Browse: Home / supreme court
By krisnelson on Feb 20, 2012 in constitution / history / law
When the United States Constitution bound the states together in 1789, the common law (in sense #2) – inherited largely from England – was slowly but inexorably being replaced by statutory laws that often, but not always, codified earlier practices.
Posted in constitution, history, law | Tagged civil law, common law, constitution, Federal common law, federal courts, Legal history, supreme court, United States |
By krisnelson on Feb 19, 2012 in constitution / government / history / law
Before the Civil War, the states and the federal government were locked in an uneasy balance of power. The federal constitution listed certain areas (treaties, post offices, patents, interstate commerce, constitutional interpretation, and more) where federal supremacy was clear (via Article VI, Clause 2), but other areas defaulted to the states (made explicit by the 10th Amendment).
Posted in constitution, government, history, law | Tagged American Civil War, Andrew Jackson, constitution, Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, government, law, supreme court |
By krisnelson on Dec 9, 2011 in constitution / history / law / privacy
Ben Bratman’s 2002 law review article, “Brandeis & Warren’s ‘The Right to Privacy and the Birth of the Right to Privacy’” discusses the background of this issue in light of “the considerable focus that Brandeis and Warren placed on the print media and its alleged violations of privacy.”
Posted in constitution, history, law, privacy | Tagged freedom of speech, law, liberty, Louis Brandeis, privacy, Samuel Warren, supreme court |
By krisnelson on Dec 8, 2011 in constitution / law / science studies
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Posted in constitution, law, science studies | Tagged Bill of Rights, constitution, First Amendment, freedom of speech, law, religion, supreme court |
By krisnelson on Oct 27, 2011 in constitution / copyright / government / history / law / privacy
This post is about Eugene Volokh’s article on free speech and privacy in relation to Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis’s 1890 law review article, “The Right to Privacy.” This highly influential piece advocated for “the fundamental right to be let alone.” But is it impossible to reconcile such a right with an equally compelling right to free speech?
Posted in constitution, copyright, government, history, law, privacy | Tagged Antonin Scalia, constitution, copyright, Eugene Volokh, First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, free speech, law, Louis Brandeis, privacy, Samuel D. Warren, supreme court |
By krisnelson on Oct 22, 2011 in constitution / government / history / law / privacy / technology
Balancing strong First Amendment (“free speech”) speech protections with the desire to protect the delicate sensibilities of America’s youth is always a complex task. Two seminal Supreme Court cases – Cohen v. California and FCC v. Pacifica Foundation – illustrate the struggle the Court has had to find the right path.
Posted in constitution, government, history, law, privacy, technology | Tagged constitution, FCC, First Amendment, free speech, george carlin, privacy, supreme court |
By krisnelson on Oct 16, 2011 in government / law
Antonin Scalia, current Supreme Court justice and originalist extraordinaire, wrote “Common-Law Courts in a Civil Law System” as a part of A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law. In it explains his approach to legal reasoning and especially to Constitutional interpretation, and especially rejects both legislative history and the so-called “living Constitution” of liberal justices like Stephen Breyer.
Posted in government, law | Tagged Antonin Scalia, constitution, courts, law, liberty, originalism, supreme court |
By krisnelson on Apr 12, 2011 in constitution / government / history / law / privacy / search and seizure
The “mere evidence” rule, forbidding searches for documents that were themselves not “instrumentalities” crimes (or contraband themselves) lasted well into the twentieth century before being abandoned. So why were telegrams never explicitly covered by the rule?
Posted in constitution, government, history, law, privacy, search and seizure | Tagged Boyd v. United States, constitution, Fourth Amendment, law, privacy, search and seizure, supreme court, telegraph |