Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorStein, Joshua
dc.date2021-11-25T13:35:14.000
dc.date.accessioned2021-11-26T11:56:02Z
dc.date.available2021-11-26T11:56:02Z
dc.date.issued2015-10-18T10:32:26-07:00
dc.identifieryjlh/vol25/iss2/4
dc.identifier.contextkey7736194
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13051/7504
dc.description.abstractHistorians' amicus briefs play a special role before today's Supreme Court as it grapples with the law's "original meaning."' Since 2000, professional historians have participated in forty-six amicus briefs before the Supreme Court. Thirty-two of these came after 2006. Historians had signed only six between 1989 and 1999. In spite of their enthusiastic participation, historians are neither getting the results they would like nor using means they particularly want to employ. This Note is directed toward historians, who I hope will continue to attempt to influence the Court, and legal practitioners, who should reconsider how they argue over the past.
dc.titleHistorians Before the Bench: Friends of the Court, Foes of Originalism
dc.source.journaltitleYale Journal of Law & the Humanities
refterms.dateFOA2021-11-26T11:56:03Z
dc.identifier.legacycoverpagehttps://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/yjlh/vol25/iss2/4
dc.identifier.legacyfulltexthttps://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1413&context=yjlh&unstamped=1


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
Stein.pdf
Size:
1.775Mb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record