Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-10T00:42:42.192Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Constitutional Law in 1955–1956

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

David Fellman
David Fellman
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

No changes in the personnel of the Supreme Court occurred during the 1955 Term.

Noteworthy among publications dealing with the Court and with constitutional law which appeared during the period under review were a first biography of James Wilson, a member of the original Court; symposia on the late Justice Roberts, the late Professor Thomas Reed Powell, and Justice Black; several interesting reappraisals of John Marshall; and additional installments of Professor Mason's important work on Justice Stone. A full scale critique of Charles Beard's interpretation of the Constitution was published, as well as a variety of writings on historical aspects of the Court, and on a wide range of problems of judicial practice and public law.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 51 , Issue 1 , March 1957 , pp. 158 - 196
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1957

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Smith, Charles Page, James Wilson, Founding Father, 1742–1798 (Chapel Hill, 1956)Google Scholar.

2 University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 104, pp. 311–379 (Dec., 1955)Google Scholar. The essay by Justice Frankfurter is especially noteworthy, shedding new light on Justice Roberts' “switch in time.” Stanford Law Review, Vol. 8, pp. 3–76 (Dec., 1955)Google Scholar.

3 Harvard Law Review, Vol. 69, pp. 793–805 (March, 1956)Google Scholar. See also Powell, , Vagaries and Varieties in Constitutional Interpretation (New York, 1956)Google Scholar.

4 Yale Law Journal, Vol. 65, pp. 449–528 (Feb., 1956)Google Scholar.

5 Jones, W. Melville, ed., Chief Justice John Marshall: A Reappraisal (Ithaca, 1956)Google Scholar; Frankfurter, Felix, “John Marshall and the Judicial Function,” Harvard Law Review, Vol. 69, pp. 217–238 (Dec., 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Crosskey, William Winslow, “John Marshall and the Constitution,” University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 23, pp. 377–397 (Spring, 1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Symposium, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 104, pp. 1–68 (Oct., 1955)Google Scholar. See also Servies, James A., A Bibliography of John Marshall (Washington, 1956)Google Scholar.

6 Mason, Alpheus T., “Inter Arma Silent Leges: Chief Justice Stone's Views,” Harvard Law Review, Vol. 69, pp. 806–838 (March, 1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; “The Core of Free Government, 1938–40: Mr. Justice Stone and ‘Preferred Freedoms,’” Yale Law Journal, Vol. 65, pp. 597–628 (April, 1956)Google Scholar.

7 Brown, Robert E., Charles Beard and the Constitution (Princeton, 1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Perkins, Dexter, Charles Evans Hughes and American Democratic Statesmanship (Boston, 1956)Google Scholar; Dunham, Allison and Kurland, P. B., Mr. Justice (Chicago, 1956)Google Scholar; Silver, David M., Lincoln's Supreme Court (Urbana, 1956)Google Scholar; Longaker, Richard P., “Andrew Jackson and the Judiciary,” Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 71, pp. 341–364 (Sept., 1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Since 1954 John C. Hogan has published some eight articles in various journals on Justice Joseph Story. For the latest see: “Justice Story on the Common Law of Evidence,” Vanderbilt Law Review, Vol. 9, pp. 51–67 (Jan., 1956)Google Scholar, and “Blackstone and Joseph Story —Their Influence on the Development of Criminal Law in America,” Minnesota Law Review, Vol. 40, pp. 107–124 (Jan., 1956)Google Scholar.

9 Jaffe, Louis L., “Judicial Review: Question of Law,” Harvard Law Review, Vol. 69, pp. 239–276 (Dec., 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, “Judicial Review: Question of Fact,” ibid., pp. 1020–1056 (April, 1956); Schwartz, Bernard, “Gray v. Powell and the Scope of Review,” Michigan Law Review, Vol. 54, pp. 1–70 (Nov., 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Note, “Supreme Court per Curiam Practice: A Critique,” Harvard Law Review, Vol. 69, pp. 707–725 (Feb., 1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cohen, Julius, “The ‘Good Man’ and the Role of Reason in Legislative Law,” Cornell Law Quarterly, Vol. 41, pp. 386–398 (Spring, 1956)Google Scholar; Note, “Advisory Opinions on the Constitutionality of Statutes,” Harvard Law Review, Vol. 69, pp. 1302–1313 (May, 1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Carrington, Paul D., “Political Questions: The Judicial Check on the Executive,” Virginia Law Review, Vol. 42, pp. 175–201 (Feb., 1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Aikin, Charles, “Store Decisis, Precedent, and the Constitution,” Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 9, pp. 87–92 (March, 1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also: Vanderbilt, Arthur T., Judges and Jurors: Their Functions, Qualifications and Selection (Boston, 1956)Google Scholar; Aumann, Francis R., The Instrumentalities of Justice (Columbus, 1956)Google Scholar.

10 Frankfurter, Felix, Of Law and Men (New York, 1956)Google Scholar; Mendelson, Wallace, “Mr. Justice Frankfurter on the Construction of Statutes,” California Law Review, Vol. 43, pp. 652–673 (Oct., 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Douglas, William O., We the Judges (Garden City, N. Y., 1956)Google Scholar; Horn, Robert A., Groups and the Constitution (Stanford, 1956)Google Scholar; Spurlock, Clark, Education and the Supreme Court (Urbana, 1956)Google Scholar; Schwartz, Bernard, American Constitutional Law (Cambridge, England, 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Williams, Jerre S., The Supreme Court Speaks (Austin, 1956)Google Scholar; Murphy, Paul L., “The New Deal Agricultural Program and the Constitution,” Agricultural History, Vol. 29, pp. 160–169 (Oct., 1955)Google Scholar; Greenberg, Jack, “Social Scientists Take the Stand: A Review and Appraisal of Their Testimony in Litigation,” Michigan Law Review, Vol. 54, pp. 953–970 (May, 1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rose, Arnold M., “The Social Scientist as an Expert Witness,” Minnesota Law Review, Vol. 40, pp. 205–218 (Feb., 1956)Google Scholar.

11 For general surveys see: Cushman, Robert E., Civil Liberties in the United States (Ithaca, 1956)Google Scholar; Chafee, Zechariah Jr., The Blessings of Liberty (Philadelphia, 1956)Google Scholar; Pfeffer, Leo, The Liberties of an American (Boston, 1956)Google Scholar; Gellhorn, Walter, Individual Freedom and Governmental Restraints (Baton Rouge, 1956)Google Scholar; Lamont, Corliss, Freedom Is as Freedom Does (New York, 1956)Google Scholar; Morison, Samuel Eliot, Freedom in Contemporary Society (Boston, 1956)Google Scholar; Rutland, Robert Allen, The Birth of the Bill of Rights (Chapel Hill, 1955)Google Scholar; American Civil Liberties Union, Clearing the Main Channels, 35th Annual Report (New York, 1955)Google Scholar; Smith, James Morton, Freedom's Fetters: The Alien and Sedition Laws and American Civil Liberties (Ithaca, 1956)Google Scholar; Green, James Frederick, The United Nations and Human Rights (Washington, 1956)Google Scholar; Newman, Edwin S., ed., The Freedom Reader (New York, 1955)Google Scholar; Swisher, Carl Brent, “The Delineation of Personal and Civil Rights,” Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 44, pp. 395–406 (March, 1956)Google Scholar; Harris, Robert J., “The Impact of the Cold War upon Civil Liberties,” Journal of Politics, Vol. 18, pp. 3–16 (Feb., 1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bowers, Claude G., “Jefferson and the Bill of Rights,” Virginia Law Review, Vol. 41, pp. 709–729 (Oct., 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

On free speech and press problems see: Blanshard, Paul, The Right to Read (Boston, 1955)Google Scholar; Cooper, Kent, The Right to Know (New York, 1956)Google Scholar; John-Stevas, Norman St., Obscenity and the Law (New York, 1956)Google Scholar; Gardner, George K., “Free Speech in Public Places,” Boston University Law Review, Vol. 36, pp. 239–252 (Spring, 1956)Google Scholar; Leflar, Robert A., “Legal Liability for the Exercise of Free Speech,” Arkansas Law Review, Vol. 10, pp. 155–178 (Spring, 1956)Google Scholar; Allen, Florence E., “Fair Trial and Free Press: No Fundamental Clash between the Two,” American Bar Association Journal, Vol. 41, pp. 897–900 (Oct., 1955)Google Scholar; Dembitz, Nanette, “Congressional Investigation of Newspapermen, Authors, and Others in the Opinion Field—Its Legality under the First Amendment,” Minnesota Law Review, Vol. 40, pp. 517–560 (April, 1956)Google Scholar; Comment, “Legislative Inquiry into Political Activity: First Amendment Immunity from Committee Interrogation,” Yale Law Journal, Vol. 65, pp. 1159–1195 (July, 1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Comment, “Developments in the Law: Defamation,” Harvard Law Review, Vol. 69, pp. 875–960 (March, 1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

On freedom of religion see: Zabel, Orville H., God and Caesar in Nebraska (Lincoln, 1955)Google Scholar; Beth, Loren P., “Toward a Modern American Theory of Church-State Relationships,” Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 70, pp. 573–597 (Dec., 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Note, “The First Amendment and Distribution of Religious Literature in the Public Schools,” Virginia Law Review, Vol. 41, pp. 789–807 (Oct., 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Trimble, Thomas J., “Bible Reading in Public Schools,” Vanderbilt Law Review, Vol. 9, pp. 849–860 (June, 1956)Google Scholar.

See also: Boudin, Leonard B., “The Constitutional Right to Travel,” Columbia Law Review, Vol. 56, pp. 47–75 (Jan., 1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Comment, “The Passport Puzzle,” University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 23, pp. 260–289 (Winter, 1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Graham, Howard Jay, “‘Builded Better than they Knew,’ Part I: The Framers, the Railroads and the Fourteenth Amendment,” University of Pittsburgh Law Review, Vol. 17, pp. 537–584 (Summer, 1956)Google Scholar; James, Joseph B., The Framing of the Fourteenth Amendment (Urbana, 1956)Google Scholar.

12 For a perceptive analysis of the phenomena of loyalty and disloyalty see Grodzins, Morton, The Loyal and the Disloyal (Chicago, 1956)Google Scholar.

13 351 U.S. 536 (1956).

14 349 U.S. 331 (1955). See this Review, Vol. 50, pp. 46–50 (March, 1956).

15 In the view of the Court of Appeals in this case the decisive consideration was that the Constitution vests all executive power in the President. 226 F. 2d 337 (D.C. Cir. 1955).

16 See Report of the Special Committee of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, The Federal Loyalty-Security Program (New York, 1956)Google Scholar; Cushman, Robert E., “Guilt by Association: The Game of Presumptions,” in White, Leonard D., ed., The State of the Social Sciences (Chicago, 1956), pp. 451–461Google Scholar; Mankiewicz, Frank F., Mangum, John K. and Moody, Graham B. Jr., “The Federal Loyalty-Security Program: a Proposed Statute,” California Law Review, Vol. 44, pp. 72–93 (March, 1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Symposium, “Security in a Free Society,” Current History, Vol. 29, pp. 197–254 (Oct., 1955)Google Scholar; Symposium, “People, Government and Security: An Analysis of Three Books and a Program,” Northwestern University Law Review, Vol. 51, pp. 79–111 (March-April, 1956)Google Scholar; Cogley, John, Report on Blacklisting, Vol. I, Movies, Vol. II, Radio-Television (New York, 1956)Google Scholar; Horowitz, Harold W., “Legal Aspects of ‘Political Black Listing’ in the Entertainment Industry,” California Law Review, Vol. 29, pp. 263–305 (April, 1956)Google Scholar; Williams, Henry N., “Tenant's Loyalty Oaths,” Notre Dame Lawyer, Vol. 31, pp. 190–222 (March, 1956)Google Scholar; Note, “Denial of Federally Aided Housing to Members of Organizations on the Attorney General's List,” Harvard Law Review, Vol. 69, pp. 551–559 (Jan., 1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Horn, Robert, “The Protection of Internal Security,” Public Administration Review, Vol. 16, pp. 40–52 (Winter, 1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Seasongood, Murray and Strecker, Richard L., “The Loyalty Review Board,” University of Cincinnati Law Review, Vol. 25, pp. 1–42 (Winter, 1956)Google Scholar.

17 Pennsylvania v. Nelson, 350 U.S. 497 (1956). See Hunt, Alan Reeve, “Federal Supremacy and State Anti-Subversive Legislation,” Michigan Law Review, Vol. 53, pp. 407–438 (Jan., 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Note, “State Sedition Laws: Their Scope and Misapplication,” Indiana Law Journal, Vol. 31, pp. 270–285 (Winter, 1956)Google Scholar. See also: Auerbach, Carl A., “The Communist Control Act of 1954: A Proposed Legal-Political Theory of Free Speech,” University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 23, pp. 173–220 (Winter, 1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Chase, Harold W., “The Libertarian Case of Making It a Crime to Be a Communist,” Temple Law Quarterly, Vol. 29, pp. 121–133 (Winter, 1956)Google Scholar.

18 As in Fox v. Ohio, 5 How. 410 (1847), where the federal offense was counterfeiting and the state offense defrauding, and in Gilbert v. Minnesota, 254 U.S. 325 (1920), where the state law was construed as being merely a local police measure designed to keep the public peace, whereas the federal law proscribed conduct interfering with enlistment in the armed forces.

19 351 U.S. 345 (1956). See Maslow, Will, “Recasting our Deportation Law: Proposals for Reform,” Columbia Law Review, Vol. 56, pp. 309–366 (March, 1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Symposium on Immigration, Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 21, pp. 211–426 (Spring, 1956)Google Scholar; Note, “The Rights of Aliens in Deportation Proceedings,” Indiana Law Journal, Vol. 31, pp. 218–233 (Winter, 1956)Google Scholar; Note, “Private Bills and the Immigration Law,” Harvard Law Review, Vol. 69, pp. 1083–1096 (April, 1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Orlow, Lena L., “The Immigration and Nationality Act in Operation,” Temple Law Quarterly, Vol. 29, pp. 153–168 (Winter, 1956)Google Scholar.

20 350 U.S. 422 (1956). See: Hofstadter, Samuel H., The Fifth Amendment and the Immunity Act of 1954 (New York, 1955)Google Scholar; Claflin, Beecher N., “The Self-Incrimination Clause” (1956 Ross Essay), American Bar Association Journal, Vol. 42, pp. 935–938, 989–990 (Oct., 1956)Google Scholar; McKee, Duncan O., “The Fifth Amendment and the Federal Gambling Tax,” Duke Bar Journal, Vol. 5, pp. 86–101 (1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 161 U.S. 591 (1896).

22 Justice Douglas relied heavily upon Franklin, Mitchell, “The Encyclopédiste Origin and Meaning of the Fifth Amendment,” Lawyers Guild Review, Vol. 15, pp. 41–62 (Summer, 1955)Google Scholar.

23 350 U.S. 11 (1955). See: Willis, William R. Jr., “Toth v. Quarles—For Better or for Worse?” Vanderbilt Law Review, Vol. 9, pp. 534–541 (April, 1956)Google Scholar; Everett, Robison O., “Persons Who Can Be Tried by Court-Martial,” Journal of Public Law, Vol. 5, pp. 148–173 (Spring, 1956)Google Scholar; Schellhammer, E. R., “Courts-Martial vs. Constitutional Guarantees,” University of Pittsburgh Law Review, Vol. 17, pp. 454–568 (Spring, 1956)Google Scholar.

24 351 U.S. 470 (1956).

25 351 U.S. 487 (1956).

26 Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903); Dorr v. United States, 195 U.S. 138 (1904).

27 Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922).

28 140 U.S. 453 (1891).

29 See U.S. Law Week, Vol. 25, No. 17, p. 3136 (Nov. 6, 1956)Google Scholar.

30 Johnston v. United States, 351 U.S. 215 (1956).

31 McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (1943), holding, not as a matter of constitutional law, but as a requirement of the fair administration of justice, that a confession obtained by federal officers during a period of illegal confinement is inadmissible in a federal criminal prosecution.

32 Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359 (1956).

33 18 U.S. 245 (1910).

34 In a separate concurring opinion Justice Burton expressed the opinion that the declarations of the Court were too broad, for he believed that the grand jury action would have been subject to examination if it had been based on bias or prejudice, or if there had been no substantial or rationally persuasive evidence. The point in the case of Costello, he argued, was that the evidence, though hearsay, was rationally persuasive.

35 350 U.S. 214 (1956). See Note, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 56, pp. 940–944 (June, 1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Eichner, James A., “Impact of the Rea Case on the Law of Illegal Search and Seizure,” University of Florida Law Review, Vol. 9, pp. 178–192 (Summer, 1956)Google Scholar.

36 Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949).

37 Rex Trailer Co. v. United States, 350 U.S. 148 (1956). The Court held that U.S. ex rel. Marcus v. Hess, 317 U.S. 537 (1943) was squarely in point. See Comment, “Statutory Implementation of Double Jeopardy Clauses: New Life for a Moribund Constitutional Guarantee,” Yale Law Journal, Vol. 65, pp. 339–368 (Jan., 1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38 United States v. Twin City Power Co., 350 U.S. 222 (1956).

39 United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co., 229 U.S. 53 (1913).

40 United States v. Miller, 317 U.S. 369 (1943).

41 General Box Co. v. United States, 351 U.S. 159 (1956).

42 United States v. Green, 350 U.S. 415 (1956). See Myers, John Sherman, “Interstate Commerce—The Constitutional Interpretation of a Non-Constitutional Term,” University of Pittsburgh Law Review, Vol. 17, pp. 329–345 (Spring, 1956)Google Scholar.

43 Railway Employes' Department, AFL International Assoc. of Machinists v. Hanson 351 U.S. 225 (1956).

44 Southern Pacific Co. v. Gileo, 351 U.S. 493 (1956); Reed v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 351 U.S. 502 (1956).

45 351 U.S. 115 (1956). See Note, Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 43, pp. 507–511 (March, 1955)Google Scholar.

46 United States v. Storer Broadcasting Co., 351 U.S. 192 (1956).

47 Federal Communications Commission v. Sanders Bros. Radio Station, 309 U.S. 470 (1940). See Note, “Competitors' Standing to Challenge Administrative Action under the Administrative Procedure Act,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 104, pp. 843–863 (April, 1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

48 Columbia Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 316 U.S. 407 (1942).

49 Frozen Food Express v. United States, 351 U.S. 40 (1956).

50 Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938).

51 Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co. of America, 350 U.S. 198 (1956). See Hill, Alfred, “State Procedural Law in Federal Nondiversity Litigation,” Harvard Law Review, Vol. 69, pp. 66–117 (Nov., 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

52 Cammer v. United States, 350 U.S. 399 (1956).

53 Black v. Cutter Laboratories, 351 U.S. 292 (1946).

54 351 U.S. 277 (1956).

55 Greenwood v. United States, 350 U.S. 366 (1956).

56 See Beisel, Albert R. Jr., Control over Illegal Enforcement of the Criminal Law: Role of the Supreme Court (Boston, 1955)Google Scholar; Boyce, Ronald B., “Suppressed and Perjured Evidence: A Denial of Due Process,” Utah Law Review, Vol. 5, pp. 92–97 (Spring, 1956)Google Scholar; Quick, Charles W., “A Public Criminal Trial,” Dickinson Law Review, Vol. 60, pp. 21–35 (Oct., 1955)Google Scholar; Note, “The Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act,” Harvard Law Review, Vol. 69, pp. 1289–1302 (May, 1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

57 Michel v. Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91 (1955).

58 Reece v. Georgia, 350 U.S. 85 (1955).

59 U.S. ex rel. Darcy v. Handy, 351 U.S. 454 (1956).

60 Chessman v. Teets, 350 U.S. 3 (1955). That Chessman is still alive is something of a legal miracle, and illustrates how many legal maneuvers may be available to persons convicted of crime. Since his conviction Chessman has written two books, Cell 2455 Death Row (New York, 1954)Google Scholar, and Trial by Ordeal (New York, 1955)Google Scholar, and is well on the road to becoming an established author, all on borrowed time.

61 Covey v. Town of Somers, 351 U.S. 141 (1956).

62 Pennsylvania ex rel. Herman v. Claudy, 350 U.S. 116 (1956).

63 350 U.S. 551 (1956).

64 Adler v. Board of Education, 342 U.S. 485 (1952).

65 Garner v. Board of Public Works, 341 U.S. 716 (1951).

66 Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183 (1952).

67 350 U.S. 537 (1956).

68 Florida ex rel. Hawkins v. Board of Control, 350 U.S. 413 (1956).

69 Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 349 U.S. 294 (1955). See this Review, Vol. 50, pp. 91–93 (March, 1956).

70 Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954); Boiling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954).

71 Mayor and City Council of Baltimore City v. Dawson, 350 U.S. 877 (1955). For the opinion below see 220 F. 2d 386 (1955).

72 Holmes v. City of Atlanta, 350 U.S. 879 (1955). For the opinion below see 223 F. 2d 93 (5th Cir. 1955).

73 Slaker v. O'Connor, 278 U.S. 188 (1929).

74 South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. v. Flemming, 351 U.S. 901 (1956). For the opinion below see 224 F. 2d 752 (1955).

75 Naim v. Naim, 350 U.S. 891 (1956).

76 Naim v. Naim, 350 U.S. 985 (1956).

77 See: Kelly, Alfred H., “The Fourteenth Amendment Reconsidered: The Segregation Question,” Michigan Law Review, Vol. 54, pp. 1049–1086 (June, 1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bickel, Alexander M., “The Original Understanding and the Segregation Decision,” Harvard Law Review, Vol. 69, pp. 1–65 (Nov., 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Symposium on “The Doctrine of Interposition,” Journal of Public Law, Vol. 5, pp. 1–109 (Spring, 1956)Google Scholar; Symposium on “Racial Desegregation and Integration,” Annals of the American Academy, Vol. 304, pp. 1–143 (March, 1956)Google Scholar; Symposium on “Integration, Suffrage and Civil Rights,” Lawyers Guild Review, Vol. 16, pp. 45–94 (Summer, 1956)Google Scholar; Harris, Robert J., “The Constitution, Education, and Segregation,” Temple Law Quarterly, Vol. 29, pp. 409–433 (Summer, 1956)Google Scholar; Borinski, Ernst, “The Emerging Case Law in the Segregation Decisions of the Supreme Court,” University of Pittsburgh Law Review, Vol. 17, pp. 416–436 (Spring, 1956)Google Scholar; Comment, “Legal Sanctions to Enforce Desegregation in the Public Schools: The Contempt Power and the Civil Rights Acts,” Yale Law Journal, Vol. 65, pp. 630–659 (April, 1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McKay, Robert B., “‘With All Deliberate Speed’: A Study of School Desegregation,” New York University Law Review, Vol. 31, pp. 991–1090 (June, 1956)Google Scholar; White, Walter, How Far the Promised Land? (New York, 1955)Google Scholar. For defenses of the pro-segregationist point of view see: Talmadge, Herman E., You and Segregation (Birmingham, 1955)Google Scholar; Waring, Thomas R., “The Southern Case against Desegregation,” Harper's, Vol. 212, pp. 39–45 (Jan., 1956)Google Scholar.

78 The subscription rate is $3.00 for one year, and $5.00 for two. The address: Vanderbilt University, Race Relations Law Reporter, Nashville 5, Tennessee.

79 351 U.S. 12 (1956).

80 United A.A. & A.I. Workers v. Wisconsin Empl. Rel. Brd., 351 U.S. 266 (1956). See Anderson, Charles H., “State Hegulation of Interstate Commerce,” Dickinson Law Review, Vol. 61, pp. 1–28 (Oct., 1956)Google Scholar.

81 Allen-Bradley Local, U.E.R.M.W. v. Wisconsin Empl. Rel. Brd., 315 U.S. 740 (1942).

82 Garner v. Teamsters, C. & H. Local Union, 346 U.S. 485 (1953).

83 United Mine Workers of America v. Arkansas Oak Flooring Co., 351 U.S. 62 (1956).

84 Teamsters Union v. N.Y., N.H. & H.R. Co., 350 U.S. 155 (1956).

85 350 U.S. 528 (1956).

86 Werner Machine Co. v. Director of Division of Taxation of New Jersey, 350 U.S. 492 (1956).

87 Offutt Housing Co. v. Sarpy County, 351 U.S. 253 (1956). See: Report of the Inter-departmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States, Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States, Part I, Facts and Committee Recommendations (Washington, 1956)Google Scholar.

88 350 U.S. 568 (1956). See: Sumner, James D. Jr., “Full Faith and Credit for Divorce Decrees,” Vanderbilt Law Review, Vol. 9, pp. 1–25 (Dec., 1955)Google Scholar; McDonough, John R. Jr., “Mr. Justince Jackson and Full Faith and Credit to Divorce Decrees: A Critique,” Columbia Law Review, Vol. 56, pp. 860–886 (June, 1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a discussion of an interesting aspect of interstate relations see Day, James W., “The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws,” University of Florida Law Review, Vol. 8, pp. 276–286 (Fall, 1955)Google Scholar.

89 95 U.S. 714 (1878).

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.