A Cartan-Hadamard type result for relatively hyperbolic groups

In this article, we prove that if a finitely presented group has an asymptotic cone which is tree-graded with respect to a precise set of pieces then it is relatively hyperbolic. This answers a question of M. Sapir.Comment: 33 pages, 2 figure

Lincoln, the Constitution of Necessity, and the Necessity of Constitutions

Some invoke the legacy of Abraham Lincoln to justify largely unchecked executive power which in times of war trumps constitutional limits and guarantees of liberty. This article suggests that the Lincoln model is a poor one to follow: because some of his actions were inconsitent with democratic government, because the administration invoked the doctrine of necessity when many of the cabinet thought no necessity existed, and because in the end, Lincoln himself refused to follow his logic to its inevitable conclusion. It critiques two article by Michael Paulsen invoking Lincoln to justify largely unchecked executive power

The Constitution and The Other Constitution

In this article, Professor Michael Kent Curtis examines how laws that shape the distribution of wealth intersect with and affect popular sovereignty and free speech and press. He presents this discussion in the context of the effect of the Other Constitution on The Constitution. Professor Curtis begins by taking a close-up look at the current campaign finance system and the concentration of media ownership in a few corporate bodies and argues that both affect the way in which various political issues are presented to the public, if at all. Professor Curtis continues by talking about the origins of our constitutional ideals of popular sovereignty and free speech and press and how the centralization of economic power has limited the full expression of these most basic of democratic values throughout American history. Next, he analyzes the Supreme Court\u27s decision in Buckley v. Valeo, the controlling precedent with respect to the constitutionality of limitations on campaign contributions. Finally, Professor Curtis concludes that the effect of the Other Constitution on The Constitution requires a Television Tea Party and a government role in the financing of political campaigns

Lincoln, Vallandingham, and Anti-War Speech in the Civil War

In the early morning hours of May 5, 1863, Union soldiers forcibly arrested Clement L. Vallandigham, a prominent Democratic politician and former congressman, for an anti-war speech which he had given a few days earlier in Mount Vernon, Ohio. Vallandigham\u27s arrest ignited debate about freedom of speech in a democracy during a time of war and the First Amendment rights of critics of an administration. This Article is one in a series by Professor Curtis which examines episodes in the history of free speech before and during the Civil War. In this Article, Professor Curtis explores the First Amendment\u27s guarantee of free speech and the contention that other constitutional values must supersede this guarantee during a time of war. He discusses and evaluates theories that Vallandigham\u27s contemporaries advocated in support of protection for anti-war speech, as well as theories supporting the suppression of anti-war speech. Curtis concludes that even in a time of war, free speech is essential to the preservation of a representative government and individuals\u27 Constitutional right to discuss issues crucial to their lives

John A. Bingham and the Story of American Liberty: The Lost Cause Meets the Lost Clause

Nations have stories too. Ours is a story about the American Revolution against monarchy and aristocracy, a revolution based on the faith that all people are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. The revolution espoused the ideal that legitimate governmental power comes only from the consent of the governed. In the old world, kings were sovereign. In America, the sovereign was “the people.” That ideal appeared in the preamble of the Constitution—a preamble that declared (somewhat inaccurately) that the Constitution came from “we the people” and was designed to assure liberty and justice. Though we often fall short of them, ideals matter. The Bill of Rights to the Constitution, added in 1791, also stated ideals;it declared and protected basic liberties of the people. With the end of the Civil War, slavery was abolished. In 1919 women got the vote. At any rate, according to our story, the United States is a democracy that protects basic rights of its citizens. As far as I can recall, that was pretty much the American story I learned in public schools in Galveston, Texas, in the 1950s. Of course, the dominant Texas story had some peculiarities that did not fit too well with the larger story. According to the version I recall, greedy Yankees and ignorant blacks subjected the South to a period of misrule after the Civil War—from which, somehow or other, the South was rescued. If my high school history book told me just how the rescue was effected, I do not recall