Notes

Chapter 1. Legacies

1 3 THE RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787, at 85 (Yale Univ. Press, Max Farrand, ed. 1966) (hereinafter Farrand).

2 LEONARD L. RICHARDS, SHAYS’S REBELLION: THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION’S FINAL BATTLE 130–32 (Univ. of Pennsylvania Press 2002); Michael Lienesch, Reinterpreting Rebellion: The Influence of Shays’s Rebellion on American Political Thought, in IN DEBT TO SHAYS: THE BICENTENNIAL OF AN AGRARIAN REBELLION 161 (Univ. Press of Virginia, Robert A. Gross, ed. 1993).

3 CLINTON ROSSITER, SEEDTIME OF THE REPUBLIC: THE ORIGIN OF THE AMERICAN TRADITION OF POLITICAL LIBERTY 41, 44–45 & 122–24 (Harcourt, Brace 1953) (on the mutual impact of faith, commerce and college affiliation); GORDON S. WOOD, CREATION OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC, 1776–1787 (Univ. of No. Carolina Press 1969) (on “republican” praise of homogeneity and “federalist” praise for diversity); DONALD S. LUTZ, POPULAR CONSENT AND POPULAR CONTROL: WHIG POLITICAL THEORY IN THE EARLY STATE CONSTITUTIONS (Louisiana State Univ. Press 1980) (same).

4 German, Dutch, French, Spanish, and Native American languages were all locally dominant or exclusive.

5 1 Farrand, supra note 1, at 72 (Hamilton, June 1, 1787); id. at 134–36 (Madison, June 6, 1787); id. at 143; and see THE FEDERALIST NO. 10, at 77 (Madison) (New American Library, Clinton Rossiter, ed. 1961).

6 U.S. CONST. art. IV, sec. 2 (on protected citizens); U.S. CONST. art. I, sec. 8, and art. III, sec. 2 (on supported commerce).

7 See H. D. FORBES, ETHNIC CONFLICT: COMMERCE, CULTURE, AND THE CONTACT HYPOTHESIS 2 (Yale Univ. Press 1997) (quoting MONTESQUIEU, THE SPIRIT OF THE LAWS [1748]).

8 On the Enlightenment, free will, and religious views, see VINCENT BLASI, MILTON’S AREOPAGITICA AND THE MODERN FIRST AMENDMENT 13–19 (Yale Law School occasional papers 1995); Timothy L. Hall, Roger Williams and the Foundations of Religious Liberty, 71 B.U. L. REV. 455, 490–91 (1991); JOHN LOCKE, A Letter Concerning Toleration, in TREATISE OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT AND A LETTER CONCERNING TOLERATION 173 & 192 (Appleton, Charles L. Sherman, ed. 1965).

On the theology of religious choice, see Charles Teague, Freedom of Religion: The Freedom to Draw Circles, in RELIGIOUS TRADITIONS AND THE LIMITS OF TOLERANCE 18 (Anima Books, Louis J. Hammann and Harry M. Buck, eds. 1988); Scott W. Gustafson, The Scandal of Particularity and the Universality of Grace, in id. at 28; ROSSITER, supra note 3, at 40 & 54; Midrash Rabbah–Leviticus III:2 and particularly footnote 8; Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 56a; and see Ali S. Asani, On Pluralism, Intolerance, and the Quran, 71 THE AMERICAN SCHOLAR 52–60 (2002), http://www.twf.org/Library/Pluralism.html.

9 7 Alexander Hamilton, Report on the Bank, in THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, 1790–1791, at 340–41 (Columbia Univ. Press, Harold C. Syrett, ed. 1963).

10 Id. For belief in import of “stake” in society, see id. at 68–69; 1 Farrand, supra note 1, at 138 (June 6, 1787, Madison).

11 U.S. CONST. art. I, sec. 2, cl. 1. On congressional control of the president, see U.S. CONST., art. I, sec. 7, sec. 8 cl. 18, sec. 9, cl. 6; art. II, sec. 2, cl. 2, sec. 3. On the judicial power, see U.S. CONST., art. III, sec. 2, par. 1. On the stakes of the bargain for a bicameral Congress, see Staughton Lynd, The Compromise of 1787, 81 POL. SCI. Q. 225–50 (1966) (though specific hypothesized meeting probably did not happen). See also Calvin C. Jillson, The Representation Question in the Federal Convention of 1787: Madison’s Virginia Plan and its Opponents, 8 CONGRESSIONAL STUDIES 21 (1981). Washington grew to oppose slavery and freed his slaves in his will.

12 See THE FEDERALIST NO. 10, supra note 5, at 80–81 (James Madison).

13 Id., NO. 51 (Madison).

14 CHARLES L. BLACK, STRUCTURE AND RELATIONSHIP IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (1969) (Ox Bow Press 2000). Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964) (per Justice Black); Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954) (equal protection principle to the federal government). On need for more than mere “parchment barriers,” see THE FEDERALIST NO. 25, supra note 5 at 167 (Hamilton); THE FEDERALIST NO. 48, id. at 308 (James Madison); 2 Farrand, supra note 1, at 77 (Madison, July 21, 1787). The definition of democracy is addressed above and in chapters three, four and five; see also an influential definition in “Methodology Fact Sheet” for “Freedom in the World 2014” (Freedom House annual report, 41st ed.), http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/methodology-fact-sheet#.UusGwJ0o4qQ.

15 WOOD, supra note 3.

16 Compare Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760, 766–767 (2003) (Thomas, J., plurality opinion) with id. at 779–80 (Souter, J., in this portion for the Court), Id. at 783 (Stevens, J., dissenting in part), id. at 789 (Kennedy, J., dissenting in part), and id. at 799 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting in part).

17 WOOD, supra note 3, 538–543; ROSSITER, supra note 3.

18 AKHIL REED AMAR, THE BILL OF RIGHTS: CREATION AND RECONSTRUCTION xii (Yale Univ. Press 1998).

19 But see Stephen E. Gottlieb, The Dilemma of Election Campaign Finance Reform, 18 HOFSTRA L. REV. 213 (1989).

20 See JACK P. GREENE, PERIPHERIES AND CENTER: CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE EXTENDED POLITIES OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE AND THE UNITED STATES, 1607–1788, at 8, 10, 23 and passim (Univ. of Georgia Press 1986) (on the problem of distance under the British Crown).

21 2 Farrand, supra note 1, at 131–32.

22 See id., vol. 1, at 346 (Mason, June 20, 1787); id. at 414 and 417 (Ellsworth, June 25, 1787); id., vol. 2, at 326 (Mason, Aug. 18, 1787); id. at 388 (Madison, Aug. 23, 1787); id. at 329 (Gerry, Aug. 18, 1787); id. at 509 (Gerry, Sept. 5, 1787); id. at 563 (Randolph, Sept. 10, 1787); id. at 616–17 (Mason, Madison, Morris, Pinkney and Bedford, Sept. 14, 1787); id. at 640 (Mason); Id., vol. 3, at 129 (Charles Pinkney); id. at 157, 158 (Luther Martin, Nov. 29, 1787); Luther Martin’s “Letter to the Citizens of Maryland”, Mar. 25, 1788, in id. at 295; id. at 319 (Madison and Randolph, June 14, 1788); Gouverneur Morris to Moss Kent, Jan. 12, 1815, in id. at 421; id. at 453 (Madison, 1821); SUPPLEMENT TO MAX FARRAND’S THE RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787, at 92 (Yale Univ. Press, James Hutson, ed. 1987) (hereinafter Hutson) (Hamilton, June 18, 1787).

23 2 Farrand, supra note 1, at 329; Hutson, supra note 22, at 229.

24 Art. I, secs. 8 & 11. See also Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922 (1982) Norwood v. Harrison, 413 U.S. 455, 465 (1973) (government may not encourage private parties to do what it cannot, unconstitutional action).

25 Samuel Adams, Excerpt from Governor Samuel Adams’s Farewell Address, 1797, in THE MILITARY IN AMERICA FROM THE COLONIAL ERA TO THE PRESENT 107–08 (Free Press, Peter Karsten, ed., rev. ed. 1986); see also RUSSELL F. WEIGLEY, HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY 3–12 (Macmillan 1967).

26 William B. Skelton, Officers and Politicians: The Origins of Army Politics in the United States before the Civil War, in MILITARY IN AMERICA, supra note 25, at 113. On exceptions to the Army’s apolitical role, See, e.g., Richard H. Kohn, The Inside History of the Newburgh Conspiracy: American and the Coup d’Etat, in id. at 79; Harold M. Hyman, Johnson, Stanton, and Grant: A Reconsideration of the Army’s Role in the Events Leading to Impeachment, in id. at 177; Mary R. Dearing, The Role of the G.A.R. in the Constitutional Crisis of 1867–1868, in id. at 191.

27 2 Farrand, supra note 1, at 202–03 (Aug. 7, 1787).

28 Property qualifications would now tilt politics toward wealth, see Quinn v. Millsap, 491 U.S. 95, 104 (1989); Phoenix v. Kolodziejski, 399 U.S. 204 (1970); Kramer v. Union Free School Dist., 395 U.S. 621 (1969); but see Ball v. James, 451 U.S. 355 (1981); Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Dist., 410 U.S. 719 (1973). But in the eighteenth century, property qualifications protected voters’ independence and were often used to democratize the vote, see THOMAS JEFFERSON, NOTES ON THE STATE OF VIRGINIA 164–65 & 292 (Univ. of North Carolina Press, William Peden, ed. 1955) (1787); see also Linda A. Malone, Reflections on the Jeffersonian Ideal of an Agrarian Democracy and the Emergence of an Agricultural and Environmental Ethic in the 1990 Farm Bill, 12 STAN. ENVTL. L.J. 3, at 5 (1995); LANCE BANNING, JEFFERSON AND MADISON: THREE CONVERSATIONS FROM THE FOUNDING 43–44 (Madison House Publishers 1995).

29 James Madison, National Gazette, Jan. 23, 1792, quoted in 3 IRVING BRANT, JAMES MADISON: FATHER OF THE CONSTITUTION, 1787–1800, at 175 (Bobbs-Merrill 1950).

30 See BRANT, supra note 29, at 174–76; William M. Treanor, The Original Understanding of the Takings Clause and the Political Process, 95 COLUM. L. REV. 782, 844–48 (1995); THE FEDERALIST NO. 47, supra note 5, at 301 (Madison).

31 PETER ONUF, STATEHOOD AND UNION: A HISTORY OF THE NORTHWEST ORDINANCE 33 (Indiana Univ. Press 1987). Peter S. Onuf, Liberty, Development, and Union: Visions of the West in the 1780s, 43 WM. & M. Q. 179, 190 (1986). Elizabeth V. Mensch, The Colonial Origins of Liberal Property Rights, 31 BUFF. L. REV. 635, 636, 641–60, 671–78 (1983). JAMES HARRINGTON, JAMES HARRINGTON’S OCEANA 15, 16 (1656) (Hyperion Press, S. B. Liljegren, ed. 1979) (italics in original), urged broad land distribution so that “no one man, or number of men, within the compasse of the Few or Aristocracy, overbalance them.”

32 Madison, National Gazette, supra note 29; and see, e.g., U.S. CONST., art. I, sec. 2, par. 3; art. I, sec. 9, par. 2–4, par. 8; art. IV, sec. 2, par. 1; art. IV, sec. 4.

33 Act of Aug. 7, 1789, ch. 8, 1 Stat. 50 (reenacting the Northwest Territory Ordinance of 1787), collected in 1 SOURCES AND DOCUMENTS OF UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONS, 2d ser. 385 (Oceana Publications, William F. Swindler, ed. 1982).

34 2 Farrand, supra note 1, 344; and see WOOD, supra note 3, 107–24 (on aversion to British officeholders’ pomp as a source of the Revolution).

35 Steven Boyd, The Contract Clause and the Evolution of American Federalism, 1789–1815, 44 WM. & M. Q. 529–48 (1987).

36 U.S. CONST., art. I, sec. 9, cl. 8 (prohibiting titles of nobility); Id. cl. 1 (slave trade); art. I, sec. 8, cl. 8 (limited duration of patents and copyrights); Id. sec. 8, cl. 1 and sec. 9, cls. 4, 6 (same treatment of states); sec. 9, cl. 2–4 (protections for individuals); and see sec. 10, cl. 1. On changes in the common law, see WILLIAM EDWARD NELSON, AMERICANIZATION OF THE COMMON LAW: THE IMPACT OF LEGAL CHANGE ON MASSACHUSETTS SOCIETY, 1760–1830, at 48 (Harvard Univ. Press 1975); LAWRENCE M. FRIEDMAN, A HISTORY OF AMERICAN LAW 205–15 (Simon & Shuster 1973); Mensch, supra note 31.

37 Homestead Act, 12 Stat. 392 (1862). For a brief description see PAUL W. GATES, HISTORY OF PUBLIC LAND LAW DEVELOPMENT 393–94 (Arno Press 1979).

38 CHILTON WILLIAMSON, AMERICAN SUFFRAGE: FROM PROPERTY TO DEMOCRACY, 1760–1860 (Princeton Univ. Press 1960), the classic study looking behind the rules at actual practices. For more recent work, see ROBERT J. DINKIN, VOTING IN REVOLUTIONARY AMERICA: A STUDY OF ELECTIONS IN THE ORIGINAL THIRTEEN STATES, 1776–1789, at 30–43 (Greenwood Press 1982); Alexander Keyssar, THE RIGHT TO VOTE: THE CONTESTED HISTORY OF DEMOCRACY IN THE UNITED STATES 24 (Basic Books 2000); and RICHARD R. BEEMAN, THE VARIETIES OF POLITICAL EXPERIENCE IN EIGHTEENTH CENTURY AMERICA passim (U. Penn. Press 2004) and id. at 281 (disappearance of property qualifications).

39 See DAVID BICKNELL TRUMAN, THE GOVERNMENTAL PROCESS: POLITICAL INTERESTS AND PUBLIC OPINION (Knopf 1951); ROBERT A. DAHL, A PREFACE TO DEMOCRATIC THEORY (Univ. of Chicago Press 1956), and ROBERT A. DAHL, WHO GOVERNS (Yale Univ. Press 1961).

40 WOOD, supra note 3, at 61–64.

41 On frequent reference to “genius of the people” as preference, culture, or talent, see, e.g., 1 Farrand, supra note 1, at 66 (Randolph, June 1, 1787). Delegates reserved the term democratic for direct democracy, excluding representative government. Conforming to modern usage, democracy is used here for representative democracy.

42 Peter S. Onuf, State Politics and Republican Virtue: Religion, Education, and Morality in Early American Federalism, in TOWARD A USABLE PAST: LIBERTY UNDER STATE CONSTITUTIONS 91–116 (Univ. of Georgia Press, Paul Finkelman and Stephen E. Gottlieb, eds. 1991); see also James A. Henretta, The Rise and Decline of “Democratic-Republicanism”: Political Rights in New York and the Several States, 1800–1915, in Id. at 50–90.

43 See Onuf, supra note 42, at 91–111; Thomas James, Rights of Conscience and State School Systems in Nineteenth-Century America, in TOWARD A USABLE PAST, supra note 42, at 122.

44 See LAWRENCE A. CREMIN, AMERICAN EDUCATION; THE COLONIAL EXPERIENCE, 1607–1783, at 102–04 (Harper & Row 1970).

45 For a brief description, see Stephen E. Gottlieb, Brown v. Board of Education and the Application of American Tradition to Racial Division 34 SUFFOLK U. L. REV. 281, 292–96 (2001); for more extensive treatment see STEPHEN MEYER III, THE FIVE-DOLLAR DAY: LABOR MANAGEMENT AND SOCIAL CONTROL IN THE FORD MOTOR COMPANY, 1908–1921, at 156 (State Univ. of New York Press 1981); Gary Gerstle, Liberty, Coercion, and the Making of Americans 84 J. AMER. HIST. 524 (1997); Bruce White, The American Military and the Melting Pot in World War I, in MILITARY IN AMERICA, supra note 25, at 317–23.

46 On public school texts, see FRANCES FITZGERALD, AMERICA REVISED: HISTORY SCHOOLBOOKS IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY (Little, Brown 1979). See also LAWRENCE A. CREMIN, TRANSFORMATION OF THE SCHOOL: PROGRESSIVISM IN AMERICAN EDUCATION 1876–1957 (Vintage Books 1961); MEYER, supra note 45; DAVID TYACK AND ELISABETH HANSOT, LEARNING TOGETHER: A HISTORY OF COEDUCATION IN AMERICAN SCHOOLS (Yale Univ. Press 1990); Gerstle, supra note 45. On “Americanization” and integration of class, gender, ethnic groups, and race, see Gottlieb, supra note 45.

47 ALEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE, DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA (Knopf 1945, Phillips Bradley ed., Henry Reeve trans., Francis Bowen rev. 1836).

48 See TATU VANHANEN, THE EMERGENCE OF DEMOCRACY: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF 119 STATES, 1850–1979, at 35 (Finnish Society of Sciences and Letters [Societas Scientiarum Fennica], 1984), citing 1 TOCQUEVILLE, supra note 47, 46–54, 288–298, and see id. vol. 2, bk. 4, ch. 1, at 287–88; see also ROBERT A. DAHL, A PREFACE TO ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY 10 (Univ. of California Press 1985).

49 Discussed in DAHL, PREFACE TO DEMOCRATIC THEORY, supra note 39, at 10 & 45–49.

50 THOMAS JEFFERSON, Notes on the Letter of Christoph Daniel Ebeling [after Oct. 15, 1795], in 28 THE PAPERS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 509 (Princeton Univ. Press, John Catanzariti, ed. 2000).

51 On nineteenth-century parties and elections, see Stephen E. Gottlieb, Rebuilding the Right of Association: The Right to Hold a Convention as a Test Case, 11 HOFSTRA L. REV. 191, 196–203, 221–30 & 238–43 (1983).

52 See Nigel Anthony Summers, Treasonous Tenant Farmers and Seditious Share Croppers: The 1917 Green Corn Rebellion Trials, 27 OKLA. CITY U. L. REV. 1097, 1105–06 (2002); Thomas J. Humphrey, Conflicting Independence: Land Tenancy and the American Revolution, 28 J. EARLY REPUBLIC 159 (2008); STAUGHTON LYND, CLASS CONFLICT, SLAVERY, AND THE CONSTITUTION 25–77 (Bobbs-Merrill 1967) was the groundbreaking study.

53 Quoted in DAHL, PREFACE TO ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY, supra note 48 at 66.

54 PAUL FINKELMAN, DEFENDING SLAVERY: PROSLAVERY THOUGHT IN THE OLD SOUTH: A BRIEF HISTORY WITH DOCUMENTS 28 (Bedford/St. Martin’s 2003); Fisher’s Negroes v. Dabbs, 14 Tenn. 119 (1834); and see THOMAS R. R. COBB, AN INQUIRY INTO THE LAW OF NEGRO SLAVERY IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO WHICH IS PREFIXED AN HISTORICAL SKETCH OF SLAVERY ccxvii–ccxviii (1858 ) (Univ. of Georgia Press, Paul Finkelman, ed. 1999).

55 See Gottlieb, supra note 45, at 288–89.

56 See WILLIAM E. NELSON, MARBURY V. MADISON: THE ORIGINS AND LEGACY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW (Univ. Press of Kansas 2000).

57 JAMES W. CEASER, PRESIDENTIAL SELECTION: THEORY AND DEVELOPMENT 123–69 (Princeton Univ. Press 1979).

58 MANCUR OLSON, THE LOGIC OF COLLECTIVE ACTION: PUBLIC GOODS AND THE THEORY OF GROUPS (Harvard Univ. Press 1965). THE FEDERALIST NO. 51, supra note 5 (Madison). On parties, see ALFRED STEINBERG, THE BOSSES (New York, Macmillan 1972); JOSEPH PRATT HARRIS, ELECTION ADMINISTRATION IN THE UNITED STATES (Brookings Institution 1934 ); FREDERICK WILLIAM DALLINGER, NOMINATIONS FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE IN THE UNITED STATES (Arno Press 1974) (1897); and see Gottlieb, supra note 51, at 225–27 (1982).

59 MARK TWAIN AND CHARLES DUDLEY WARNER, THE GILDED AGE: A TALE OF TODAY (American Pub. Co. 1873) named the era. HARRY CAUDILL, NIGHT COMES TO THE CUMBERLANDS (Little, Brown 1964).

60 ROBERT M. BASTRESS, THE WEST VIRGINIA STATE CONSTITUTION: A REFERENCE GUIDE 23 & 114 (Greenwood Press 1995).

61 Child Labor Tax Case [Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Company], 259 U.S. 20 (1922); Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 (1918). Marquette Nat’l Bank v. First of Omaha Service Corp., 439 U.S. 299 (1978) is a modern example of cross-border barriers to enforcement of state policy.

62 Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1 as amended; originally enacted July 2, 1890, 51 Cong. ch. 647; 26 Stat. 209, codified at 15 U.S.C. secs. 1–7 as amended (2000). See also Clayton Act, Act of Oct. 15, 1914, 63 P.L. 212, 63 Cong. ch 323, 38 Stat. 730 codified at 15 U.S.C. 12–27 as amended; Brown v. Pro Football, 518 U.S. 231, 253 (1996) (Stevens, J., dissenting).

63 See, e.g., LOUIS DEMBITZ BRANDEIS, THE CURSE OF BIGNESS; MISCELLANEOUS PAPERS OF LOUIS D. BRANDEIS (Kennikat Press, Osmond K. Fraenkel, ed. 1965) (1934); LOUIS DEMBITZ BRANDEIS, OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY, AND HOW THE BANKERS USE IT (Martino Pub. 2009) (1914).

64 RICHARD HOFSTADTER, What Happened to the Antitrust Movement?, in THE PARANOID STYLE IN AMERICAN POLITICS AND OTHER ESSAYS 188–273 (1964) (Harvard Univ. Press 1996 ); THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF THEODORE ROOSEVELT, CONDENSED FROM THE ORIGINAL EDITION, SUPPLEMENTED BY LETTERS, SPEECHES, AND OTHER WRITINGS 246–27 (Charles Scribner’s Sons, Wayne Andrews, ed. 1958) (1913), available at http://www.presidentialrhetoric.com/historicspeeches/roosevelt_theodore/muckrake.html; THEODORE ROOSEVELT, THEODORE ROOSEVELT: AN AUTOBIOGRAPHY 449–60 (Charles Scribner’s Sons 1925); Letter from Theodore Roosevelt to Jacob August Riis (Apr. 18, 1906), in 5 THEODORE ROOSEVELT, THE LETTERS OF THEODORE ROOSEVELT 212–13 (Harvard Univ. Press, Elting E. Morison, ed. 1952); Letter from Theodore Roosevelt to William Plumer Potter (Apr. 23, 1906) and to Lyman Abbott (Apr. 23, 1906), in id. at 216–219.

65 Cf. pre- and post-1937 decisions: Adkins v. Children’s Hospital, 261 U.S. 525 (1923); Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U.S. 20 (1922); Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935); United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936); Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 (1936); West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937); Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 (1937); National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, 301 U.S. 1 (1937); Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942).

66 See MARTY STRANGE, FAMILY FARMING: A NEW ECONOMIC VISION 127–65 (Univ. of Nebraska Press 1988).

67 PA Const. of 1776, sec. 32. Bradley A. Smith, Campaign Finance Reform: The General Landscape: The Sirens’ Song: Campaign Finance Regulation and the First Amendment,” 6 J.L. & POL’Y 1, 20, 21 (1997); ROBERT E. MUTCH, CAMPAIGNS, CONGRESSES, AND COURTS: THE MAKING OF FEDERAL CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW 6 (Praeger 1988).

68 McConnell v. F.E.C., 540 U.S. 93 (2003).

69 Citizens United v. F.E.C., 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010).

70 This section draws heavily on Gottlieb, supra note 45.

71 1 Farrand, supra note 1, 72 (Hamilton, June 1, 1787); id. at 134–36 (Madison, June 6, 1787); see also id. at 143; THE FEDERALIST NO. 10, supra note 5 (James Madison).

72 WOOD, supra note 3 (comparing republicans, praising homogeneity, with Federalists, praising diversity); LUTZ, supra note 3 (same); ROSSITER, supra note 3, at 41, 44–45 & 122–24 (1953) (on interrelations among faiths, commerce and colleges).

73 See generally, HECTOR ST. JOHN DE CREVECOEUR, LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN FARMER (E. P. Dutton, John Doe, ed. 1957) (1782); see also ISRAEL ZANGWILL, THE MELTING POT: DRAMA IN FOUR ACTS (Arno Press, John Doe, ed. 1975) (1909); Gerstle, supra note 45.

74 See Cremin, supra note 46, at 10.

75 NATHAN GLAZER, AFFIRMATIVE DISCRIMINATION: ETHNIC INEQUALITY AND PUBLIC POLICY, 8–9, 22–25 & 29–30 (Harvard Univ. Press 1975); DIVIDED NATIONS IN A DIVIDED WORLD 447–50 (D. McKay Co., Gregory Henderson, Richard Ned Lebow, and John George Stoessinger, eds. 1974); MAX L. MARGOLIES AND ALEXANDER MARX, A HISTORY OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE 532–40 (Atheneum 1972).

76 RICHARD KLUGER, SIMPLE JUSTICE: THE HISTORY OF BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION AND BLACK AMERICA’S STRUGGLE FOR EQUALITY 488 (Knopf 1976).

77 See generally TYACK AND HANSOT, supra note 46.

78 Id. at 114–16, 131 & 137.

79 Id. at 94.

80 Id. at 74.

81 Id. at 17, 91, 94, 99–100 & 102–04.

82 Id. at 92, 134, 138 & 142–43.

83 Id. at 89.

84 Quoted in id. at 92.

85 Id. at 112.

86 Id. at 117–18.

87 Id. at 146–64.

88 MEYER, supra note 45 at 156.

89 Id. at 160–61.

90 Gerstle, supra note 45, at 524, 530–31 & 540 (describing both continuing influence of and problems with Crevecoeur’s thought).

91 WEIGLEY, supra note 25, at 3–12; see also MILITARY IN AMERICA, supra note 25, at 1–78, 92–103 & 137–41.

92 Gerald Linderman, The Spanish-American War and the Small-Town Community, in MILITARY IN AMERICA, supra note 25 at 275–86.

93 John Whiteclay Chambers, II, Conscripting for Colossus: The Progressive Era and the Origin of the Modern Military Draft in the United States in World War I, in id. at 300–01.

94 Id. at 302.

95 Id. at 306.

96 Id. at 306.

97 Bruce White, The American Military and the Melting Pot in World War I, in id. at 317–18.

98 Id. at 322–23.

99 Id. at 320.

100 Id. at 320–21.

101 Id. at 321.

102 Id. at 323–27.

103 Social Research and the Desegregation of the U.S. Army: Two Original 1951 Field Reports, 176 (Leo Bogart, ed. 1969), reprinted in MILITARY IN AMERICA, supra note 25, at 375.

104 Paul Finkelman, Introduction: “Let Justice Be Done, Though the Heavens May Fall”: The Law of Freedom, 70 CHI. KENT L. REV. 325, 339–42 (1994).

105 Roberts v. Boston, 59 Mass. (1 Cush.) 198, 206 (1850) and compare with Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

106 Mass. Acts 1855, c. 256; JAMES OLIVER HORTON AND LOIS E. HORTON, BLACK BOSTONIANS: FAMILY LIFE AND COMMUNITY STRUGGLE IN THE ANTEBELLUM NORTH 70–75 (Holmes & Meier 1979) (discussing Boston schooling for black children before the Civil War). On Shaw and race, see ROBERT M. COVER, JUSTICE ACCUSED: ANTISLAVERY AND THE JUDICIAL PROCESS 249–52 & 265–67 (Yale Univ. Press 1975).

107 See WYN CRAIG WADE, THE FIERY CROSS: THE KU KLUX KLAN IN AMERICA, 324–25 (Oxford Univ. Press 1987).

108 See FLORIDA BOARD OF REGENTS WITH MAXINE D. JONES, LARRY E. RIVERS, DAVID R. COLBURN, R. TOM DYE, AND WILLIAM R. ROGERS, A DOCUMENTED HISTORY OF THE INCIDENT WHICH OCCURRED AT ROSEWOOD, FLORIDA IN JANUARY, 1923 (Florida Board of Regents 1993), available at http://www.displaysforschools.com/rosewoodrp.html (Feb. 1, 2014); Richard Hixson (Special Master), Rosewood Legacy Report, SPECIAL MASTER’S FINAL REPORT TO THE HONORABLE BO JOHNSON, SPEAKER OF THE [FLORIDA] HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Mar. 24, 1994; see Rosewood Bibliography (Florida Dept. of State, Div. Lib. & Info. Servs.), available at http://dlis.dos.state.fl.us/library/bibliographies/rosewood_bib.cfm; OKLAHOMA COMMISSION TO STUDY THE RACE RIOT OF 1921, TULSA RACE RIOT (Okla. Hist. Soc’y), available at http://www.okhistory.org/research/forms/freport.pdf ; 1898 WILMINGTON RACE RIOT COMMISSION, 1898 WILMINGTON RACE RIOT–FINAL REPORT, May 31, 2006 (N. C. Off. of Archives & Hist.), available at http://www.ah.dcr.state.nc.us/1898-wrrc/report/report.htm; Elliot Jasper, Forced out by Virtue of Race, in ALBANY TIMES UNION, July 9, 2006, at A1.

109 See W.E.B. Du Bois, Does the Negro Need Separate Schools?, 4 J. OF NEGRO EDUC. 328 (1935) (preferring improvement of black schools).

110 Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 7 (1967); Alfred H. Kelly, The School Desegregation Case, in QUARRELS THAT HAVE SHAPED THE CONSTITUTION 254 (Harper & Row, John A. Garraty, ed. 1964); Jack Greenberg, Litigation for Social Change: Methods, Limits and Role in Democracy, in REC. OF THE ASS’N OF THE B. OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK 320, 357 (1974).

111 Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896); MARTIN BAUML DUBERMAN, PAUL ROBESON 236–38 (Knopf 1988).

112 On the half century after the Civil War, see C. VAN WOODWARD, THE STRANGE CAREER OF JIM CROW (Oxford Univ. Press 1955). On the background of Brown see KLUGER, supra note 76.

113 4 SAMUEL STOUFFER ET AL., STUDIES IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY IN WORLD WAR II (Princeton Univ. Press, Peter Smith, ed. 1950) (on cultural and religious integration of servicemen); see also BRUNO BETTELHEIM AND MORRIS JANOWITZ, SOCIAL CHANGE AND PREJUDICE 4–14 (Harper & Row 1964) (on post–World War II decline in prejudice); James A. Davis, The Log Linear Analysis of Survey Replications, in SOCIAL INDICATOR MODELS 75, 88–101 (Russell Sage Foundation, Kenneth C. Land and Seymour Spilerman, eds. 1975) (on rising support for civil liberties between 1954 and 1972).

114 KLUGER, supra note 76, at 501, 502 & 504–05.

Chapter 2. In the Shadow of War

1 See WILLIAM J. NOVAK, INTELLECTUAL ORIGINS OF THE STATE POLICE POWER: THE COMMON LAW VISION OF A WELL-REGULATED SOCIETY (Inst. for Leg. Stud., Univ. of Wis.–Madison Law Sch. 1989); DONALD S. LUTZ, POPULAR CONSENT AND POPULAR CONTROL: WHIG POLITICAL THEORY (Louisiana State Univ. Press 1980); LOUIS HARTZ, ECONOMIC POLICY AND DEMOCRATIC THOUGHT IN PENNSYLVANIA, 1776–1860 (Harvard Univ. Press 1949); 4 CHARLES M. ANDREWS, THE COLONIAL PERIOD IN AMERICAN HISTORY (H. Milford, Oxford Univ. Press 1937). See also WILLIAM NOVAK, THE PEOPLE’S WELFARE: LAW AND REGULATION IN NINETEENTH-CENTURY AMERICA (Univ. of North Carolina Press 1996).

2 See Louis Lusky, Minority Rights and the Public Interest, 52 YALE L.J. 1, 14 (1942).

3 See Carlo Wolff, Manufacturing Hysteria: A History of Scapegoating, Surveillance, and Secrecy in Modern America, THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, Aug. 17, 2011, http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/Book-Reviews/2011/0817/Manufacturing-Hysteria-A-History-of-Scapegoating-Surveillance-and-Secrecy-in-Modern-America (visited Sept. 28, 2012) (book review).

4 Meyer v. Neb., 262 U.S. 390 (1923); Bartels v. Iowa, 262 U.S. 404 (1923).

5 FREDERICK LEWIS ALLEN, ONLY YESTERDAY 31–53 (Bantam Books 1931).

6 Pierce v. Soc’y of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925).

7 WILLIAM MANCHESTER, THE GLORY AND THE DREAM: A NARRATIVE HISTORY OF AMERICA, 1932–1972, at 3–4 & 10–18 (Little, Brown 1975).

8 JONATHAN ALTER, THE DEFINING MOMENT: FDR’S HUNDRED DAYS AND THE TRIUMPH OF HOPE 2 (Simon and Schuster 2007).

9 MANCHESTER, supra note 7, at 111 (citing JONATHAN DANIELS, THE TIME BETWEEN THE WARS: ARMISTICE TO PEARL HARBOR 253 [Doubleday 1966]).

10 MANCHESTER, supra note 7, at 108–11 & 176; CHAS E. COUGHLIN, AM I AN ANTI-SEMITE ?: 9 ADDRESSES ON VARIOUS “ISMS” ANSWERING THE QUESTION 36–37 (The Condon Printing Co. 1939); SHELDON MARCUS, FATHER COUGHLIN; THE TUMULTUOUS LIFE OF THE PRIEST OF THE LITTLE FLOWER 169–70 (Little, Brown 1973); DONALD WARREN, RADIO PRIEST: CHARLES COUGHLIN, THE FATHER OF HATE RADIO 94 & 192 (Free Press 1996); CHARLES J. TULL, FATHER COUGHLIN AND THE NEW DEAL 197–98 (Syracuse Univ. Press 1965).

11 Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233 (1936).

12 MANCHESTER, supra note 7, at 113–15; ALAN BRINKLEY, VOICES OF PROTEST: HUEY LONG, FATHER COUGHLIN, AND THE GREAT DEPRESSION 9 (Knopf 1982); T. HARRY WILLIAMS, HUEY LONG 751 (Knopf 1969); HARNETT KANE, HUEY LONG’S LOUISIANA HAYRIDE: THE AMERICAN REHEARSAL FOR DICTATORSHIP: 1928–1940, at 3–4 (Pelican Pub. 1971) (1941); RAYMOND SWING, FORERUNNERS OF AMERICAN FASCISM 70 & 106–07 (J. Messner, Inc. 1935).

13 The following account draws heavily on NANCY BERMEO, ORDINARY PEOPLE IN EXTRAORDINARY TIMES: THE CITIZENRY AND THE BREAKDOWN OF DEMOCRACY 22–52 (Princeton Univ. Press 2003), as well as THE BREAKDOWN OF DEMOCRATIC REGIMES (Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Juan J. Linz and Alfred Stepan, eds. 1984), which includes separate volumes on Europe, Latin America, and Chile.

14 BERMEO, supra note 13, at 48.

15 Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939); Guaranty Trust Co. v. Henwood, 307 U.S. 247 (1939); Cummings v. Deutsche Bank und Disconto-Gesellschaft, 300 U.S. 115 (1937); Schoenamsgruber v. Hamburg American Line, 294 U.S. 454 (1935); Norman v. Baltimore & O.R. Co., 294 U.S. 240 (1935); Woodson v. Deutsche Gold und Silber Scheideanstalt Vormals Roessler, 292 U.S. 449 (1934); FTC v. R. F. Keppel & Bro., 291 U.S. 304 (1934); Factor v. Laubenheimer, 290 U.S. 276 (1933); May v. Hamburg-Amerikanische Packetfahrt Aktiengesellschaft, 290 U.S. 333 (1933); Burnet v. Brooks, 288 U.S. 378 (1933); Norwegian Nitrogen Products Co. v. United States, 288 U.S. 294 (1933); Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. v. Wallace, 288 U.S. 249 (1932); Cook v. United States, 288 U.S. 102 (1933); United States ex rel. Stapf v. Corsi, 287 U.S. 129 (1932); Burnet v. Chicago Portrait Co., 285 U.S. 1 (1932); Farbwerke Vormals Meister Lucius & Bruning v. Chemical Foundation, Inc., 283 U.S. 152 (1931); Russian Volunteer Fleet v. United States, 282 U.S. 481 (1931).

16 Hague v. Committee for Indus. Org., 307 U.S. 496 (1939); Kessler v. Strecker, 307 U.S. 22 (1939); Guaranty Trust Co. v. United States, 304 U.S. 126 (1938); United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324 (1937); Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242 (1937); De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1936); United States v. Bank of New York & Trust Co., 296 U.S. 463 (1936); Herndon v. Georgia, 295 U.S. 441 (1935); Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931); Russian Volunteer Fleet v. United States, 282 U.S. 481 (1931); Whitney v. Cal., 274 U.S. 357 (1927); Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925); Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919).

17 West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) and Taylor v. Mississippi, 319 U.S. 583 (1943).

18 ALPHEUS THOMAS MASON, BRANDEIS: A FREE MAN’S LIFE 429 (Viking Press 1956).

19 Testimony of Louis D. Brandeis (Jan. 23, 1915) in Final Report and Testimony of the Commission on Industrial Relations, 64th Cong., 1st Sess., S. Doc. No. 415, vol. 19, 7659–60 (1916), http://www.archive.org/details/industrialrelati08unitrich.

20 LOUIS D. BRANDEIS, BRANDEIS ON DEMOCRACY 156, 159 & 174 (Univ. Press of Kansas, Philippa Strum, ed. 1995).

21 Allon Gal, Brandeis, Judaism, and Zionism in BRANDEIS AND AMERICA 71 (Univ. Press of Kentucky, Nelson L. Dawson, ed. 1989).

22 BRANDEIS, Supra note 20, at 163.

23 Id. at 164.

24 Id. at 156 & 163.

25 Id. at 159.

26 Id. at 156.

27 Id. at 160.

28 Brandeis to Elizabeth Brandeis Raushenbush (Nov. 19, 1933), in BRANDEIS, supra note 20, at 194.

29 Louis Brandeis to Rabbi Stephen Wise, June 13, 1934, in 5 LETTERS OF LOUIS D. BRANDEIS 541 (State Univ. of New York Press, Melvin I. Urofsky and David W. Levy, eds. 1978).

30 Id. at 562.

31 288 U.S. 591 (1933).

32 Morrison v. California, 291 U.S. 82, 89–90 (1934).

33 Letter to Felix Frankfurter (Mar. 30, 1933), quoted in ANDREW L. KAUFMAN, CARDOZO 156 (Harvard Univ. Press 1998).

34 Letter to Felix Frankfurter (Jan. 31, 1936), quoted in KAUFMAN, supra note 33, at 488–89.

35 Letter to Irving Lehman (Apr. 26, 1938), quoted in ALPHEUS THOMAS MASON, HARLAN FISKE STONE: PILLAR OF THE LAW 515 (Viking Press 1956).

36 Letter to Irving Brant (Oct. 29, 1937), quoted in MASON, supra note 35, at 544.

37 MASON, supra note 35, at 518 & 544–47.

38 LOUIS LUSKY, BY WHAT RIGHT: A COMMENTARY ON THE SUPREME COURT’S POWER TO REVISE THE CONSTITUTION 113 (Michie Co. 1975).

39 Hebert v. Louisiana, 272 U.S. 312, 316 (1926).

40 Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934). Chief Justice Hughes quoted that language in Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278, 285 (1936).

41 Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 326, 327 (1937).

42 Richard Polenberg, Cardozo and the Criminal Law: Palko v. Connecticut Reconsidered, 2 J. SUP. CT. HIST. 92, 93 (1996).

43 Palko at 326–327.

44 Palko at 328 (quoting Hebert v. Louisiana, 272 U.S. 312, 316 [1926]).

45 See Codispoti v. Pennsylvania, 418 U.S. 506, 534 (1974) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting); STEPHEN E. GOTTLIEB, MORALITY IMPOSED: THE REHNQUIST COURT AND LIBERTY IN AMERICA 225–227 (New York Univ. Press 2000).

46 United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, 155 (1938) (Black, J., concurring in part).

47 Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 541–45 (1961) (Harlan, J., dissenting).

48 See Schneider v. New Jersey, 308 U.S. 147 (1939); Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 (1938); De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937); Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233 (1936); Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931).

49 United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941).

50 Nixon v. Condon, 286 U.S. 73 (1932); and see Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536 (1927); but see Grovey v. Townsend, 295 U.S. 45 (1935).

51 See Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 227 (1940); Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932).

52 304 U.S. 144 (1938).

53 Letter to Irving Lehman (Apr. 26, 1938), quoted in MASON, supra note 35, at 515.

54 United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. at 152 n. 4; Mason, supra note 35, at 512–17; Louis Lusky, Footnote Redux: A Carolene Products Reminiscence, 82 COLUM. L. REV. 1093 (1982); H. JEFFERSON POWELL, THE MORAL TRADITION OF AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONALISM: A THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION 159–65 (Duke Univ. Press 1993).

55 See Robert F. Nagel, “Unfocused” Governmental Interests, in PUBLIC VALUES IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 61–62 (Univ. of Michigan Press, Stephen E. Gottlieb, ed. 1993).

56 See Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337 (1938); Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 448–50 (1939). Walter Dellinger described the background and connection of these cases in a talk at the 2012 Annual Meeting of the Association of American Law Schools; I look forward to seeing his description in print.

57 LUSKY, supra note 38, at 109.

58 Hugo L. Black to Mr. Justice Stone (Apr. 21, 1938), reprinted in Lusky, supra note 54, 82 COLUM. L. REV. at 1105.

59 See Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60, 73 (1917); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886).

60 See Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 227 (1940); Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932); CHARLES LANE, THE DAY FREEDOM DIED: THE COLFAX MASSACRE, THE SUPREME COURT, AND THE BETRAYAL OF RECONSTRUCTION (: Henry Holt and Co. 2008); see generally RICHARD KLUGER, SIMPLE JUSTICE: THE HISTORY OF BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION AND BLACK AMERICA’S STRUGGLE FOR EQUALITY 3–26 (Knopf 1976).

61 See note 45 supra.

Chapter 3. Export

1 Compare Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 227, 241 (1940) with Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003).

2 Minersville School Dist. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 591–2 (1940).

3 Harlan Fiske Stone, The Conscientious Objector, COLUM. UNIV. Q., Oct. 1919 at 270; ALPHEUS T. MASON, HARLAN FISKE STONE: PILLAR OF THE LAW 525–34 (Viking Press 1956).

4 W. Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 630 (1943).

5 319 U.S. 624 (1943).

6 Id. at 642.

7 Id. at 8–9.

8 Everson v. Bd. of Educ., 330 U.S. 1, 16 (1947).

9 Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Bd. of Educ., 333 U.S. 203 (1948).

10 See Everson v. Bd. of Educ.; Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). But see Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639, 650 (2002).

11 Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944); Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81 (1943); DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312, 349 (1974) (Douglas, dissenting from the denial of certiorari).

12 Hirabayashi v. United States, 828 F.2d 591, 608 (9th Cir. 1987) and Korematsu v. United States, 584 F. Supp. 1406, 1416–18 (N.D. Cal. 1984); Susan Kiyomi Serrano, Dale Minami, Korematsu v. United States: A “Constant Caution” in a Time of Crisis, 10 ASIAN L.J. 37, 42–44 (2003); JUSTICE DELAYED: THE RECORD OF THE JAPANESE AMERICAN INTERNMENT CASES 221 (Wesleyan Univ. Press, Peter Irons, ed. 1989).

13 Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942) (on Okla. Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act).

14 Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536 (1927); Nixon v. Condon, 286 U.S. 73 (1932).

15 Grovey v. Townsend, 295 U.S. 45 (1935).

16 See Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944); Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461 (1953); and see Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 203 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring and dissenting).

17 334 U.S. 1 (1948).

18 Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337 (1938); Sipuel v. Oklahoma, 332 U.S. 631 (1948); Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629 (1950); McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637 (1950); and see Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 347 U.S. 483, 491–92 (1954).

19 Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 347 U.S. at 495.

20 Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549, 556 (1946) (plurality opinion by Frankfurter, J.).

21 Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46, 57–8 (1947).

22 HORACE EDGAR FLACK, THE ADOPTION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT (Johns Hopkins Univ. Press 1908).

23 Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. at 72–76, 92–123 (Black, J., dissenting).

24 Id. at 52–3. See also Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999).

25 See Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 10–11 (1964) (overruling Adamson on self-incrimination).

26 JOHANNES MORSINK, THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS: ORIGINS, DRAFTING & INTENT 36–50 (Univ. Penn. Press 1999).

27 Corfield v. Coryell, 6 F. Cas. 546, 549–52, 555 (1823); The Antelope, 23 U.S. 66 (1825).

28 G.A. Res 217(III), art. 7.

29 Morsink, supra note 26, at 44.

30 Cf. Art. IV to U.S. CONST., Amend. 13.

31 Cf. Art. V to U.S. CONST., Amend. 8.

32 Cf. Art. XII with U.S. CONST., Amend. 4.

33 Cf. Article 13 with Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999).

34 Cf. Article 17 with U.S. CONST. art. I, sec. 9; Id. Amends. 5 and 14.

35 Articles 14 and 15.

36 G.A. Res. 217(III) at arts. 23–24.

37 G.A. Res. 217(III) at art. 21, par. 1, 3.

38 See Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461 (1953); Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1943).

39 Shelley v. Kramer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948).

40 See cases cited supra note 18.

41 G.A. Res. 217 (III), at art. 19.

42 Id. at art. 20.

43 Id. at art. 21, par. 2.

44 Id. at art. 7.

45 See Act of Mar. 3, 1917, ch. 159, Title II, 39 Stat. 1000; Act of Oct. 3, 1917, ch. 63, Title II, 40 Stat. 302; Act of Feb. 24, 1919, ch. 18, Title III, 40 Stat. 1088; Act of Nov. 23, 1921, ch. 136, Title III, 42 Stat. 271; Act of Oct. 8, 1940, ch. 757, Title II, 54 Stat. 974; Act. of Jan. 3, 1951, ch. 1199, Title I, 64 Stat. 1137.

46 ULYSSES LEE, UNITED STATES ARMY IN WORLD WAR II: SPECIAL STUDIES–THE EMPLOYMENT OF NEGRO TROOPS 688–705 (U.S. Government Printing Office for the Center of Military History, United States Army 1966), http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/11–4/chapter22.htm (visited Oct. 13, 2012).

47 Samuel Stouffer et al., Measurement and Prediction, in 4 STUDIES IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY IN WORLD WAR II (Princeton Univ. Press 1950) (on effect of cultural and religious integration on servicemen).

48 Leo Bogart, Troops in Segregated and in Integrated Units Answer a Question about Race Relations, 1951, in THE MILITARY IN AMERICA FROM THE COLONIAL ERA TO THE PRESENT 375 (Free Press, Peter Karsten, ed., rev. ed. 1986).

49 Act of June 22, 1944, ch. 268, 58 Stat. 284, codified at 38 U.S.C. 1801 et seq as amended.

50 See Daniel P. McMurrer, Mark Condon, and Isabel V. Sawhill, Intergenerational Mobility in the United States: A Companion Piece to “The Declining Importance of Class” (Urban Institute: Opportunity in America Series May 1997), http://www.urban.org/publications/406796.html (visited July 17, 2013).

51 Florence Wagman Roisman, The Lessons of American Apartheid: The Necessity and Means of Promoting Residential Racial Integration, 81 IOWA L. REV. 479, 486 (1995) (reviewing DOUGLAS S. MASSEY AND NANCY A. DENTON, AMERICAN APARTHEID); CHARLES ABRAMS, FORBIDDEN NEIGHBORS: A STUDY OF PREJUDICE IN HOUSING 229–37 (Harper 1955); KENNETH T. JACKSON, CRABGRASS FRONTIER: THE SUBURBANIZATION OF THE UNITED STATES 203–15 (Oxford Univ. Press 1985); DOUGLAS S. MASSEY AND NANCY A. DENTON, AMERICAN APARTHEID: SEGREGATION AND THE MAKING OF THE UNDERCLASS 54–55 (Harvard Univ. Press 1993); MELVIN L. OLIVER AND THOMAS M. SHAPIRO, BLACK WEALTH/WHITE WEALTH: A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON RACIAL INEQUALITY 17–18, 51–52, 150 & 174 (Routledge 1995); see also NATIONAL COMMISSION ON URBAN PROBLEMS, BUILDING THE AMERICAN CITY: REPORT OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON URBAN PROBLEMS TO THE CONGRESS AND TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES generally and at 101 (U.S. Govt. Print. Off. 1969).

52 See, e.g., WILLIAM L. RIORDON, PLUNKITT OF TAMMANY HALL (Signet Classic 1996); FRANK S. ROBINSON, MACHINE POLITICS: A STUDY OF ALBANY’S O’CONNELLS (Transaction Books 1977); ALFRED STEINBERG, THE BOSSES (Macmillan 1972); T. HARRY WILLIAMS, HUEY LONG, 753–59 (Knopf 1969); Edward C. Banfield, Corruption as a Feature of Governmental Organization, 18 J. L. & ECON. 587, 588–91 (1975); Stephen E. Gottlieb, Rebuilding the Right of Association: The Right to Hold a Convention as a Test Case, 11 HOFSTRA L. REV. 191, 221–27 & 238–43 (1982); and see DAVID A. DILLDINE ET AL., A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF CASE STUDIES OF BOSSES AND MACHINES (Vance Bibliographies 1978).

53 See HARRY M. CAUDILL, THE WATCHES OF THE NIGHT 217–18 (Little, Brown 1976); HOWARD R. PENNIMAN, SAIT’S AMERICAN PARTIES AND ELECTIONS 338–41 (Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 5th ed. 1952).

54 David Ziskind, Labor Provisions in Constitutions of Europe, 6 COMP. LAB. L. & POL’Y J. 311, 316n (1984).

55 Id.

56 Weimar Constitution, 1922 translation by Howard Lee McBain and Lindsay Rogers, available at http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Weimar_constitution.

57 Arts. 109–34 & 142–65.

58 Ir. Const., 1937, art. 45. Foreign constitutions are available in translations on national websites, at https://www.constituteproject.org/#/search or at http://www.constitution.org/cons/natlcons.htm.

59 See Stephen Gardbaum, The Myth and the Reality of American Constitutional Exceptionalism, 107 MICH. L. REV. 391, 447 (2008).

60 Williams v. Department of Human Services, 116 N.J. 102, 109, 561 A.2d 244 (NJ 1989) quoting Roe v. Kervick, 42 N.J. 191, 212–13 (1964). See also Michele Landis Dauber, “Overtaken by a Great Calamity”: Disaster Relief and the Origins of the American Welfare State: The Sympathetic State, 23 LAW & HIST. REV. 387 (2005).

61 N.Y. Const., art. 11, sec. 1 & art. 17, sec. 1. See Gardbaum, American Constitutional Exceptionalism, 107 MICH. L. REV. 453.

62 Dai Nihon Teikoku [Meiji Kenpo] [Constitution] (1889), English translation from the Japanese National Diet Library at http://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/etc/c02.html#s3.

63 RAY A. MOORE AND DONALD L. ROBINSON, PARTNERS FOR DEMOCRACY: CRAFTING THE NEW JAPANESE STATE UNDER MACARTHUR 11 (Oxford Univ. Press 2002).

64 Nihonkoku Kenpo [Constitution] arts. 79, 81. English translation at http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/ja00000_.html. For history and background, see MOORE AND ROBINSON, supra note 63, at 50–78, 301–02 & 331–35.

65 Kenpo, arts. 1–7.

66 Kenpo, arts. 11–29 & 31–40.

67 On Japanese views, see MOORE AND ROBINSON, supra note 63, at 299.

68 Kenpo arts. 22 & 27–28.

69 Kenpo art. 24. See MOORE AND ROBINSON, supra note 63, at 131 & 223–27.

70 Kenpo arts. 26–27.

71 Kenpo art. 29.

72 On Japanese sources of this article, see MOORE AND ROBINSON, supra note 63, at 271 & 277–78.

73 See Asahi v. Japan, 21 Minshȗ 5 at 1043 (Supreme Court of Japan 1967), excerpted in VICKI C. JACKSON AND MARK TUSHNET, COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 1665–67 (2d ed. 2006).

74 Costituzione [Cost.] (It.) art. 3 [common translations vary slightly].

75 Id. art. 4.

76 Id. art. 32.

77 Id. art. 36.

78 Id. art. 38.

79 Charles J. Friedrich, Rebuilding the German Constitution, I, 43 AM. POL. SCI. REV. 461, 465 (1949), available at http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1945/450802a.html.

80 Id.

81 Id. at 467.

82 English translations available at http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Weimar_constitution, or at http://www.zum.de/psm/weimar/weimar_vve.php. On fundamental rights and duties, see arts. 109–165. On individual rights, see arts. 109–118; on religion, see arts. 135–141. On the executive, see arts. 41–49. Cf. Friedrich, supra note 79, at 463.

83 Robert G. Neumann, New Constitution in Germany, 42 AM. POL. SCI. REV. 448, 451 (1948).

84 Art. 131, secs. 1 and 2, quoted in Neuman, supra note 83, at 450n.

85 Bavarian Verf. Bay, Art. 106, sec. 1, and 166, sec. 2, quoted in Neuman, supra note 83, at 450n.

86 Neuman, supra note 83, at 465.

87 Id. at 455.

88 Id. at 467.

89 Id. at 454.

90 Id. at 457–58.

91 See Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland [Grundgesetz] [GG] [Basic Law], May 23, 1949, BGBl. I (Ger.) art. 4, 140 (regarding religious denominations). Translations by Christian Tomuschat and David P. Currie, available at https://www.btg-bestellservice.de/pdf/80201000.pdf. The original unamended 1949 Basic Law is at http://www.cvce.eu/obj/The_Basic_Law_of_the_FRG_23_May_1949-en-7fa618bb-604e-4980-b667–76bf0cd0dd9b.html. References are to the original 1949 Basic Law. Versions and amendments to the Basic Law can be tracked with Axel Tschentscher, The Basic Law (Grundgesetz): The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany (May 23, 1949), SSRN Working Paper Edition Mar. 2011 (latest revision at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1501131). Notes below use the Tschentsher paper to identify changes from the original.

92 Grundgesetz, art. 20, par. 2, 20(1).

93 Grundgesetz, art. 20, par. 2.

94 Grundgesetz, art. 38; see Tschentscher, supra note 91, at note 52.

95 Grundgesetz, art. 36[1], 54[3]; and Gesetz zur Anderung des Grundgesetzes [Law Amending Basic Law], 1968, BGBl. I (Ger.) art. 53a[1].

96 Grundgesetz, art. 51; the 1949 Basic Law was expanded with unification in 1990, see Tschentscher, supra note 91 at note 68.

97 Grundgesetz, art. 5.

98 Grundgesetz, arts. 8, 9, 17 & 21. Arts. 9 & 21 amended in other respects, see Tschentscher, supra note 91 at notes 15 and 36.

99 Grundgesetz, art. 39, details of timing amended in 1976 and 1998, see Tschentscher, supra note 91, at nn. 52–58.

100 Grundgesetz, arts. 54 & 63.

101 Grundgesetz, art. 21, par. 2.

102 Language quoted from art. 10 but similar language runs through the section on rights, see Tschentscher, supra note 91, at n. 17.

103 Grundgesetz, art. 18 (“democratic order”). See also arts. 10 & 11 as amended. Arts. 2 & 9 (“constitutional order”); art. 5 (“allegiance to the constitution”); art. 20 (“social federal state”); and see Tschentscher, supra note 91, at nn. 15 & 33.

104 Grundgesetz, art.18, otherwise amended in 1993, see Tschentscher, supra note 91, at n. 31.

105 Grundgesetz, art. 19, par. 2.

106 Grundgesetz, arts. 1, 6, 9, 12. The language of arts. 1, 9, and 12 otherwise amended, see Tschentscher, supra note 91, at n.12, 15, 21–22. And see Peter E. Quint, The Constitutional Guarantees of Social Welfare in the Process of German Unification, 47 AM. J. COMPARATIVE L. 303, 305–08 (1999); MARY ANN GLENDON, A WORLD MADE NEW: ELEANOR ROOSEVELT AND THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS xvii (Random House 2002).

107 Grundgesetz, art.7.

108 Grundgesetz, art. 14, par. 2.

109 Grundgesetz, arts. 14–15.

110 Grundgesetz, art. 28, otherwise amended in 1993, see Tschentscher, supra note 91, at n.42.

111 Grundgesetz, art. 74, par. 1, otherwise amended, see Tschentscher, supra note 91, at notes 96, 99.

112 Grundgesetz, art. 87, par. 2, otherwise amended, see Tschentscher, supra note 91, at n. 139.

113 Grundgesetz, art.2.

114 Grundgesetz, arts. 4; 10, par. 1; 11, par. 1.

115 Grundgesetz, arts. 1–19. Art. 1, “executive” substituted for “administration” in 1956, see Tschentscher, supra note 91, at n. 12.

116 Grundgesetz, art. 3.

117 Grundgesetz, art. 13, supplemented regarding technical means of surveillance in 1998, see Tschentscher, supra note 91, at n. 25; arts. 101–04.

118 Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 1973 AIR 1461 [566] (India Supreme Court 1973) (opinion of Shelat and Grover, JJ.).

119 Akhil Amar in a 1990 phone conversation with the author focused the author’s attention on the importance of that delayed shift.

120 Cf. GUISEPPE DI PALMA, TO CRAFT DEMOCRACIES: AN ESSAY ON DEMOCRATIC TRANSITIONS (Univ. of California Press 1990); Jack N. Rakove, The Great Compromise: Ideas, Interests, and the Politics of Constitution Making, 44 WM. & M. Q. 424 (3d Ser. 1987).

121 On Rau, see H. R. KHANNA, MAKING OF INDIA’S CONSTITUTION 9–10 (Eastern Book Co., n.d., the Sulakhani Devi Mahajan Memorial Lectures at the Indian Law Institute, New Delhi, Mar. 23–25, 1981).

122 See id. at 38 & 40–43.

123 Id. at 36–37.

124 Id. at 21.

125 India Const. pmbl. [capitalization in the original].

126 Art. 14 and see KHANNA, supra note 121, at 27.

127 KHANNA, supra note 121, at 29.

128 On equality, see arts. 14–18, 25–30, 80–81, 326 & 329–42.

129 India Const. arts. 36–51.

130 KHANNA, supra note 121, at 57–58.

131 Id. at 58–60.

132 SURESH MANE, THE MAN WHO CODIFIED INDIAN INDEPENDENCE, n.p. (Bahujanvartha Publications 2010).

133 Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi vs Shri Raj Narain And Anr., A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 2299, pars. 159–254 (opinion of Khanna, J.); Kesavananda Bharati’s case (1973) 4 S.C.C. 225 and see the dissenting opinion of Justice Khanna in the habeas corpus case, Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur v. S. S. Shukla Etc., A.I.R. 1976 S.C.1207, 1976 Suppl. S.C.R. 172, 1976 S.C.C. 521, available at http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/.

134 KHANNA, supra note 121, at 55–56.

135 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Nov. 4, 1950, Europ.T.S. No. 5; 213 U.N.T.S. 221.

136 Cf. id., art. VI.

137 The Constitution Act, adopted Mar. 29, 1982; The Canada Act, 1982, c. 11 (U.K.) [Mar. 29, 1982].

138 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B to the Canada Act, 1982 c. 11 sec. 2 (U.K.) [hereinafter Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms].

139 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, sec. 3.

140 Id. sec. 15, and see id. secs. 16–22, 25, 27, 28 & 29.

141 Id. sec. 36.

142 Id. sec. 1.

143 Id. sec. 7.

144 Id. sec. 19(3).

145 Id. secs. 16–18.

146 Id. sec. 46.

147 Id. sec. 9; see also id. secs. 6, 13, 30–31.

148 Id. secs. 22–29.

149 Id. sec. 36(1).

150 See id. secs. 79, 80, 144 & 166–167, among others.

151 See sect. 57 (1b) & (2b), 61(2), 70 (1b) & (2b&c), 116 (1b) & 2(b), 152 (1a), 160 (8b), 181 (1), 195 (1), 234 & 236.

Chapter 4. Foreign Courts

1 Many foreign courts number paragraphs. We use those markings where available.

2 Gregory H. Fox and Georg Nolte, Intolerant Democracies, 36 HARV. INT’L L. J. 1, 16 & 69 (1995).

3 For the 1787 Convention, see 1 THE RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787, at 19 (Yale Univ. Press, Max Farrand, ed. 1966) (Randolph, May 29, 1787); id. at 315, 479, vol. 2 at 93 (Madison, June 19, June 29 and July 23, 1787); id., vol. 2 at 74 (Ellsworth, July 21, 1787). See also U.S. CONST., art. I, sec. 8, -par. 10. See also, Ogden v. Saunders, 25 U.S. 213, 259 (1827); The Antelope, 23 U.S. 66, 115 (1825); id. at 117–18; Murray v. The Schooner Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. 64, 118 (1804); Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 722–23, 729–33 (1878); Andrew L. Strauss, Beyond National Law: The Neglected Role of the International Law of Personal Jurisdiction in Domestic Courts, 36 HARV. INT’L L. J. 373, 394–96 (1995); Patrick J. Borchers, The Death of the Constitutional Law of Personal Jurisdiction: From Pennoyer to Burnham and Back Again, 24 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 19, 25 (1990).

4 Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 575–78 (2005); id. at 604–05 (O’Connor, dissenting); Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 316 n. (2002); Thompson v. Okla., 487 U.S. 815, 830 (1988) (plurality opinion); id. at 847, 857 (O’Connor, J., concurring in the judgment); Enmund v. Fla., 458 U.S. 782, 796 n. (1982); Coker v. Ga., 433 U.S. 584, 596 n. 10 (1977); and see Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101 (1958) (plurality opinion). See also Graham v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2011, 2033–34 (2010).

5 Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 572–73, 576 (2003). See also Nicholas Bamforth, New Natural Law, Religion, and Same-Sex Marriage: Current Constitutional Issues, 1 WAKE FOREST J. L. & POL’Y 207, 266 (2011). Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 564 (2003) cited Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 503–04 (1965) but see id. at 485; Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942).

6 Foster v. Florida, 537 U.S. 990 (2002) (Thomas, J., concurring in denial of certiorari).

7 Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. at 598 (Scalia, J., dissenting).

8 Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. at 608 (2005) (Scalia, J., dissenting).

9 Id. at 608 (Scalia, J., dissenting); see also id. at 626. See also A. Christopher Bryant, Foreign Law as Legislative Fact in Constitutional Cases, 2011 B.Y.U. L. REV. 1005, 1025–26, 1030 & 1035–40 (2011).

10 Graham v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2011, 2033–34 (2010); McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3055–56 (2010) (Scalia, J., concurring); Christian Legal Soc’y Chapter of the Univ. of Cal. v. Martinez, 130 S. Ct. 2971, 3020 (2010) (Alito, J., dissenting). But see McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3026 (2010).

11 See, e.g., SCOTT DOUGLAS GERBER, FIRST PRINCIPLES: THE JURISPRUDENCE OF CLARENCE THOMAS (New York Univ. Press 2002); Antonin Scalia, Originalism: The Lesser Evil, 57 U. CIN. L. REV. 849, 864 (1989). See also McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3028–31 (2010); Id. at 3059 (Thomas, J., concurring in part).

12 See H. Jefferson Powell, The Original Understanding of Original Intent, 98 HARV. L. REV. 885 (1985).

13 Zachary Elkins, Tom Ginsburg, and Beth Simmons, Getting to Rights: Treaty Ratification, Constitutional Convergence, and Human Rights Practice, 54 HARV. INT’L L. J. 61 (2013).

14 See Toby James, Voter ID in Britain? A Note of Caution from Academic Research, Jan. 7, 2014 (School of Political, Social and International Studies, Univ. of East Anglia), available at http://www.ueapolitics.org/2014/01/07/voter-id-in-britain/.

15 Where available I have used translations from DONALD P. KOMMERS, THE CONSTITUTIONAL JURISPRUDENCE OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY (Duke Univ. Press, 2d ed. 1997). At the time of writing, a third edition was published; although I consulted the 3d edition, references to KOMMERS are to the second edition, except where noted. All translations of German language material not otherwise identified other than the Basic Law are by Anne Jelliff, my assistant who grew up in Germany. Case names are supplied by KOMMERS, Anne Jelliff, or myself.

16 Southwest State Case, BVerfGE 1, 14, at 32 (1951). Internal quote from the Bavarian Constitutional Court. Translation from KOMMERS, supra note 15, at 63.

17 Lüth Case, BVerfGE 7, 198 at 207 (1958), translation from KOMMERS, supra note 15, at 364–65; Der Spiegel, BVerfGE 20, 162, at 174 (1966), translation from KOMMERS, supra note 15, at 398; Deutschland Magazine Case, BVerfGE 42, 143 (1976); the case is briefly described in KOMMERS, supra note 15, at 377–78; Lüth Case, BVerfGE 7, 198 (1958), translation from KOMMERS, supra note 15, at 365; quoted in The Schmid-Spiegel Case, BVerfGE 12, 113, at 124–25 (1961), translation from KOMMERS, supra note 15, at 370.

18 Publication of Convict Personal Information Case, BVerfGE 35, 202 (1972), pars. 51–52. On criminal records, see Publication of Convict Personal Information Case, BVerfGE 35, 202 (1972). On misrepresentation, see Eppler Case, BVerfGE 54, 148 (1980), and see KOMMERS, supra note 15, at 320–23. For the census, see Census Act Case, BVerfGE 65, 1 (1983), discussed in KOMMERS, supra note 15, at 322–26. On dignity, see Neomi Rao, On the Use and Abuse of Dignity in Constitutional Law, 14 COLUM. J. EUR. L. 201, 210, 254–55 (2008); Rex D. Glensy, The Right to Dignity, 43 COLUM. HUM. RTS. L. REV. 65 (2011). And see Campaign Slur Case, BVerfGE 61, 1, at 13 (1982), translation from KOMMERS, supra note 15, at 380.

19 See e.g., Ruti Teitel, Militating Democracy: Comparative Constitutional Perspectives, 29 MICH. J. INT’L L. 49 (2007); Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Jr., A Comparative Perspective on the First Amendment: Free Speech, Militant Democracy, and the Primacy of Dignity as a Preferred Constitutional Value in Germany, 78 TUL. L. REV. 1549 (2004).

20 Extremists Decision, BVerfGE 39, 334, at 367–69 (1975), translation from KOMMERS, supra note 15 at 232. See also Fox and Nolte, supra note 2, 36 HARV. INT’L L.J. 32–34.

21 Socialist Reich Party Case, BVerfGE 2, 1, at 12 (1952), translation from KOMMERS, supra note 15, at 220. See Samuel Issacharoff, Fragile Democracies, 120 HARV. L. REV. 1405, 1433–34, 1462–63 (2007).

22 Gregory H. Fox and Georg Nolte, Intolerant Democracies, 36 HARV. INT’L L.J. 1, 32–34 (1995).

23 Issacharoff, supra note 21, 120 HARV. L. REV. 1434.

24 Official Propaganda Case, BVerfGE 44, 125, at 138 (1977), translation from KOMMERS, supra note 15, at 178.

25 BVerfGE 1, 14, at 33, translation from KOMMERS, supra note 15, at 63.

26 BVerfGE 44, 125, at 141, 142, translation from KOMMERS, supra note 15, at 179.

27 Voting Rights of Resident Aliens in Schleswig-Holstein, BVerfGE 83, 37, at 50 (1990), translation from KOMMERS, supra note 15, at 198.

28 See Basic Law, art. 28, and see the Maastrict Treaty Cases, 89 BVerfGE 155 (1993). For foreign constitutions, see https://www.constituteproject.org/#/search, http://www.constitution.org/cons/natlcons.htm, and relevant national websites. For a partial translation of the decision see NORMAN DORSEN, MICHEL ROSENFELD, ANDRÁS SAJÓ, AND SUSANNE BAER, COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONALISM: CASES AND MATERIALS 59–62 (West Group 2003). On guest workers, see Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Jr., A Comparative Perspective on the First Amendment: Free Speech, Militant Democracy, and the Primacy of Dignity as a Preferred Constitutional Value in Germany, 78 TUL. L. REV. 1549, 1599–1601 (2004).

29 Rights of Independent Party Representatives (AKA Wüppesahl Case), BVerfGE 80, 188, at 218 (1989), translation from KOMMERS, supra note 15, at 175.

30 National Unity Election Case, BVerfGE 82, 322 (1990), translation from KOMMERS, supra note 15, at 187.

31 National Unity Election Case, translation from KOMMERS, supra note 15, at 188. Kommers discusses the Court’s action and the legislative response at 191.

32 Investigation Committee of the Schleswig-Holstein Parliament, BVerfGE 49, 70, at 85 (1978), translation from KOMMERS, supra note 15, at 167.

33 Id. BVerfGE 49, 70, at 86, translation from KOMMERS, supra note 15, at 169. Cf. Green Party Access to Intelligence Budget, BVerfGE 70, 324, at 366 (1986), translation from KOMMERS, supra note 15, at 172; Rights of Independent Party Representatives (AKA Wüppesahl Case), BVerfGE 80, 188, at 218 (1989), translation from KOMMERS, supra note 15, at 175; Wüppesahl Case, BVerfGE 80, 188, at 218, translation from KOMMERS, supra note 15, at 175–76.

34 See DONALD P. KOMMERS AND RUSSELL A. MILLER, THE CONSTITUTIONAL JURISPRUDENCE OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY 600, 601 & 622–24 (Duke Univ. Press, 3d ed. rev. & exp. 2012). Peter E. Quint, Free Speech and Private Law in German Constitutional Theory, 48 MD. L. REV. 247, 345–47 (1989); Family Burden Compensation Case, 99 BVerfGE 216 (1998), partial translation available in Dorsen et al., supra note 28, at 1219–23. Compare Susanne Baer, Constitutional Equality: Equality: The Jurisprudence of the German Constitutional Court, 5 COLUM. J. EUR. L. 249, 273, 279 (1999) with Edward J. Eberle, Equality in Germany and the United States, 10 SAN DIEGO INT’L L. J. 63 (2008).

35 See cases collected in KOMMERS, supra note 15, at 461–486.

36 School Head-Scarf Case, 2 BvR 1436/02, Sept. 24, 2003, at par. 41, available at http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rs20030924_2bvr143602.html.

37 School Head-Scarf Case, 2 BvR 1436/02, at par. 41.

38 Ruben Seth Fogel, Headscarves in German Public Schools: Religious Minorities are Welcome in Germany, Unless–God Forbid–They are Religious, 51 N.Y. L. SCH. L. REV. 618, 620–24 (2006). See also Edward J. Eberle, Free Exercise of Religion in Germany and the United States, 78 TUL. L. REV. 1023, 1086–87 (2004).

39 DAVID P. CURRIE, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY 152 (Univ. of Chicago Press 1994).

40 BASIC LAW, art. 72; Daniel Halberstam and Roderick M. Hills, Jr., State Autonomy in Germany and the United States, 574 ANNALS OF THE AM. ACAD. OF POL. & SOC. SCI.: THE SUPREME COURT’S FEDERALISM: REAL OR IMAGINED? 173, 176–77 (Mar. 2001), available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/1049063.

41 Southwest State Case, BVerfGE 1, 14, 23, 44, translation from KOMMERS, supra note 15, at 62 & 66.

42 Foreign Voters I Case, BVerfGE 83, 37 (1990), translation from KOMMERS, supra note 15, at 199.

43 See VICKI JACKSON AND MARK TUSHNET, COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1638–61 (Foundation Press, 2d ed. 2006). See, e.g., Lüth Case, BVerfGE 7, 198, at 208 (1958), translation from KOMMERS, supra note 15, at 365. The translation in KOMMERS AND MILLER, 3d ed. rev. and expanded, supra note 34, at 445–46, is slightly different but to the same effect. See Peter E. Quint, Free Speech and Private Law in German Constitutional Theory, 48 MD. L. REV. 247 (1989).

44 On state action doctrine, see N.C. State Bd. of Dental Exam’rs v. FTC, 135 S. Ct. 1101 (U.S. 2015); Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883). For exceptions extending constitutional obligations to primaries and libel suits, see Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461 (1953); New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). For denial of federal power over private action which facilitated a century of political violence, see United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553–55 (1876). Compare with U.S. CONST., Amend. XIII.

45 See Jim Yardley, Panic Seizes India as a Region’s Strife Radiates, N.Y. TIMES, Aug. 18, 2012.

46 See ASHUTOSH VARSHNEY, ETHNIC CONFLICT AND CIVIC LIFE: HINDUS AND MUSLIMS IN INDIA (Yale Univ. Press 2002).

47 Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India (1995) A.I.R. 605 (Sup. Ct., India, 24 Oct. 1994), par. 1. Judgments available on Supreme Court of India official website at http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/chejudis.asp.

48 Id. at par. 33.

49 Id. at par. 38.

50 Id. See also Bukhari v. Mehra (Sup. Ct., India 1975) A.I.R. 1778 (2 Sup. Ct., India, Apr. 5, 1975); Issacharoff, supra note 21, 120 HARV. L. REV. 1423–29.

51 Aruna Roy v. Union of India (2002) (3) L.R.I. 643 (emphasis in original).

52 Id. at par. 36 (judgment of Dharmadhikari, J.); and see id. at par. 32 (judgment of Shah, J.).

53 Id. at par. 38.

54 Id. at par. 39 (judgment of Shah, J.).

55 Id. at par. 36 (Judgment of Shah, J.).

56 Id. at par. 1 (Judgment of Dharmadhikari, J.).

57 Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 106 (1968).

58 INDIA CONST. (1950) art. 19, secs. 1–2.

59 INDIA CONST. (1950) art. 19, secs. 1, 3–5.

60 Dr. Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo v. Shri Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte (1996) A.I.R. 1113 (Sup. Ct., India, Dec. 11, 1995).

61 Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala (1973) (72) A.I.R. 1461(Sup. Ct., India) (Apr. 24, 1973).

62 Id. at par. 1480. See also id. at par. 506 (Sikri, C.J.); id. at par. 620 (per Shelat and Grover, JJ.); Id. at par. 787 (K. S. Hegde and A.K. Mukherjea, JJ.); id. at par. 1260 (P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J.).

63 Id. at par. 1476.

64 Id. at par. 2013) (opinion of S. N. Dwivedi, J.). See also id. at par. 1285) (opinion of D.G. Palekar, J.).

65 Id. at par. 1227) (opinion of P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J).

66 Id. at par. 72 (S. M. Sikri, C.J.).

67 Id. at par. 569 (opinion of J. M. Shelat and A. N. Grover, JJ.).

68 Id. at par. 324 (per S. M. Sikri, C.J.).

69 Id. at par. 1208) (opinion of P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J).

70 Id. at 685.

71 Id. at par. 1208) (opinion of P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J).

72 Id. at par. 620 (per Shelat and Grover, JJ.).

73 Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala (1973) (72) A.I.R. 1461(Sup. Ct., India,) (Apr. 24, 1973) at par. 521 (per Shelat and Grover, JJ.).

74 Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Shri Raj Narain and Anr. (1975) A.I.R. SC 2299 (Sup. Ct., India, Nov. 7, 1975) par. 1, available at http://indiankanoon.org/doc/936707/.

75 See id. at par. 21.

76 See id. opinion of Ray, C.J., pars. 1–158; Khanna, J., pars. 159–254; Mathew, J. pars. 255–388; Beg, J., pars. 389–637; Chandrachud, J., pars. 638–697; Vivek Krishnamurthy, Colonial Cousins: Explaining India and Canada’s Unwritten Constitutional Principles, 34 YALE J. INT’L L. 207, 228–29 (2009).

77 Sankaran Krishna, Constitutionalism, Democracy and Political Culture in India, in POLITICAL CULTURE AND CONSTITUTIONALISM 168 (Daniel P. Franklin and Michael J. Baun, eds. 1994).

78 See Minerva Mills v. Union of India (Sup. Ct., India 1980) 2 S.C.C. 591; discussed in Krishnamurthy, Colonial Cousins: Explaining India and Canada’s Unwritten Constitutional Principles, 34 YALE J. INT’L L. at 229 (2009).

79 Sr Chaudhuri v. State of Punjab (Sup. Ct., India 2001) A.I.R. 2707, at par. 33.

80 Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (Sup. Ct., India 2002) A.I.R. 2112 (2002) (2) LRI 305 par. 22.

81 Id. at par. 25, quoting Mohinder Singh Gill v Chief Election Commissioner (Sup. Ct., India 1978) S.C.R. 272, 291 par.23.

82 People’s Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (Sup. Ct., India 2003) (2) LRI 13 par. 17 at 15 (pagination internal to document) (opinion of Shah, J.).

83 Union of India v Ass’n for Democratic Reforms at pars. 41 & 43 (quoting Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India v. Cricket Association of Bengal (Sup. Ct., India 1995) 2 S.C.C. 161 par. 82).

84 Id. at par. 53.

85 Id.; see also People’s Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL) at par. 17 (“For having unpolluted healthy democracy, citizens-voters should be well-informed.”).

86 Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Election Commission of India, Civil Appeal No. 9093 OF 2013 (Sup. Ct., India Oct. 8, 2013), pars. 29–31.

87 Sr Chaudhuri v. State of Punjab (Sup. Ct., India 2001) 2707 A.I.R. (2001) (3) L.R.I. 1094 par. 20.

88 Id. at par. 33.

89 Arundhati Roy, Re (Sup. Ct., India 2002) (1) L.R.I. 497 par. 25, quoting Dr.D.C. Saxena v. Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India (Sup. Ct., India 1996) 5 S.C.C. 216.

90 Id. at par. 36 quoting P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shanker (Sup. Ct., India 1988) 3 S.C.C. 167.

91 Arundhati Roy, Re (Sup. Ct., India 2002) (1) L.R.I. 497 par. 25, quoting Dr.D.C. Saxena v. Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India (Sup. Ct., India 1996) 5 S.C.C. 216.

92 Id. at par. 36 quoting P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shanker (Sup. Ct., India 1988) 3 S.C.C. 167.

93 Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union of India and other appeals (Sup. Ct., India 2000) 2 L.R.I. 724 par. 7.

94 Fox and Nolte, supra note 2, 36 HARV. INT’L L.J. at 1, and see State of Madras v. V. G. Row (Sup. Ct., India 1952) S.C.R. 597, 607–08, quoted in Fox and Nolte, supra note 2, 36 HARV. INT’L L.J. at 31–32.

95 Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P., Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 68 of 2008 (Sup. Ct., India Nov. 12, 2013).

96 See Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala (1973) (72) A.I.R. 1461(Sup. Ct., India,) (Apr. 24, 1973) at par. 316 (opinion of Sikri, J.).

97 Id. at par. 568 (opinion of Shelat and Grover, JJ.).

98 Id. at pars. 2193–94 (opinion of Chandrachud, J.).

99 Id. at par. 352 (opinion of Sikri, J.); pars. 515 & 517 (opinion of Shelat and Grover, JJ.); Id. at pars. 954, 1036 (opinion of Ray, J.).

100 For varying assessments of the Court’s work, see S. P. Sathe, Judicial Activism: The Indian Experience, 6 WASH. U. J. L. & POL’Y 29 (2001); Carl Baar, Social Action Litigation in India: The Operation and Limits of the World’s Most Active Judiciary, in COMPARATIVE JUDICIAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC POLICY (Praeger, Donald W. Jackson and C. Neal Tate, eds. 1992); Jamie Cassels, Judicial Activism and Public Interest Litigation in India: Attempting the Impossible? 37 AM. J. COMP. L. 495 (1989).

101 R. v. Oakes [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103, 1986 S.C.R. Lexis 953, 1986 N.R. LEXIS 2848, at 15, 5, pars. 3 & 64.

102 R. v. Keegstra, 1990 N.R. LEXIS 959 at 66, par. 45, quoting Oakes, 1 S.C.R., at 136.

103 Id. at 98–104, pars. 74–79.

104 Id. at 115, par. 90.

105 R. v. Keegstra [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697, 1990 N.R. LEXIS 959, at 26–27, pars. 2–3.

106 Id.at 836, 855 & 859–60 (McLachlin, J., dissenting).

107 Taylor and Western Guard Party v. Canadian Human Rights Comm’n, 117 N.R. 191, 216, par. 41 (N.R. 1990), quoted in Fox and Nolte, 36 HARV. INT’L L.J. 1, 27.

108 Reference Re Secession of Quebec [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217, 1998 N.R. LEXIS 472, par. 2.

109 Id. at 39–40, par. 32.

110 Id. at 54 par. 51.

111 Id. at 52, par. 49.

112 On federalism, See, e.g., Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999); Fla. Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd. v. College Sav. Bank, 527 U.S. 627 (1999); College Sav. Bank v. Fla. Prepaidpostsecondary Ed. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666 (1999). On separation of powers, See, e.g., Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952). On the First Amendment, see Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 483 (1965); CHARLES L. BLACK, JR., STRUCTURE AND RELATIONSHIP IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (Louisiana State Univ. Press 1969).

113 Id. at 64, par. 63, quoting Reference re Provincial Electoral Boundaries (Sask.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 158, at 186.

114 Id. at 65–66, par. 65.

115 Id. at 66, par. 65.

116 Id. at 66, par. 65, and Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, sec. 33.

117 Id. at 64, par. 64.

118 Id. at 65, par. 64, quoting Oakes, 1 S.C.R. at 136.

119 Id. at 68, pars. 63 & 67–68.

120 Id. at 42–46, 69, 76, pars. 38–42, 69 & 79.

121 Id. at 42, 130–31, pars. 45 & 149.

122 Id. at 102–29, pars. 109–46.

123 Id. at 117–23, pars. 131–39.

124 Sauvé v. Canada (Chief Electoral Officer), [2002] 3 S.C.R. 519; 2002 SCC 68; 2002 S.C.R. LEXIS 591.

125 Canada Elections Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-2 section 51(e).

126 Sauvé v. Canada, par. 9, and see par. 19.

127 Id. at pars. 38 & 41.

128 Id. at par. 31.

129 Id. at par. 31.

130 Id. at par. 31.

131 Id. at par. 31.

132 Id. at par. 41.

133 Id. at par. 44.

134 Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys, 2006 Can. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 6; 2006 SCC 6; [2006] S.C.J. No. 6, pars. 3–4, 26, 76, & 78, quoting R. v. M. (M.R.), [1998] 3 S.C.R. 393, par. 3.

135 Id. at par. 78.

136 Id. at pars. 76.

137 See In re: Certification of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, 1996 (10) BCLR 1253 (CC) 1996 SACLR LEXIS 79 (CC), pars. 13–17. See also Certification of the Amended Text of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (CCT37/96) [1996] ZACC 24; 1997 (1) BCLR 1; 1997 (2) SA 97 (4 Dec. 1996).

138 S. Afr. Interim Constitution, 1993, Schedule 4, principles I, VIII, XIV & XVII.

139 Certification of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, pars. 13–17.

140 Id. at par. 483.

141 Id. at par. 45.

142 Id. at par. 180.

143 Id. at par. 48.

144 Id. at par. 50.

145 Id. at par. 51.

146 Id. at par. 90.

147 Id. at par. 189, nn. 137–38.

148 Id. at par. 195.

149 Id. at par. 196.

150 Id. at par. 195.

151 Id. at par. 195.

152 Id. at pars. 224, 225 & 227.

153 Id. at par. 180.

154 Id. at pars. 183 & 185–86.

155 Id. at par. 184.

156 Id. at par. 108–09.

157 Id. at par. 111.

158 Id. at par. 482.

159 Soobramoney v. Minster of Health (Kwazulu-Natal) (SC 1997), 1997 (12) BCLR 1696 (CC); 1997 SACLR LEXIS 41 (CC), par. 9 (per Chaskalson, President).

160 Id. at par. 7.

161 Id. at par. 8.

162 Id. at par. 9.

163 Id. at par. 42.

164 Id. at par. 52.

165 Id. at par. 53.

166 Id. at par. 54.

167 Gov’t v. Grootboom, 2000 (11) BCLR 1169 (CC), 2000 SACLR LEXIS 126 (CC).

168 Id. at par. 7.

169 Id. at par. 4.

170 Id. at par. 23.

171 Id. at par. 2.

172 Id. at par. 96; Constitution of South Africa, sec. 26(2).

173 See Theunis Roux, ch. 10, Democracy in STU WOOLMAN, ET AL CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF SOUTH AFRICA (Juta & Co, Original Service, 2d ed. 2006), sec. 10.4(c).

174 Minister of Health and Others v Treatment Action Campaign and Others, CCT8/02, 2002 (10) BCLR 1033 (CC), 2002 SACLR LEXIS 26, May 7, 2002 and see S. Afr. Const. sec. 27(a).

175 Id. at par. 135(3)(a).

176 August v Electoral Commission, 1999 (3) SA 1 (CC); 1999 (4) BCLR 363 (CC).

177 Minister of Home Affairs v National Institute for Crime Prevention and the Re-integration of Offenders (NICRO), 2005 (3) SA 280 (CC), 2004 (5) BCLR 445 (CC). On obligation to provide for exercise of the right, see par. 28.

178 See id. at par. 33.

179 Id. at par. 28, quoting August, par. 16.

180 Id. at par. 47 (Chaskalson, CJ, for the majority, consisting of nine of the eleven justices).

181 See Michelle Alexander, THE NEW JIM CROW: MASS INCARCERATION IN THE AGE OF COLORBLINDNESS (The New Press 2010); compare United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (1996).

182 NICRO at par. 65.

183 Id. at par. 22, quoting August v Electoral Commission, 1999 (3) SA 1 (CC); 1999 (4) BCLR 363 (CC), at par. 17.

184 African Christian Democratic Party v The Electoral Commission and Others, CCT10/06, 2006 (5) BCLR 579 (CC), 2006 SACLR LEXIS 5 (2006).

185 Id. at par. 23.

186 Matatiele Municipality and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others, 2006 (5) BCLR 622, Feb. 27, 2006, par. 41, quoting Executive Council, Western Capre v. Minister of Provincial Affairs, 2000 (1) SA 661 (CC), 1999 (12) BCLR 1360 (CC) at par. 50.

187 Matatiele Municipality and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others, Aug. 18, 2006, CCT73/05, 2007 (1) BCLR 47 (CC), 2006 SACLR LEXIS 20 (2006).

188 Id. at par. 55, quoting the S. Afr. Const., sec. 116(1)(b). See also, Id. at pars. 63, 65 & 66 and par. 40, quoting Doctors for Life International v. The Speaker of the National Assembly, CCT 12/05, 17 Aug. 2006, 2006 (12) BCLR 1399 (CC), at par. 121.

189 United Democratic Movement v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (African Christian Democratic Party and Others Intervening ; Institute for Democracy in South Africa and Another as Amici Curiae) (No 2) (CCT23/02) [2002] ZACC 21; 2003 (1) SA 495; 2002 (11) BCLR 1179 (Oct. 4, 2002), http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/2002/21.html.

190 Id. at par. 17.

191 Id. at par. 34.

192 Id. at par. 35.

193 Id. at par. 53. See also par. 76.

194 Id. at par. 47.

195 Id. at par. 74.

196 Id. at par. 55; and see id. at par. 66.

197 Id. at pars. 113–14.

198 Democratic Alliance and Another v Masondo NO and Another (2002) (CCT29/02) [2002] ZACC 28; 2003 (2) BCLR 128 ; 2003 (2) SA 413 (CC) (Dec. 12, 2002), http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/2002/28.html.

199 See Democratic Alliance, pars. 8–9 (Langa, J., for the Court); Id. at par. 60 (O’Regan, J., dissenting).

200 S. Afr. Const. sec. 160(8).

201 Id. at par. 22 (Langa, J., for the Court); Id. at par. 40 (Sachs, J., concurring).

202 See S. Afr. Const. sec. 152, and Democratic Alliance, par. 17 (Langa, J., for the Court); Id. at par. 22.

203 Id. at par. 72 (O’Regan, J., dissenting).

204 Id. at par. 38 (Sachs, J., concurring).

205 Id. at par. 42 (Sachs, J., concurring).

206 Doctors for Life International v. The Speaker of the National Assembly, CCT 12/05, 17 Aug. 2006, 2006 (12) BCLR 1399 (CC), par. 121.

207 Id. at 37.

208 Id. at 35 & 57.

209 Id. at 98.

210 Id. at 98–99.

211 Id. at 99.

212 Id. at 100.

213 Id. at 109.

214 S v Mamabolo (E TV, Business Day and the Freedom of Expression Institute Intervening), CCT44/00, 2001 (5) BCLR 449 (CC), 2001 SACLR LEXIS 24 (Apr. 11, 2001), par. 5.

215 Id.

216 Id. at par. 10.

217 Id. at pars. 11–12 & 64.

218 Id. at par. 65.

219 Id. at par. 15.

220 Id. at par. 30.

221 Id. at par. 37.

222 Id. at par. 37.

223 Id. at pars. 16–17.

224 Id. at par. 38.

225 Id. at par. 38.

226 S. Afr. Const. 165(4).

227 S v Mamabolo, CCT44/00, 2001 (5) BCLR 449 (CC), 2001 SACLR LEXIS 24 (Apr. 11, 2001), at par. 38.

228 Id. at par. 78.

229 Islamic Unity Convention v Independent Broadcasting Authority and Others, CCT 36/01, 2002 (5) BCLR 433 (CC); 2002 SACLR LEXIS 2 (Nov. 4, 2002), at pars. 1–2 & 22.

230 Id. at par. 21.

231 Id. at par. 26, quoting South African National Defence Union v Minister of Defence and Another 1999 (6) BCLR 615 (CC); 1999 (4) SA 469 (CC), at sec. 8.

232 Islamic Unity Convention, at par. 26, quoting South African National Defence Union, at par. 7.

233 Id. at par. 26, quoting S v Mamabolo (E TV, Business Day and the Freedom of Expression Institute Intervening), CCT44/00, 2001 (5) BCLR 449 (CC), 2001 SACLR LEXIS 24 (Apr. 11, 2001), at 4 par. 37.

234 Id. at par. 29.

235 Id. at pars. 35–36, 43–44, 51.

236 Roux, supra note 173, at sec. 10.5.

237 Roux, supra note 173, at sec. 10.2(b).

238 See Teitel, supra note 19, at 62 & 65.

239 Olgun Akbulut, Criteria Developed by the European Court of Human Rights on the Dissolution of Political Parties, 34 FORDHAM INT’L L. J. 46, 75 (2010).

240 Vogt v Germany (1996) 21 EHRR 205, [1995] ECHR 17851/91 [GC] (Sept. 26, 1995) par. 59.

241 Id.

242 Luzius Wildhaber, The European Court of Human Rights: The Past, the Present, the Future, 22 AM. U. INT’L L. REV. 521, 534 (2007).

243 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 25. See also Fox and Nolte, supra note 2, 36 HARV. INT’L L.J. at 3, 61 & 69.

244 Wildhaber, supra note 242, at 532–33.

245 Hirst v. The United Kingdom (No. 2), [2005] ECHR 74025/01 [GC] (6 Oct. 2005), at par. 36.

246 Leyla Şahin v. Turkey, [2005] ECHR 44774/98 [GC] (10 Nov. 2005), at par. 113.

247 Hirst v. The United Kingdom, par. 36. followed, Firth and others v. The United Kingdom [2014] ECHR 47784/09 [4th section] (12 Aug. 2014). ECHR cases are available at http://hudoc.echr.coe.int.

248 Id. at par. 21.

249 Id. at pars. 12–13, 20 & 52.

250 Id. at pars. 9 & 55.

251 Id. at pars. 33 & 81.

252 Id. at pars. 81–83.

253 Id. at par. 36.

254 Id. at par. 36.

255 Id. at par. 36.

256 Id. at par. 38.

257 Id. at par. 39.

258 Id. at par. 58.

259 Id. at par. 59.

260 Id. at par. 61.

261 Id. at par. 62.

262 Id. at par. 62.

263 Id. at par. 62.

264 Id. at par. 69.

265 Id. at par. 82.

266 Id. at par. 82.

267 Wildhaber, supra note 242 at 529 citing United Communist Party of Turkey v. Turkey, 1998-I Eur. Ct. H.R. 1.

268 G. BINGHAM POWELL, CONTEMPORARY DEMOCRACIES: PARTICIPATION, STABILITY, AND VIOLENCE (Harvard Univ. Press 1982).

269 Tănase v. Moldova, [2010] ECHR 7/08 [GC] (27 Apr. 2010).

270 Id. at par. 42; id. at par. 3 of the Court’s order; id. at par. 178, and see par. 158, quoting Aziz v. Cyprus, no. 69949/01, sec. 28, ECHR 2004‑V.

271 Id. at par. 167.

272 Id. at par. 167.

273 Id. at par. 175.

274 Yumak & Sadak v. Turkey [2008] ECHR 10226/03 [GC] (July 8, 2008).

275 Id. at par. 110.

276 Id. at par. 109 (iv).

277 Id. at par. 106.

278 Id. at par. 107.

279 Id. at par. 136.

280 Id. at par. 109 (iv).

281 Id. at par. 109(i).

282 Id. at par. 147.

283 Id. at par. 109.

284 Id. at par. 109.

285 Id. at par. 109.

286 Id. at par. 110.

287 Id. at par. 131.

288 Id. at par. 131.

289 Id. at pars. 112 & 137.

290 Id. at par. 137.

291 Id. at par. 122.

292 Id. at par. 125.

293 European Commission for Democracy Through Law (Venice Commission), GUIDELINES ON PROHIBITION AND DISSOLUTION OF POLITICAL PARTIES AND ANALOGOUS MEASURES, adopted by the Venice Commission at its 41st plenary session (Venice, 10–11 Dec. 1999), available at http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/2000/CDL-INF(2000)001-e.pdf, revised and incorporated in CODE OF GOOD PRACTICE IN THE FIELD OF POLITICAL PARTIES adopted by the Venice Commission at its 77th Plenary Session (Venice, 12–13 Dec. 2008) and Explanatory Report adopted by the Venice Commission at its 78th Plenary Session (Venice, 13–14 Mar. 2009) 2008, available at http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/2009/CDL-AD(2009)002-e.asp.

294 Id.

295 CODE, supra note 293, available at http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/2009/CDL-AD(2009)021-e.asp#_ftnref23.

296 Yumak & Sadak v. Turkey [2008] ECHR 10226/03 [GC] (July 8, 2008), pars. 106, 109, 110.

297 See CHARLES L. BLACK, JR., STRUCTURE AND RELATIONSHIP IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (Louisiana State Univ. Press 1969).

298 Akbulut, supra note 239, 34 FORDHAM INT’L L.J. at 46 & 48.

299 Id. at 54.

300 United Communist Party of Turkey v. Turkey (1998) 26 EHRR 121, [1998] ECHR 19392/92 [GC], par. 10.

301 Id. at par. 55.

302 Issacharoff, supra note 21, 120 HARV. L. REV. at 1446–47.

303 See http://www.ihd.org.tr/images/pdf/IHD_1999_2008_Comparative_Balance_Sheet.pdf.

304 United Communist Party of Turkey v. Turkey, at par. 25.

305 Id. at par. 27.

306 Id. at par. 57.

307 Id. at par. 52.

308 Akbulut, supra note 239, 34 FORDHAM INT’L L.J. at 54–55.

309 Refah Partisi (The Welfare Party) and others v. Turkey, [2003] ECHR 41340/98 [GC] (13 Feb. 2003), at par. 119.

310 Leyla Şahin v. Turkey, [2005] ECHR 44774/98 [GC] (10 Nov. 2005), at par. 113.

311 Wildhaber, supra note 271, at 529–30.

312 Refah Partisi, at par. 119.

313 Azizah al-Hibri, in an e- mail to the author, Apr. 4, 2012; I am indebted to her for comments on the language in an earlier draft.

314 Refah Partisi, at par. 123.

315 Id. at par. 123.

316 See Akbulut, supra note 239, 34 FORDHAM INT’L L.J. at 60–61.

317 Refah Partisi, at par. 123.

318 Id. at par. 123.

319 See MICHAEL WALZER, ON TOLERATION (Yale Univ. Press 1997).

320 See the discussion in Akbulut, supra note 239, 34 FORDHAM INT’L L.J. at 66–70. Compare Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 130 S. Ct. 2705, 2713 (2010); Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134, 182 (1974); Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969); Ibrahim v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 669 F.3d 983, 988–90 (9th Cir. Cal. 2012); Carl A. Auerbach, The Communist Control Act of 1954: A Proposed Legal-Political Theory of Free Speech, 23 U. CHI. L. REV. 173, 188 (1956); Fox and Nolte, supra note 3, 36 HARV. INT’L L.J. at 68; and see Hans A. Linde, “Clear and Present Danger” Reexamined: Dissonance in the Brandenburg Concerto, 22 STAN. L. REV. 1163, 1183 (1970).

321 Id. at 66–69.

322 Vogt v Germany (1996) 21 EHRR 205, [1995] ECHR 17851/91 [GC] (Sept. 26, 1995), at pars. 59 & 61.

323 See Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L’antisemitisme, and L’union Des Etudiants Juifs De France, 433 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2006).

324 Lehideux and Isorni v. France, 5 BHRC 540 [GC] (23 SEPT. 1998), at par. 55.

325 Id.

326 Id.

327 Id. See also Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway, [1999] ECHR 23118/93[GC] (25 NOV. 1999) par. 43.

328 Explanatory Report, incorporated as part III of GUIDELINES ON PROHIBITION AND DISSOLUTION OF POLITICAL PARTIES, note 361 above, at par. 11, available at http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/2000/CDL-INF(2000)001-e.pdf.

329 Id. at pars. 11, 38 & 34.

330 Hasan And Chaush v. Bulgaria, [2000] ECHR 30985/96 [GC] (26 Oct. 2000), at pars. 60 & 78.

331 Teitel, supra note 19, at 45.

332 Id. at 56.

333 See id. at 58–62.

334 Id. at 57–62.

335 See id. at 67–69.

336 Leyla Şahin v. Turkey, [2005] ECHR 44774/98 [GC] (10 Nov. 2005), pars. 47, 113.

337 Id., pars. 30–51, 119–20.

338 Id., par. 106; Convention Art. IX, par. 2.

339 Leyla Şahin, par. 111.

340 Id., par. 113.

341 See id., par. 111.

342 Id., par. 109.

343 Compare Employment Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 886 (1990); and contrast Id. at 901 (O’Connor, J., concurring).

344 Leyla Şahin v. Turkey, supra note 336, par. 113.

345 Id., par. 165.

346 Id., pars. 115–16.

347 Id., par. 113.

348 Id., par. 114.

349 Id., par. 104.

350 Id., pars. 105–06.

351 Id., par. 107.

352 Id., par. 108.

353 Id., par. 108.