Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-mwx4w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-28T00:03:25.827Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Deaths Greatly Exaggerated

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2010

Risa L. Goluboff
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1940, in the inaugural issue of its Bill of Rights Review, the American Bar Association's Bill of Rights Committee expressed its conviction “that a distinct field of law—that of civil rights—[was] emerging.” From the standpoint of lawyers, judges, and scholars looking forward from that moment, the contours of the new field were largely unknown. In large part, that uncertainty was due to the Supreme Court's dismantling of the dominant doctrinal framework governing the relationship between individuals and the state in the 1930s.

Type
Forum: Comment
Information
Law and History Review , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , Spring 2006 , pp. 201 - 208
Copyright
Copyright © the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. “Civil Liberties—A Field of Law,” Bill of Rights Review 1 (1940): 7–8, 7.Google Scholar

2. 198 U.S. 45 (1905).

3. 291 U.S. 502 (1934).

4. Cushman, Robert E., “Constitutional Law in 1938–1939: The Constitutional Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in the October Term, 1938,” American Political Science Review 34 (April 1940): 249–83, 249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5. Henretta, James, “Charles Evans Hughes and the Strange Death of Liberal America,” Law and History Review 24 (2005): 170.Google Scholar

6. 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

7. 304 U.S. 144, 152 n. 4 (1938).

8. Lusky, Louis, “Footnote Redux: A Carolene Products Reminiscence,” Columbia Law Review 82 (Oct. 1982): 1093–1109, 1098 (internal quotation marks omitted).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9. Hutchins, Robert M., “Foreword” to Political and Civil Rights in the United States, ed. Emerson, Thomas I. and Haber, David (Buffalo: Dennis and Co., 1952), iii.Google Scholar

10. Hamilton v. City of Montrose, 124 P.2d 757, 759 (Colo. 1942).

11. “New Attacks Upon Liberties,” Social Action 2 (January 10, 1936), 19Google Scholar, quoted inAuerbach, Jerold S., Labor and Liberty: The LaFollette Committee and the New Deal (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1966), 75Google Scholar.

12. Smith, Edwin S., “The Current Attack on Our Civil Liberties,” Lawyers Guild Review 1, no. 4 (June 1941), 5–10, 5.Google Scholar

13. Hearings on National Labor Relations Act and Proposed Amendments: Before the S. Comm. on Educ. and Labor, 76 Cong. 17 (1939) (statement of Senator Robert F. Wagner), quoted inThe Wagner Act: After Ten Years (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of National Affairs, 1945), ed. Silverberg, Louis G., 31Google Scholar.

14. 301 U.S. (1937), 34–35.

15. Quoted inBowman, D. O., Public Control of Labor Relations (New York: Macmillan, 1942), 445Google Scholar.

16. Quoted inAuerbach, , Labor and Liberty, 212Google Scholar.

17. Quoted in PercivalBailey, Roberts, “Progressive Lawyers: A History of the National Lawyers Guild, 1936–1958” (Ph.D. diss., Rutgers, 1979), 112Google Scholar.

18. Corwin, Edward S., The Constitution and What It Means Today (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1941), 169.Google Scholar

19. Ibid., 200.

20. Smith, T. V., “Political Liberty Today: Is It Being Restricted by Economic Regulation?” American Political Science Review 31 (April 1937): 243–52, 249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21. Jackson, Robert H., “The Call for a Liberal Bar,” reprinted in The National Lawyers Guild: From Roosevelt through Reagan, ed. Ginger, Ann Fagan and Tobin, Eugene M. (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1988), 23–24.Google Scholar

22. Tussman, Joseph and tenBroek, Jacobus, “The Equal Protection of the Laws,” California Law Review 37 (Sept. 1949): 341–81, 380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar