Confronting Modern Case Law, Part 1 (LAW-CONST2)
This lecture analyzes Warren Court decisions through the lens of the Constitution's text, grounding Brown v. Board and Bolling v. Sharpe in anti-nobility clauses and the Fourteenth Amendment's equal birth status. It examines the Bill of Rights' application to states via the privileges or immunities clause and defends New York Times v. Sullivan.
Critics said the Warren Court invented rights; defenders said the text didn't matter. Akhil Reed Amar offers a third account, measuring the decisions against the text itself.
This lecture treats case law as a prism for reading the Constitution and puts the Warren Court to the test. Amar grounds Brown v. Board and its companion Bolling v. Sharpe in the anti-nobility clauses and the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal birth status, then examines how the Bill of Rights came to apply against the states through the privileges or immunities clause, and defends the free-speech holding of New York Times v. Sullivan.
Hearing the People, Part 2 (LAW-CONST2)
Next · Lecture 8Confronting Modern Case Law, Part 2 (LAW-CONST2)