Search results

Free speech is an essential component to the operation of a representative government committed to equal rights and the general welfare of the people. The constitutional right to engage in open expression is designed to secure personal dignity, civic engagement, and flow of information. No generation of interpreters can claim to capture its full relevance to social cohesion. The broad statement found in the Constitution has long been the subject of evolving, sometimes inconsistent, constitutional meaning. Since the early twentieth century, the Supreme Court has been at the forefront of efforts to articulate the range of words, symbols, arts, and other objects or activities that the First Amendment protects. Interpretation takes into account a variety of constitutional contexts, principles, and discursive considerations. As Justice Sotomayor pointed in her dissent to Manhattan Community Access Corporation v. Halleck, the context within which a statement is said should be considered along with the actual words allegedly in violation of a law

Despite America's commitment to civil rights from the earliest days of nationhood, examples of injustices against minorities stain many pages of U.S. history. The battle for racial, ethnic, and gender fairness remains unfinished. This comprehensive book t

Despite America's commitment to civil rights from the earliest days of nationhood, examples of injustices against minorities stain many pages of U.S. history. The battle for racial, ethnic, and gender fairness remains unfinished. This comprehensive book t.

In this narrative history and contextual analysis of the Thirteenth Amendment, slavery and freedom take center stage. Alexander Tsesis demonstrates how entrenched slavery was in pre-Civil War America, how central it was to the political events that resulted in the Civil War, and how it was the driving force that led to the adoption of an amendment that ultimately provided a substantive assurance of freedom for all American citizens. The story of how Supreme Court justices have interpreted the Thirteenth Amendment, first through racist lenses after Reconstruction and later influenced by the mod

Destructive Messages argues that hate speech is dangerous not only when it poses an immediate threat of harm. It is also dangerous when it is systematically developed over time, becoming part of a culturally acceptable dialogue which can foster the persecution of minorities.Tsesis traces a causal link between racist and biased rhetoric and injustices like genocide and slavery. He shows that hate speech and propaganda, when left unregulated, can weave animosity into the social fabric to such a great extent that it can cultivate an environment supportive of the commission of hate crimes. Tsesis uses historical examples to illuminate the central role racist speech played in encouraging attitudes that led to human rights violations against German Jews, Native Americans, and African Americans, and also discusses the dangers posed by hate speech spread on the Internet today. He also offers an examination of the psychology of scapegoating.Destructive Messages argues that when hate speech is systematically developed over time it poses an even greater threat than when it creates an immediate clear and present danger. Tsesis offers concrete suggestions concerning how to reform current law in order to protect the rights of all citizens

This Article systematically analyzes the delicate balance of congressional and judicial authority granted by the Reconstruction Amendments. The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments vest Congress with powers to enforce civil rights, equal treatment, and civic participation. Their reach extends significantly beyond the Rehnquist and Roberts Courts' narrow construction of congressional authority. In recent years, the Court has struck down laws that helped secure voter rights, protect religious liberties, and punish age or disability discrimination. Those holdings encroach on the amendments' allocated powers of enforcement. Textual, structural, historical, and normative analyses provide profound insights into the appropriate roles of the Supreme Court and Congress in achieving aspirations of the Second Founding. The framework that emerges requires the judiciary to defer to legitimate legislative functions in enforcing racial equality, dignitary justice, and access to the ballot box. Congress's discretion extends to safeguards for fundamental rights, civil liberties, and political representation. Rational basis review is appropriate when Congress advances autonomy, equality, and franchise. However, when courts safeguard equal enjoyment of fundamental rights against legislative encroachments, those three amendments require heightened judicial scrutiny of adverse state actions.

This Article systematically analyzes the delicate balance of congressional and judicial authority granted by the Reconstruction Amendments. The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments vest Congress with powers to enforce civil rights, equal treatment, and civic participation. Their reach extends significantly beyond the Rehnquist and Roberts Courts' narrow construction of congressional authority. In recent years, the Court has struck down laws that helped secure voter rights, protect religious liberties, and punish age or disability discrimination. Those holdings encroach on the amendments' allocated powers of enforcement. Textual, structural, historical, and normative analyses provide profound insights into the appropriate roles of the Supreme Court and Congress in achieving aspirations of the Second Founding. The framework that emerges requires the judiciary to defer to legitimate legislative functions in enforcing racial equality, dignitary justice, and access to the ballot box. Congress's discretion extends to safeguards for fundamental rights, civil liberties, and political representation. Rational basis review is appropriate when Congress advances autonomy, equality, and franchise. However, when courts safeguard equal enjoyment of fundamental rights against legislative encroachments, those three amendments require heightened judicial scrutiny of adverse state actions.

This Article develops a Thirteenth Amendment theory supporting the removal of Confederate symbols from government properties. It argues that such monuments to the Lost Cause are badges of slavery that should have no place in public squares. The Article discusses how white supremacist groups, such as those who participated in the 2017 Unite the Right March in Charlottesville, effectively draw together around monuments honoring leaders and soldiers who fought for the cause of slavery. Relying on the Thirteenth Amendment's principles of freedom, States and municipalities can and should eliminate those monuments from their properties. Such policy initiatives communicate the government's disapproval of secession's racist premises and advance the nation's commitment to equal liberty untainted by the Confederacy's peculiar institution.

The United States was born of a normative and political aspiration asserted in its declaration of independence. The document did not simply contain a list of reasons for ending colonialization, but established equality as key ideal which remained imbedded in the nation's ethos and is central for the U.S. representative democracy. Despite the normative statements of human rights, the status of the United States was deeply tainted because the framers of the Constitution retained protections for the institution of slavery. But many other legal and cultural anomalies also existed from the inception of nationhood, including the subjugation of women and the retention of propertied privileges as qualifications for voting and obtaining political offices. Amendments that were made to the Constitution after the Civil War (1861-1865) significantly advanced the rule of law but simultaneously required greater sincerity in abiding to the founding testament. Reconstruction in the United States was achieved through amendment of the original Constitution rather than the enactment of a new document. The ratification of the three new legal instruments, known as the Reconstruction Amendments, codified the Declaration's statement of rights and equality. Liberty alone was no answer to the problem of slavery. The post-Civil War amendments also prohibited the unequal treatment of persons and created new guarantees of the franchise. The judiciary, which was responsible for interpreting the new constitutional provisions, showed itself to be a conservative institution that reined in reconstruction and thereby diminished the effect of the new guarantees of equality. ; Os Estados Unidos nasceram de uma aspiração normativa e política afirmada em sua declaração de independência. O documento não continha apenas uma lista de razões para acabar com a colonialização, mas estabeleceu a igualdade como ideal fundamental, que permaneceu incorporado ao ethos da nação e é central para a democracia representativa americana. Apesar das declarações normativas de direitos humanos, o status dos Estados Unidos foi profundamente manchado porque os autores da Constituição mantiveram proteções ao instituto da escravidão. Mas muitas outras anomalias legais e culturais também existiram desde o início da nação, incluindo a subjugação das mulheres e a retenção de privilégios apropriados como qualificação para votar e obter cargos políticos. As emendas feitas à Constituição após a Guerra Civil (1861-1865) avançaram significativamente o estado de direito, mas simultaneamente exigiram maior sinceridade ao cumprir o testamento fundador. A reconstrução nos Estados Unidos foi alcançada por meio de emenda da Constituição original, em vez de promulgação de um novo documento. A ratificação dos três novos instrumentos legais, conhecidos como Emendas da Reconstrução, codificou a declaração de direitos e igualdade da Declaração. Só a liberdade não era resposta para o problema da escravidão. As emendas pós-Guerra Civil também proibiram o tratamento desigual de pessoas e criaram novas garantias quanto ao direito de voto. O judiciário, responsável por interpretar as novas disposições constitucionais, mostrou-se uma instituição conservadora que controlou a reconstrução e, com isso, diminuiu o efeito das novas garantias de igualdade.