Click here for the full article – The Roberts’ Court Takes a Sledge Hammer To Ashwander and Cautious Constitutional Jurisprudence: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

In this January’s decision of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court overturned more than 100 years of legislative precedent, as well as its own precedent of twenty years, to permit corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money on direct advocacy of the election or defeat of candidates for political office.  The breadth of the holding is startling.  Although the specific context considered a video-on-demand ninety minute diatribe regarding Presidential aspirant Hillary Clinton, the plain import of the holding reaches all federal and state elections, presidential, congressional, gubernatorial, judicial, and janitorial!

by Alan Shoenberger

Click here for article – Chief Justice Roberts and the “Forty Thieves”

“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose/ By any other name would smell as sweet.” Whether or not one agrees with the young Shakespeare about names—and many decidedly do not —numbers (as numerologists undoubtedly will assure you) are decidedly a different story and have always been thought to have extrinsic significance.

The number forty, for example, has extensive numerological significance, principally (though not exclusively) in biblical texts. A time period in the Bible—whether in days, months, or years and whether in the books of the Old or New Testament—that features the number forty is most often a time of trial, testing, punishment, or probation; however, the number forty in scripture also symbolized periods of peace and reward.

Thus one cannot help but remark at the rather prominent instantiation of the number forty in a Supreme Court opinion, even a dissent. This occurred in the Supreme Court’s June 8, 2009 decision in Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., a case that has attracted considerable publicity and public interest. The dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Roberts prominently featured forty questions about the scope of, ramifications of, and limitations on the majority’s decision.

By Keith R. Fisher & Konstantina Vagenas

Click here for article – Originalism and Its Tools:  A Few Caveats

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the United States Supreme Court adopted original public understanding as an interpretative tool.  While this approach has the virtue of establishing meaning independent of a court’s personal values and preferences, this article explores some hazards which courts should try to avoid.  First, one must resist the temptation to see historians as invariably objective; some are apt to push a personal agenda, or get a reputation as a “debunker,” at the cost of distorting, overlooking, or even inventing the historical record.  Historical studies of this type have misled the Ninth Circuit, and a dissent in Heller.  Second, new research methodologies can have serious and inherent errors. The interface of law and history can be difficult enough, but the interface of law, history, and optical character recognition software can pose some unique risks.

By David T. Hardy

Click here for article – On Marriage, Religious Freedom, Equality and Homosexuality: A Reply to Professor Huhn

By George W. Dent, Jr.

As Professor Huhn says, there is much on which we agree. I concur that the Free Exercise Clause gives citizens no power to override an Equal Protection decision by the Supreme Court (his answer to his Question 1), or a decision of a state supreme court to compel legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” (SSM) (his answer to his Question 2).We part company, though, over the meaning of equality and its application to marriage.

Click here for article – Ten Questions on Gay Rights and Freedom of Religion

By Wilson R. Huhn

I have prepared a series of ten questions that will progressively narrow the issues concerning gay rights and free exercise rights until we come to the principal point upon which Professor Dent and I disagree – the definition and application of the principle of equality.

Responses:

Huhn vs. Dent Repsponse by Allison Hayes

Hello and welcome to Akron Law Review:  Strict Scrutiny.  To receive instant updates for this online journal we have established the Strict Scrutiny Mailing List and RSS Feeds.  You can subscribe to the mailing list by providing your email address on the form in the right link bar.  To subscribe to our RSS Feeds for Entries or Comments locate the links in the right link bar under the Meta heading .  If you have any questions about your subscriptions please contact us lawreview@uakron.edu.

Thank you,

Akron Law Review:  Strict Scrutiny