafted language favorable to Federalist interpretations. But Treanor disserves his otherwise compelling argument with a narrative that portrays Morris as a 'dishonest scrivener' who 'smuggled in' substantive revisions to impose his own views, presumably against the will of an inattentive Convention majority. This narrative framing 'not sustained by the available evidence' digresses from Treanor's core argument, and works against it. A better interpretation of the historical evidence is that the Committee of Style draft had broad support and made no substantive revisions that escaped the notice of the Convention. The fifteen revisions by the Committee of Style cited by Treanor do not support the charge of 'dishonest scrivening'. Ultimately, we can dismiss the 'dishonest scrivener' narrative, while recognizing Treanor's valuable, core insights that Morris was a key player at the Convention and that the Committee of Style reinforced Federalist understandings of the original Constitution.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Grajzl and Murrell on Families and Inheritance: Law and Development in Pre-Industrial England

Peter Grajzl, Washington and Lee University, Department of Economics; CESifo, and Peter Murrell, University of Maryland, Department of Economics, have published Of Families and Inheritance: Law and Development in Pre-Industrial England. Here is the abstract.

We examine how pre-industrial English caselaw development on land, inheritance, and families affected, and was affected by, economic and demographic outcomes. Our yearly measures of caselaw development are derived from existing topic-model estimates that reflect a comprehensive corpus of reports on pre-1765 court cases. We estimate a structural VAR model using these caselaw time-series in combination with measures of real per-capita income and vital rates. Pre-industrial caselaw development profoundly shaped economic development. Strikingly, the areas of caselaw that stimulated real-income growth are on families and inheritance, not land. Caselaw on families and inheritance was especially important as a driver of real income and birth rates after 1710. Caselaw developments were spurred primarily by changes in real income, not by changes in vital rates. Incorporation of endogenous caselaw development leaves intact the findings of the existing literature that examines pre-industrial economic-demographic interactions. However, our findings do imply that any Malthusian trap that was present in pre-industrial England was made less severe as a result of developments in caselaw on families and inheritance.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Gribnau and Hughes on The Enlightenment and Influence of Social Contract Theory on Taxation @HGribnau @TilburgLaw @UniofNottingham

Hans Gribnau, Tilburg Law School; Leiden University, and Jane Frecknall Hughes, University of Nottingham, have published The Enlightenment and Influence of Social Contract Theory on Taxation. Here is the abstract.

This paper considers some of the most important political philosophers of the Enlightenment (taken as broad concept) – thinkers whose reflections on the idea of a social contract we relate to their views on taxation. Hobbes argues for an (almost) absolute political sovereignty and legal authority and corresponding obedience of citizens constituted by the social contract. For Hobbes, taxes are justified as the price of security. He advocates the benefit theory of taxation, best measured by consumption. The same goes for Locke, although for him the social contract serves to guarantee the individual’s property rights which embody his liberty. Taxes are the price of the protection of the right to property. Both Montesquieu and Hume do not have need for a social contract: man living in societies is a fact of life. Their focus is on legitimate government rather than sovereignty and obedience. Hume inherently adheres to the benefit theory of taxation as paying tax is contributing to society on which one depends to survive. Montesquieu is a proponent of indirect taxation, though he considers progressive taxation and a subsistence minimum which must not to be taxed. For him, tax fairness is a contextual affair, since taxation should be relative to a given form of government. Rousseau radicalises the notion of the social contract which is a device to protect an equal freedom for all. He transposes the emerging new ideal of equality to taxation which not only is to enable government to protect its citizens, but also to consider their subsistence. Taxes should enhance liberty and equality (distributive justice). Thus, progressive taxation based on the ability to pay is put on the agenda. Rousseau’s popular sovereignty was self-evident for Paine, the Federalists and Anti-Federalists alike. Paine argued for a more radical redistribution as taxes should pay for welfare provision which was part of his proposals for reform. Both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists elaborated on Montesquieu’s plea for the separation and distribution of powers, but unlike in Montesquieu, their take focus was on multi-level governance. Like the other theorists, they approached taxation from their political-philosophical perspective.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Twenty Minutes with the Devil at The Street, Canberra, June 17-25, 2022 @luisenantipoda

From Thom Giddens, University of Dundee, via the Law and CUlture mailing list, on behalf of Desmond Manderson:

Yes, after no less than three lockdown delays over the past two years, Twenty Minutes with the Devil is finally on. Fri 17 – Sat 25 June, at The Street, Canberra’s home of professional theatre.  Book now if you haven’t already done so – and pass the word on to your students, your colleagues, and your friends!

 

Des

 

 

Twenty Minutes with the Devil is a black comedy, a high-octane thriller, and non-stop entertainment. It is based on real life events surrounding the capture of Mexico’s most notorious narco in 2016. But beneath the headlines, the play probes deeper questions. It brings together the life work of its two authors, well-known legal scholars and teachers Luis Gómez Romero and Desmond Manderson. What does law and justice matter when they seem so very far apart?

 

Two lowly cops and a narco think they have all the answers. Angela believes that if you follow the law, justice will look after itself. Romulo knows better, but the hide of a cynic often conceals a revolutionary heart. El Ticho doesn’t care about justice but he treats the law as a plaything he can twist to his own advantage. Now they’re trapped in a love hotel in the middle of the desert. The army and the cartels are descending and no one knows who will live to tell the tale. The pressure of the ticking clock and the impending storm of violence forces all three to confront what they think matters in the world and what they are prepared to do – to survive.

 

The play is set against the terrible drug wars which have led to the brutal deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in Mexico alone, and destroyed its legal system, its police, its society. But drugs are just a symptom. All over the world, the gap between law and justice seems to yawn wider than ever.

 

Rómulo: Drug’s just the excuse, man, ‘coz the real drug is money. I never met anyone who had enough of it – and millions’d kill for it in a heartbeat. Money buys you violence — violence gets you money. It don’t come cheap. It costs. Know what? Reckon it’ll cost more and more and more and to hell with the rest of us.

 

Climate change, inequality, politics failing and governments giving up. These emergencies effect all of us. Mostly, we look the other way and try to get on with their lives. But our three characters do not have that luxury. It’s now or never. They are in lockdown. And as we all know, there’s nothing like a lockdown to concentrate the mind. Is justice part of the solution? Is law part of the problem? These are urgent questions, and time is running out.

 

El Ticho: Any minute, my men are going to come storming through that door. They’re not going to knock – room service. You think you can stop them? You and that flightless hairy-winged angel of the lord?

 

 

Newly published: Marcy J. Dinius, The Textual Effects of David Walker's "Appeal": Print-Based Activism Against Slavery, Racism, and Discrimination, 1829-1851 (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2022) @PennPress

Newly published: Marcy J. Dinius, The Textual Effects of David Walker's "Appeal": Print-Based Activism Against Slavery, Racism, and Discrimination, 1829-1851 (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2022). Here from the publisher's website is a description of the book's content.

Historians and literary historians alike recognize David Walker's Appeal to the Coloured Citizens of the World (1829-1830) as one of the most politically radical and consequential antislavery texts ever published, yet the pamphlet's significant impact on North American nineteenth-century print-based activism has gone under-examined. In The Textual Effects of David Walker's "Appeal" Marcy J. Dinius offers the first in-depth analysis of Walker's argumentatively and typographically radical pamphlet and its direct influence on five Black and Indigenous activist authors, Maria W. Stewart, William Apess, William Paul Quinn, Henry Highland Garnet, and Paola Brown, and the pamphlets that they wrote and published in the United States and Canada between 1831 and 1851. She also examines how Walker's Appeal exerted a powerful and lasting influence on William Lloyd Garrison's Liberator and other publications by White antislavery activists. Dinius contends that scholars have neglected the positive, transnational, and transformative effects of Walker's Appeal on print-based political activism and literary and book history—that is, its primarily textual effects—due to an enduringly narrow focus on the violence that the pamphlet may have occasioned. She offers as an alternative a broadened view of activism and resistance that centers the works of Walker, Stewart, Apess, Quinn, Garnet, and Brown within an exploration of radical forms of authorship, publication, civic participation, and resistance. In doing so, she has written a major contribution to African American literary studies and the history of the book in antebellum America.

Eyer on Disentangling Textualism and Originalism @katie_eyer @RutgersLaw

Katie R. Eyer, Rutgers University Law School, has published Disentangling Textualism and Originalism. Here is the abstract.

Textualism and originalism are not the same interpretive theory. Textualism commands adherence to the text. Originalism, in contrast, commands adherence to history. It should be self-evident that these are not—put simply—the same thing. While textualism and originalism may in some circumstances be harnessed to work in tandem—or may in some circumstances lead to the same result—they are different inquiries, and command fidelity to different ultimate guiding principles. Why should this common-sense observation warrant academic commentary? Because both textualists and originalists—and even those who eschew such methodologies—are surprisingly inclined to conflate the two. Indeed, it is common (though not universal) today for textualists/originalists to treat textualism and originalism as a single inseparable package (adjudicated under the moniker of “original public meaning”), and to decline to rigorously delineate them in both theorizing and analysis. In this Essay, I argue that disentangling textualism and originalism is critical to the future vibrancy and legitimacy of textualism as an interpretive methodology. When conflated with originalism, textualism holds almost endless opportunities for partisan manipulation of precisely the kind that textualism’s critics have decried. Moreover, many types of originalist inquiry can lead judges to results inconsistent with text—and thus textualism. In short, for an adjudicator to have genuine fidelity to any interpretive theory, it is critical for the adjudicator to know to which theory, in cases of conflict, the adjudicator ultimately subscribes.

Download the essay from SSRN at the link.

Lloyd on Balancing Freedom and Restraint: The Role of Virtue in Legal Analysis @LloydEsq @WFULawSchool

Harold Anthony Lloyd, Wake Forest University School of Law, has published Balancing Freedom and Restraint: The Role of Virtue in Legal Analysis. Here is the abstract.

Even if one sees the law as “a self-contained system of legal reasoning” from which we deduce “neutral,” non-political conclusions from “general principles and analogies among cases and doctrines” (including formalist claims that judges simply call “balls and strikes” like umpires in a baseball game), one should still consider certain characteristics of the party making such deductions or calling such “balls and strikes.” [Relevant citations to quoted language are in the Article.] If such decision maker has questionable motivations, lacks proper perspective, does not grasp the flexibility in the concepts in play, does not grasp the restraints on concepts in play, does not follow the proper processes involved, and lacks the detail, courage, and tenacity needed to reach the proper “deduction” or “call,” on the face of things the formalist, too, should have reason to re-examine any “deduction” or “call” by such party. Thus, even the formalist should not deny the critical role of virtue when examining legal analysis, a role belying the notion of law as a "self-contained system of legal reasoning." This Article thus explores basic freedoms and restraints applicable to legal analysis and the role that virtue plays in balancing such freedoms and restraints. Such exploration covers: (i) the origin, nature, and purpose of concepts and categories used in legal analysis; (ii) the experiential nature of the meaning of such concepts and categories used in legal analysis; (iii) the freedoms and restraints applicable to such concepts and categories as a result of either experience or of the concepts or categories themselves; (iv) how workable notions of virtue rightly balance such freedoms and restraints in legal analysis; (v) the distinction between such virtue and skill; (vi) reconceiving the analytically virtuous mean as a proper balance between such applicable freedoms and restraints; and (vii) defining and surveying the particular virtues that lead us to such proper balance and thus to good legal analysis. My hope is that lawyers and law schools in their curricula will follow such explorations as well in a quest to better understand legal analysis and how to teach and perform it well.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Heyman on Transforming Natural Religion: An Essay on Religious Liberty and the Constitution @SteveHeyman6 @BYULRev @ChicagoKentLaw

Steven J. Heyman, Chicago-Kent College of Law, is publishing Transforming Natural Religion: An Essay on Religious Liberty and the Constitution in volume 48 of the Brigham Young University Law Review (2023). Here is the abstract.

Recent Supreme Court decisions such as Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia raise the fundamental question of what place religion and religious liberty should hold within a liberal constitutional order that is based on a commitment to the freedom, equality, and well-being of all persons. To explore this question, it is natural to begin with an inquiry into what founding-era Americans thought when they incorporated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment into the constitutional order they were creating. Contrary to the views taken by many judges and scholars, the Clause’s ideological background is best understood not in terms of either Enlightenment secularism or Christian Evangelicalism, but rather in terms of what the eighteenth century called natural religion. That view held that human beings were capable of using reason to discern the most basic principles of religion: that the world was created by God, that people ought to worship him, and that he has given them a law of nature that establishes their basic rights and duties in relation to one another. One of the most important rights was religious liberty: because religion was rooted in reason, individuals had a natural and inalienable right to form their own beliefs and to live and worship in accord with them. At the same time, that right was bounded by a duty to respect the inherent rights of other individuals as well as the legitimate authority of the state. In many ways, the eighteenth-century view was a humanistic one. At its core was a recognition of the inherent worth of human beings. This view held that individuals must be free to use their own minds in pursuit of truth, rather than having beliefs imposed upon them by religious or political authority. And it held that people with diverse beliefs were capable of living together in an open, self-governing society based on mutual acceptance and respect. These principles continue to be central to any adequate understanding of the Free Exercise Clause. Of course, we no longer live in the same intellectual world as the founders. In the wake of Darwinian evolutionary theory and other modern scientific developments, it is no longer widely accepted that reason alone can establish the existence of God or natural law. The question then arises whether it is possible to recast the eighteenth-century view in a way that retains its virtues without depending on controversial theological ideas or improperly favoring religious believers over others. In this Article, I begin to develop such a view, which I call liberal humanism. Like the classical theory, this view stresses the ideals of human freedom, equality, and dignity that informed the adoption of the First Amendment. But it seeks to broaden the classical theory in a way that reflects our contemporary understanding of those ideals. The Article begins by summarizing the classical view and showing how it was used by Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and a broad coalition of groups as a rationale for protecting religious freedom, first at the state and then at the federal level. Next, I discuss how the idea of natural religion can be transformed by moving away from the eighteenth century’s ontological approach (an approach that held that reason could demonstrate the existence of God as well as the moral implications that flowed from it) and toward a more phenomenological view of religion, which focuses on the ways that human beings search for meaning and value in the world. People experience meaning and value in all areas of life, and they integrate those experiences into more comprehensive conceptions of the world and of their place within it. Some of these worldviews are religious ones which find ultimate meaning in a transcendent realm, while others are secular ones which find such meaning within this world. Both kinds of worldviews can be reasonable, and so both are entitled to respect. For these reasons, the Constitution should be interpreted to protect not only religious freedom but also a comparable right to form and live in accord with secular beliefs. Next, I show that just as the eighteenth-century view provided an account of natural rights, liberal humanism can provide an account of fundamental rights within our modern constitutional order. I then discuss the light that the liberal humanist view can shed on two important issues in contemporary free exercise jurisprudence: whether individuals are entitled to exemptions from laws that conflict with their conscientious beliefs, and if so, whether those exemptions may be granted only to those who hold religious rather than secular beliefs. The Article concludes with some brief reflections on how this approach can enable the secular and religious forces in our cultural battles to find some common ground.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Dane on Robert Cover and Legal Pluralism--Redux @perrydane @RutgersLaw

Perry Dane, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Rutgers Law School, has published Robert Cover and Legal Pluralism - Redux. Here is the abstract.

This short essay meditates on and reconsiders Robert Cover’s distinct vision of legal pluralism in the light of today’s political and legal environment. In a 2013 talk, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3302988, I discussed three dimensions of Cover’s legal pluralism: its centering of narrative, its frank focus on state violence and non-state resistance in the encounter of legal orders, and its important insight that non-state communities could articulate and defend their own distinct accounts of the state’s legal order. Each of these ideas looks different today than it did even a few years ago. The narrative of the moment is a specific form of polarization that threatens to hollow out whatever nomos comes within its expanding orbit. The state today is no longer just an imperial ruler asserting its will over smaller scale, paedeic communities, but an increasingly fragile legal order that has become deeply vulnerable to a jurispathy from below. And the scholarly effort to chart the complex dynamics of legal encounter can verge on looking precious in the light of our current brokenness. Nevertheless, it remains vital to take up Robert Cover’s challenge and continue to try to search for an account of nomos and narrative that can make sense of both richly thick communities and atavistic teams, of both imperial states and fragile polities.

Download the essay from SSRN at the link.