Guest  

 
Search: 
Search By: SubjectAbstractAuthorTitleFull-Text

 

Showing 1 through 5 of 304 records.
Pages: Previous - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 61 - Next  Jump:
2013 - Association for Slavic, East European and Eurasian Studies 45th Annual Convention Words: 54 words || 
Info
1. Vaisman, Margarita. "Unnecessary Melodrama: Narrative Strategies in Nikolay Chernyshevsky’s What Is to Be Done? (1863) and William Godwin’s Caleb Williams (1794)" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Slavic, East European and Eurasian Studies 45th Annual Convention, Boston Marriott Copley Place, Boston, MA, <Not Available>. 2019-09-16 <http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p650667_index.html>
Publication Type: Panel Paper
Abstract: Lenin's favorite novelist, Nikolay Chernyshevsky, has openly acknowledged his intellectual debt to the English philosopher William Godwin. However, literary aspects of this connection have not yet been explored. In this paper, I argue that comparative analyses of narrative strategies used by Godwin and Chernyshevsky redefines "What is to be done?" as an ideological melodrama.

2006 - The Midwest Political Science Association Pages: 31 pages || Words: 10249 words || 
Info
2. Yeates, Owen. "Roger Williams: Toleration, Cooperation, and Culture Wars" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the The Midwest Political Science Association, Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, Illinois, Apr 20, 2006 <Not Available>. 2019-09-16 <http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p140736_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This paper argues that Williams's defense of toleration and respect for others resulted from his unrelenting religious convictions. It calls on the religious and non-religious to seek grounds for cooperation within their own and others' traditions.

2006 - The Midwest Political Science Association Pages: 43 pages || Words: 13534 words || 
Info
3. Katz, Daniel. "Institutional Rules, Strategic Behavior and the Legacy of Chief Justice William Rehnquist: Setting the Record Straight on Dickerson v. United States" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the The Midwest Political Science Association, Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, Illinois, Apr 20, 2006 <Not Available>. 2019-09-16 <http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p139314_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Unchanged for more than a decade, the past year witnessed substantial alteration to the composition of the United States Supreme Court. In the span of several months, the high court experienced changes to more than twenty percent of its membership including the death of its most prominent member, Chief Justice William Rehnquist. In periods of transition such as those recently experienced, it is natural to speculate as to the future course of this institution, but equally compelling, these changes elicit reflection as to the historical significance of the recently completed era. In the latest iteration, attention centered upon the late Chief Justice whose untimely death focused attention not only on the institution which he guided for more than two decades but also upon his personal jurisprudence. Comments regarding his legacy were wide ranging and covered the gambit of cases that came before the high court during his stewardship.

One case, Dickerson v. United States, garnered particular attention from commentators. In fact, even before his untimely death some argued this decision was critical to understanding the Rehnquist legacy. In Dickerson, the Chief Justice authored this seven member majority opinion which sustained Miranda v. Arizona. The decision was a surprise. Miranda had been a pillar of the Warren Court revolution, and Chief Justice Rehnquist previously varied from tepid support to outright dissention for the 1966 ruling. Thus, given his history, he seemed unlikely to author a supportive opinion in perhaps the key Miranda decision of the decade.

In the wake of the Chief Justice’s ruling, legal scholars grappled to interpret this apparently anomalous decision. This process produced a litany of explanations. Some commentators pursued a separation of powers theory positing that the Chief sought to protect the Court from encroachment by Congress. Others focused upon exogenous factors arguing that public opinion motivated the Chief. However, a great number of scholars argued that the decision was strong evidence of Rehnquist’s faithful adherence to the principle of stare decisis. The Dickerson opinion particularly supports this account. Justice Rehnquist specifically noted that although he might not initially favor the Miranda rule, it had subsequently become part of the “national culture.”

As written, many accounts either disavow the potential of a strategic explanation or fail to outline explicitly the evidence supporting the uniqueness of their non-strategic theory. Specifically, these explanations fail because they largely ignore the alternative set of preferences which could have produced the Chief’s decision. This is troubling because prior scholarship demonstrates the Chief possesses a unique set of institutional powers which provide significant incentive for him to behave sophisticatedly. Many prevailing explanations for Dickerson at a minimum are incomplete because they fail to determine whether his vote and opinion were the result of moderation, fidelity to traditional legal principles, or, in fact, strategic behavior.

This paper pursues its own uniqueness claim arguing the gravamen of available evidence supports a strategic explanation for Justice Rehnquist’s behavior in Dickerson. To do this, the paper first reviews the methodological debate within the scholarship of public law, a debate relevant to the competing explanations for the Dickerson decision. Next, the paper explores the strategic approach by describing the multistage sophisticated process which produces Supreme Court decisions. It culminates in Figure 1.1, a general diagram that is carried forward into Part II of the paper.

Part II directly considers the Dickerson decision. This portion begins with a description of the Supreme Court’s Miranda jurisprudence before reviewing the specific facts and procedural history of the case. Next, Part II reviews Justice Rehnquist’s Miranda related decisions which taken together demonstrate the truly anomalous nature of the Dickerson opinion. The paper then outlines a strategic account, an approach antithetical to prevailing explanations attributed to Rehnquist’s behavior.

Strategic and non-strategic behaviors are observationally equivalent. Thus, in order firmly to support its strategic theory, this paper concludes with a discussion of the several important post-Dickerson decisions including Chavez, and Patane, where the Chief Justice inexplicably favors opinions arguing certain exceptions to Miranda, continue to operate even in a post-Dickerson world after Dickerson afforded Miranda full constitutional status. Chavez and Patane are critical to the analysis because they help determine what end Justice Rehnquist actually achieved in his Dickerson opinion. He successfully preserved a set of Miranda exceptions which he personally developed during his thirty year tenure on the Court. It is from this outlook that commentators in fact are correct to argue that Dickerson is critical to understanding the legacy of the late Chief Justice.

2006 - American Studies Association Words: 417 words || 
Info
4. Maxwell, Angie. "Reactionary Fundamentalism in the Aftermath of Scopes: The Founding of William Jennings Bryan College" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Studies Association, <Not Available>. 2019-09-16 <http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p113894_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: The Scopes Evolution Trial of 1925 pitted religious fundamentalism against modern science and drew more attention than any court case of the young century. According to historian George Tindall, the cavalcade of spectators included “publicity-hounds, curiosity-seekers, professional evangelists and professional atheists, a blind mountaineer who proclaimed himself the world’s greatest authority on the Bible, ballyhoo agents for the Florida boom, hot dog and soda pop hucksters, and a miscellany of reporters and publicists.” One such journalist, H. L. Mencken of the Baltimore Sun, described the people in Dayton as “‘yokels,’ ‘morons,’ ‘hillbillies’ and ‘peasants,’” arguing that the display of “‘Baptist and Methodist Barbarism,’” established a cultural and intellectual abyss in the region. Dayton’s new image had a profound impact on the development of American fundamentalist Christianity. Religious historian Karen Armstrong contends that before the Scopes trial, “fundamentalists had been willing to work alongside socialists and liberal Christians.” Whereas after the trial, she continues, “they swung to the far right, where they remained. They felt humiliated by the media attack. It was very nasty. There was a sense of loss of prestige, and, above all, a sense of fear.”

Although the trial itself has been thoroughly documented, scholars have not discussed the psychological implications of this intense media disavowal of Dayton. This paper attempts to examine critically the national and international coverage of the trial and, using psychologist Alfred Adler’s theory of the Inferiority Complex, to analyze the response of local fundamentalist religious groups to this barrage of attention. One particular response to the Inferiority Complex that Adler described is the individual’s rejection of society, a turning inward towards cultural isolation. In a similar vein, historian Edward Larson argues that “as a result of the Scopes trial . . . fundamentalists responded by withdrawing. They did not abandon their faith, however, but set about constructing a separate subculture with independent religious, educational and social institutions.” William Jennings Brian, the leader of the fundamentalist crusade against evolution, died only a few days after the trial, and almost immediately his near-martyrdom set in motion plans to found a college in his honor. Opening its doors in 1930, Bryan College promoted a separatist and defensive stance among its students, and it continues today to lobby for the teaching of Creationism and Intelligent Design in American schools. The founding of William Jennings Bryan College and its presence in the contemporary fundamentalist movement represents a tangible institutional legacy of the Scopes evolution trial that remains unexamined.

2007 - The American Studies Association Words: 508 words || 
Info
5. Lewis, Adam. ""William Walker, Of Nicaragua": Filibusters, Illustrated Newspapers, and the Malleability of Imperial Citizenship" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the The American Studies Association, Philadelphia Marriott Downtown, Philadelphia, PA, Oct 11, 2007 <Not Available>. 2019-09-16 <http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p185768_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: The filibustering of William Walker in Nicaragua during the 1850s presents a significant though often overlooked moment in U.S. history that unsettles the political and legal borders distinguishing domestic space from the foreign, which in turn complicates the boundaries of national identity. While at first glance Walker’s brief takeover of Nicaragua and the reinstitution of slavery in that country appear as an unconventional assertion of an individual U.S. citizen seeking personal power, recent scholarship has situated Walker and other filibusters firmly within the context of national territorial expansion, fueled by the ideology of Manifest Destiny. However, little critical attention has been paid to how Walker was figured as both a U.S. national subject and a “foreign” ruler in the popular press and at mass political rallies. Moreover, Nicaragua was also simultaneously understood as a part of and apart from “America,” laying bare inherent contradictions embedded within the legitimizing strategies that underwrote imperial expansion.

This paper attends to these contradictions by focusing on representations of both Walker’s and Nicaragua’s equivocal relationship to the United States during the 1850s. Accounts of Walker’s assertion of empire in daily and weekly periodicals served as cultural spaces that simultaneously delimited and extended the location of “America.” In particular, new technologies in print and visual culture such as illustrated newspapers played a significant role in depicting Walker as both a national hero and a legitimate foreign ruler. Written and pictorial accounts published in Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper, for example, helped produce and reproduce the contradictions of U.S. imperialism, gendered and racialized national identity, and the unstable relations between domestic and foreign space, all of which point to the difficulty of defining the legal, cultural, and social place of “America.” In Leslie’s, Walker was positioned as both “American” and “Nicaraguan,” while the Central American country itself was represented as destined to be incorporated within the American home and also figured as immutably foreign.

This paper seeks to engage some of the stakes of American Studies in a transnational context, particularly the ways in which attempts to incorporate new places and peoples within the space of “America” often elicited cultural conflict and an indecisive national response. The representations of Walker’s short-lived conquest of Nicaragua found in this particular archive register the complex relations among new forms of media, empire-building, and the ambivalent attempt to construct discrete, coherent national spaces and identities at a time of great tension and transformation both within the U.S. and the larger world-system. This particular historical moment within the long history of U.S. empire also provides an unique occasion to consider the divergent means of legitimating imperial violence. How do we situate the U.S. government’s condemnation of private armies attacking sovereign countries in relation to state-sanctioned violence? Are these antagonistic, or can they be understood as working together in an attempt to forcefully redraw the boundaries of America? These, and other questions, will help critically situate one of the many transnational spaces marked by violence that shape the American past.

Pages: Previous - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 61 - Next  Jump:

©2019 All Academic, Inc.   |   All Academic Privacy Policy