Constitutional Illusions and Anchoring Truths: The Touchstone of the Natural Law
This book stands against the current of judgments long settled in the schools of law in regard to classic cases such as Lochner v. New York, Near v. Minnesota, the Pentagon Papers case, and Bob Jones University v. United States. Professor Hadley Arkes takes as his subject concepts long regarded as familiar, settled principles in our law - "prior restraints," ex post facto laws - and he shows that there is actually a mystery about them, that their meaning is not as settled or clear as we have long supposed. Those mysteries have often given rise to illusions or at least a series of puzzles in our law. They have at times acted as a lens through which we view the landscape of the law. We often see what the lens has made us used to seeing, instead of seeing what is actually there. Arkes tries to show, in this text, that the logic of the natural law provides the key to this chain of puzzles.
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
On the Novelties of an Old Constitution Settled Principles and Unsettling Surprises
The Natural Law Again Ever
Lochner and the Cast of Our Law
The Strange Case of Prior Restraint The Pentagon Papers
Other editions - View all
Amendment American argument barred Bills of Attainder Black Bob Jones University Bork Chief Justice claim classiﬁed colleagues conﬁned conﬁrmed Constitution contract course criminal decision deﬁned dissent ex post facto fact federal ﬁgure ﬁnally ﬁnd ﬁrst principles ﬁt Frank Snepp freedom grasp ground Hadley Arkes harm Hughes Ibid inﬂict injunction injuries interest judges jurisprudence Justice Scalia justiﬁed kind laws of reason lawyers legislation legislature libel licensing Lincoln lives Lochner matter Minnesota moral judgment natural law newspaper Nixon notable notion offered ofﬁce ofﬁcer ofﬁcial opinion Peckham penalties Pentagon Papers person plausible political positive law post facto laws precisely previous restraint Princeton prior restraint problem proposition prosecution protect published punishment question race racial discrimination reﬂection remarked Robert Bork Rufus Peckham rule Scalia seemed sense signiﬁcance sought statute supra Supreme Court things thought truth understanding University Press Vietnam wrong York