Book Reviews

MIAMI: CITY OF THE FUTURE. By T. D. Allman, reviewed by Marcia J. Kanner; FLORIDA \u27S ARMY: MILITIA , STATE TROOPS , NATIONAL GUARD, 1565-1985. By Robert Hawk, reviewed by John K. Mahon; THE FORGING OF THE UNION, 1781-1789. By Richard B. Morris, reviewed by Aubrey C. Land; A MACHINE THAT WOULD Go OF ITSELF: THE CONSTITUTION IN AMERICAN CULTURE. By Michael Kammen, reviewed by Kermit L. Hall; THE EAGLE\u27S NEST: NATURAL HISTORY AND AMERICAN IDEAS, 1812-1842. By Charlotte M. Porter, reviewed by Todd Savitt; ROBERT STAFFORD OF CUMBERLAND ISLAND : GROWTH OF A PLANTER . By Mary R. Bullard, reviewed by John S. Otto; THE PAPERS OF JOHN C. CALHOUN, VOLUME XVII: 1843-1844. Edited by Clyde M. Wilson, reviewed by Herbert J. Doherty, Jr.; INTELLECTUAL LIFE IN ANTEBELLUM CHARLESTON. Edited by Michael O’Brien and David Moltke-Hansen, reviewed by James E. Kibler, Jr.; TOMBEE: PORTRAIT OF A COTTON PLANTER. By Theodore Rosengarten, reviewed by Cheryll Ann Cody; THE C.S.S. FLORIDA: HER BUILDING AND OPERATIONS. By Frank Lawrence Owsley, CSS ALABAMA: BUILDER, CAPTAIN, AND PLANS. By Charles Grayson Summersell, reviewed by George E. Buker; RURAL WORLDS LOST: THE AMERICAN SOUTH, 1920-1960. By Jack Temple Kirby, reviewed by Robert C. McMath, Jr.; BIRMINGHAM’S RABBI: MORRIS NEWFIELD AND ALABAMA, 1895-1950. By Mark Cowett, reviewed by Louis Schmier; BEARING THE CROSS : MARTIN LUTHER KING , J R., AND THE SOUTHERN CHRISTIAN LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE. By David J. Garrow, reviewed by David R. Colburn; A NEW DIVERSITY IN CONTEMPORARY SOUTHERN RHETORIC. Edited by Calvin M. Logue and Howard Dorgan, reviewed by Bailey Thomson; ON DOING LOCAL HISTORY: REFLECTIONS ON WHAT LOCAL HISTORIANS DO, WHY, AND WHAT IT MEANS. By Carol Kammen, reviewed by Thomas Graham; THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SCHOLARLY HISTORICAL PERIODICALS. By Margaret F. Stieg, reviewed by William F. Holme

E Pluribus Unum? Book Review Of: States\u27 Rights and the Union: Imperium in Imperio, 1776-1876. by Forrest McDonald

E Pluribus Unum? Book review of: States\u27 rights and the Union: Imperium in Imperio, 1776-1876. By Forrest McDonald. University Press of Kansas. 2000. Pp. vii, 296

Sidney Shainwald Public Interest Lecture: HON. JUSTICE SANDRA DAY O\u27CONNOR (RET.), UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/shainwald_lectures/1003/thumbnail.jp

Tradition as Past and Present in Substantive Due Process Analysis

Tradition is often understood as an inheritance from the past that has no connection to the present. Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court on both ends of the ideological spectrum work from this understanding, particularly in analyzing cases under the substantive due process clause. Some conservative Justices say that substantive due process protects only rights that were firmly established when the Constitution was ratified. In contrast, some liberal Justices dismiss tradition as being too stagnant and oppressive to serve as a limit on substantive due process rights, relying instead on contemporary norms and reason. Both of these approaches share an oppositional view of past and present, and permit little opportunity for deeper, searching inquiry into what liberty interests are so deeply embedded in this Nation\u27s identity that they should be protected by the U.S. Constitution. The Essay presents a richer, interactive understanding of tradition as a continuity between past and present. Tradition represents what elements of our evolving past we wish to own in the present. The Essay explores this alternative view of tradition using as exemplars some judicial opinions in the substantive due process area, largely from the Court\u27s center. It argues that tradition does not deserve a place in substantive due process analysis simply because it represents a fixed truth from some distant past, nor should tradition be entirely rejected as a source of substantive due process rights simply because of its connection to the past. Understood as a source of our identity that is both inherited and changing, tradition can serve as a constructive focal point for determining substantive due process rights

\u3cem\u3eBond v. United States\u3c/em\u3e: Choosing the Lesser of Two Evils

This essay makes two main points. First, the majority’s interpretation of the CWC Act is inconsistent with the statute and the underlying treaty. Indeed, the majority opinion displays a basic misunderstanding of the design of the underlying treaty. Second, Justice Scalia’s construction of the Necessary and Proper Clause is antithetical to the structure and original understanding of the Constitution. If adopted as law, Justice Scalia’s view would seriously harm the federal government’s ability to conduct foreign affairs on behalf of the nation. Since Justice Scalia’s constitutional error would be far more damaging than the majority’s statutory error, the majority’s statutory misinterpretation is the lesser of two evils