IF RACIAL DESEGREGATION, THEN SAME-SEX MARRIAGE? ORIGINALISM AND THE SUPREME COURT'S FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
The Brown Court itself disavowed a theory of originalism in concluding that racially segragated public schools contravene the 14th Amendment, which deemed historical evidence of that Amendment's original meaning "inconclusive." Here, Bunch assesses scholars' reactions to defendin...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Harvard journal of law and public policy 2005-06, Vol.28 (3), p.781 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 781 |
| container_title | Harvard journal of law and public policy |
| container_volume | 28 |
| creator | Bunch, Kenyon |
| description | The Brown Court itself disavowed a theory of originalism in concluding that racially segragated public schools contravene the 14th Amendment, which deemed historical evidence of that Amendment's original meaning "inconclusive." Here, Bunch assesses scholars' reactions to defending Brown's result in originalist terms. He concludes that the implications of originalism for state action mandating racial segregation and state policies against same-sex marriage are not rendered obsolete by the Court's 14th Amendment precedent. |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_235211551</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>877760851</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-p182t-294ffb7dbb03c9bd729eb04fa3ea6525f45513b451299024ac58bc50e83dc5843</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotjVtLwzAAhYMoWKf_Ifjii4Fc1_ZJQpu1gTaVJAXfRtMLOMTNdfv_tujD4TsP53IDIspijrYiprcgwiRliCcxvQcP83zAGHNOkgh86h20MtOygrlyqrCqkF435hX6UhnoZK2QUx-wltZqWag32FhdaCMr7WooTb7moGvfraoVzJrW-hcHdyuVMr6Ey4DJF_lHcDd1X_P49M8NaHfKZyWqmkJnskInktALoimfphAPIWDWp2GIaToGzKeOjd1WUDFxIQgLXBCappjyrhdJ6AUeEzYslrMNeP7bPZ2PP9dxvuwPx-v5e7ncUyYoIWv_FxWVSm0</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>235211551</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>IF RACIAL DESEGREGATION, THEN SAME-SEX MARRIAGE? ORIGINALISM AND THE SUPREME COURT'S FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT</title><source>PAIS Index</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><source>Business Source Complete</source><source>Political Science Complete</source><creator>Bunch, Kenyon</creator><creatorcontrib>Bunch, Kenyon</creatorcontrib><description>The Brown Court itself disavowed a theory of originalism in concluding that racially segragated public schools contravene the 14th Amendment, which deemed historical evidence of that Amendment's original meaning "inconclusive." Here, Bunch assesses scholars' reactions to defending Brown's result in originalist terms. He concludes that the implications of originalism for state action mandating racial segregation and state policies against same-sex marriage are not rendered obsolete by the Court's 14th Amendment precedent.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0193-4872</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2374-6572</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cambridge: Harvard Society for Law and Public Policy</publisher><subject>Constitutional amendments ; Decision making ; Desegregation ; Equal rights ; Equality ; Essays ; Public policy ; Same sex marriage ; Segregation law ; Supreme Court decisions</subject><ispartof>Harvard journal of law and public policy, 2005-06, Vol.28 (3), p.781</ispartof><rights>Copyright Harvard Society for Law and Public Policy Summer 2005</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27866</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bunch, Kenyon</creatorcontrib><title>IF RACIAL DESEGREGATION, THEN SAME-SEX MARRIAGE? ORIGINALISM AND THE SUPREME COURT'S FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT</title><title>Harvard journal of law and public policy</title><description>The Brown Court itself disavowed a theory of originalism in concluding that racially segragated public schools contravene the 14th Amendment, which deemed historical evidence of that Amendment's original meaning "inconclusive." Here, Bunch assesses scholars' reactions to defending Brown's result in originalist terms. He concludes that the implications of originalism for state action mandating racial segregation and state policies against same-sex marriage are not rendered obsolete by the Court's 14th Amendment precedent.</description><subject>Constitutional amendments</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Desegregation</subject><subject>Equal rights</subject><subject>Equality</subject><subject>Essays</subject><subject>Public policy</subject><subject>Same sex marriage</subject><subject>Segregation law</subject><subject>Supreme Court decisions</subject><issn>0193-4872</issn><issn>2374-6572</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2005</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNotjVtLwzAAhYMoWKf_Ifjii4Fc1_ZJQpu1gTaVJAXfRtMLOMTNdfv_tujD4TsP53IDIspijrYiprcgwiRliCcxvQcP83zAGHNOkgh86h20MtOygrlyqrCqkF435hX6UhnoZK2QUx-wltZqWag32FhdaCMr7WooTb7moGvfraoVzJrW-hcHdyuVMr6Ey4DJF_lHcDd1X_P49M8NaHfKZyWqmkJnskInktALoimfphAPIWDWp2GIaToGzKeOjd1WUDFxIQgLXBCappjyrhdJ6AUeEzYslrMNeP7bPZ2PP9dxvuwPx-v5e7ncUyYoIWv_FxWVSm0</recordid><startdate>20050601</startdate><enddate>20050601</enddate><creator>Bunch, Kenyon</creator><general>Harvard Society for Law and Public Policy</general><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>4U-</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>8AM</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BGRYB</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>DPSOV</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K7.</scope><scope>KC-</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0O</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M2L</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20050601</creationdate><title>IF RACIAL DESEGREGATION, THEN SAME-SEX MARRIAGE? ORIGINALISM AND THE SUPREME COURT'S FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT</title><author>Bunch, Kenyon</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-p182t-294ffb7dbb03c9bd729eb04fa3ea6525f45513b451299024ac58bc50e83dc5843</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2005</creationdate><topic>Constitutional amendments</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Desegregation</topic><topic>Equal rights</topic><topic>Equality</topic><topic>Essays</topic><topic>Public policy</topic><topic>Same sex marriage</topic><topic>Segregation law</topic><topic>Supreme Court decisions</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bunch, Kenyon</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>University Readers</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Criminal Justice Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>Criminology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>Politics Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Criminal Justice (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Politics Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Criminal Justice Database</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Political Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>Harvard journal of law and public policy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bunch, Kenyon</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>IF RACIAL DESEGREGATION, THEN SAME-SEX MARRIAGE? ORIGINALISM AND THE SUPREME COURT'S FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT</atitle><jtitle>Harvard journal of law and public policy</jtitle><date>2005-06-01</date><risdate>2005</risdate><volume>28</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>781</spage><pages>781-</pages><issn>0193-4872</issn><eissn>2374-6572</eissn><abstract>The Brown Court itself disavowed a theory of originalism in concluding that racially segragated public schools contravene the 14th Amendment, which deemed historical evidence of that Amendment's original meaning "inconclusive." Here, Bunch assesses scholars' reactions to defending Brown's result in originalist terms. He concludes that the implications of originalism for state action mandating racial segregation and state policies against same-sex marriage are not rendered obsolete by the Court's 14th Amendment precedent.</abstract><cop>Cambridge</cop><pub>Harvard Society for Law and Public Policy</pub></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0193-4872 |
| ispartof | Harvard journal of law and public policy, 2005-06, Vol.28 (3), p.781 |
| issn | 0193-4872 2374-6572 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_235211551 |
| source | PAIS Index; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; HeinOnline Law Journal Library; Business Source Complete; Political Science Complete |
| subjects | Constitutional amendments Decision making Desegregation Equal rights Equality Essays Public policy Same sex marriage Segregation law Supreme Court decisions |
| title | IF RACIAL DESEGREGATION, THEN SAME-SEX MARRIAGE? ORIGINALISM AND THE SUPREME COURT'S FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-05T05%3A06%3A23IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=IF%20RACIAL%20DESEGREGATION,%20THEN%20SAME-SEX%20MARRIAGE?%20ORIGINALISM%20AND%20THE%20SUPREME%20COURT'S%20FOURTEENTH%20AMENDMENT&rft.jtitle=Harvard%20journal%20of%20law%20and%20public%20policy&rft.au=Bunch,%20Kenyon&rft.date=2005-06-01&rft.volume=28&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=781&rft.pages=781-&rft.issn=0193-4872&rft.eissn=2374-6572&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E877760851%3C/proquest%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=235211551&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |