Teaching and research around whiteness often overlap with research on post-colonial theory and orientalism taking place in the Arts and Humanities, Sociology, Literature, Communications, and Cultural and Media Studies faculties and departments, among others e. Also heavily engaged in whiteness studies are practitioners of anti-racist educationsuch as Betita Martinez and the Challenging White Supremacy workshop. The book examines white social beliefs and white anxiety in the contemporary United States—in the context of enormous demographic, cultural, and social change.
Judicial Interpretations of Commerce, C. The Meaning of "among the several States" 1. The original meaning of "among the states" independently limits the federal commerce power 3. Commerce "concerning more than one state" is too broad a construction of the original meaning of "among the several States.
The Meaning of "To regulate" 1. The power to regulate does not generally include the power to prohibit 2. The power "to regulate" might sometimes include the power "to prohibit. Supreme Court, in recent cases, has attempted to define limits on the Congress's power to regulate commerce among the several states.
While Justice Thomas has maintained that the original meaning of "commerce" was limited to the "trade and exchange" of goods and transportation for this purpose, some have argued that he is mistaken and that "commerce" originally included Critical analysis of frederick douglass "gainful activity.
In every appearance where the context suggests a specific usage, the narrow meaning is always employed.
Moreover, originalist evidence of the meaning of "among the several States" and "To regulate" also supports a narrow reading of the Commerce Clause.
In United States v Lopez 1for the first time in sixty years, the Supreme Court of the United States held a statute to be unconstitutional because it exceeded the powers of Congress under the Commerce Clause 2.
In his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas offered a critique of contemporary Commerce Clause doctrine--based on the original meaning of the clause--that went well beyond the majority opinion. According to Justice Thomas, "at the time the original Constitution was ratified, 'commerce' consisted of selling, buying, and bartering, as well as transporting for these purposes.
In cases such as United States v E. Knight Co 8the Court distinguished "commerce" from manufacturing or agriculture, and held that the regulation of either manufacturing or agriculture exceeded the powers of Congress under the clause 9. Referring to "what legal historians with proper derision call 'law office history,'" Judge Richard Posner cited Justice Thomas's concurrence as an example of "highly debatable historical excursus by originalist judges.
Justice Thomas's conception of the original meaning of the Commerce Clause has also been challenged in a lengthy article by Professors Grant Nelson and Robert Pushaw, Jr. They examine "the original meaning, intent, and understanding" 12 of the Commerce Clause and reach the conclusion that commerce originally referred to any "gainful activity.
In their article, Nelson and Pushaw rely "heavily" 14 upon the two earlier works of scholarship that had challenged the Progressive Era Court's limited conception of commerce: Though recognizing the many well-documented deficiencies in Crosskey's work, they state their agreement "with those scholars who have found Crosskey's evidence persuasive in establishing the meaning of 'commerce,' but not his other claims such as the supposed creation of a national government with complete legislative authority.
While I agree with much in Nelson and Pushaw's nuanced article 26I will present evidence here that strongly indicates that they, Crosskey, and Hamilton and Adair are wrong with respect to the original meaning of the term "commerce" in the Commerce Clause.
Indeed, when I first read Hamilton and Adair and Crosskey, alongside Nelson and Pushaw's endorsement of their work, I too was persuaded that "commerce" meant any "gainful activity"--until I had a chance to survey the records of the Constitutional Convention and the ratification debates for myself.
When I did, I found to my surprise that the term "commerce" was consistently used in the narrow sense and that there is no surviving example of it being used in either source in any broader sense. The same holds true for the use of the word "commerce" in The Federalist Papers.
Upon discovering this, I returned to The Power to Govern and noticed for the first time that Hamilton and Adair omitted any reference to the use of the term "commerce" in the Philadelphia or ratification conventions, though they offered evidence from these sources for other claims I was not surprised that Crosskey had omitted this evidence since he explicitly signaled his intention to ignore evidence from the drafting process.
Unfortunately, Nelson and Pushaw do not fill this gap. After discussing the evidence concerning the meaning of "commerce," I will present evidence on the meaning of the terms "among the states" and "To regulate. Before attempting any of this, it is necessary to distinguish "original meaning" from "original intent" as methods of originalist interpretation.
This distinction will assist in understanding why the evidence of meaning I present here is significant and why it is not undermined fatally by the contrary evidence relied upon by Nelson and Pushaw, Hamilton and Adair, and Crosskey. And it is also important to distinguish interpretation from construction so as to avoid asking too much of the former, or confusing the former with the latter.
Original Meaning and Interpretation A. Intent As I have explained elsewhere 30"original meaning" refers to the meaning a reasonable speaker of English would have attached to the words, phrases, sentences, etc. It is originalist because it disregards any change to that meaning that may have occurred in the intervening years.
It is objective insofar as it looks to the public meaning conveyed by the words used in the Constitution, rather than to the subjective intentions of its framers or ratifiers.
By contrast, "original intent" refers to the goals, objectives, or purposes of those who wrote or ratified the text. These intentions could have been publicly known--or hidden behind a veil of secrecy.
They could and indeed were likely to be in conflict. But, at best, evidence of the framers' and ratifiers' intentions as distinct from evidence of how they used the words they used is circumstantial evidence of meaning while at worst it can distract from the words of the document that were actually employed.
The method to be preferred depends on one's normative rationale for originalism.Leadership Self-Analysis - As a leader in our church, after attending the program in Clinical Pastoral Education, I learned so much about self.
PRIMARY SOURCES • Landmark Documents • Court Cases • Supreme Court Cases • Newspaper Articles • Obituaries VOICES • Overview & Resources • Asian American • Children • Civil Rights • Immigrant • Native Americans • Texas • Women MULTIMEDIA • Digital Stories.
a poison tree essay victrelis incivek comparison essay australian food culture essay the passive voice in essay writing is when we front cover for essay reactions.
The Autobiography of an Ex-Colored Man study guide contains a biography of James Weldon Johnson, literature essays, quiz questions, major themes, characters, and a full summary and analysis. “A detailed, finely written portrait of the imposing 19th-century leader.” ―David Levering Lewis, New York Times Book Review Born into but escaped from slavery, Frederick Douglass―orator, journalist, autobiographer; revolutionary on behalf of a just America―was a towering figure, at once consummately charismatic and flawed.
Frederick Douglass and the Fourth of July [James A. Colaiaco] on lausannecongress2018.com *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. On July 5th, , Frederick Douglass, one of the greatest orators of all time, delivered what was arguably the century's most powerful abolition speech.
At a time of year where American freedom is celebrated across the nation.