/
lectern.tv
Play15s30s1x0:00/--:--
DoneWatched
Expand
lectern.tv
20:58/31:03
4:52
2:23
6:51
2:44
3:53
6:56
3:24
Confronting Modern Case Law, Part 1
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.
Lecture guide · Written by AI from the lecture. For the lecture’s own words, open the Transcript tab.
Akhil Reed Amar examines foundational Warren Court decisions through the lens of the constitutional text itself, defending rulings on school segregation, the incorporation of the Bill of Rights, and freedom of speech. He argues that decisions like Brown v. Board of Education, the application of the Fourteenth Amendment, and New York Times v. Sullivan remain faithful to original constitutional principles.
This lecture assumes
- Constitutional Interpretationtaught in Course Introduction: Reading America's Written Constitution at 15:42
- Judicial Reviewtaught in Judges and Juries, Part 1 at 21:30
Key Takeaways
- Case law serves as an important prism for reading and clarifying the written constitutional text.
- Brown v. Board of Education and Bolling v. Sharpe are textually grounded in the anti-nobility clauses and the Fourteenth Amendment's citizenship and equal birth principles.
- The Fourteenth Amendment's privileges or immunities clause and due process clause provide the textual foundation for applying the Bill of Rights against the states.
- New York Times v. Sullivan defends robust, wide-open free expression consistent with the sovereign role of ordinary citizens in America.
Concepts Explained12
Living Constitution—An approach to constitutional interpretation that takes account of the lived experiences and un-enumerated rights of ordinary Americans.
Warren Court—The period of the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren characterized by landmark rulings expanding civil rights and liberties.
Incorporation Doctrine—The Supreme Court's application of provisions of the Bill of Rights to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Separate is Inherently Unequal—The principle established in Brown v. Board of Education that racial segregation in public education inherently deprives minority groups of equal protection.
Examples, Proofs & Derivations
Works & Sources Cited8
Case
Brown v. Board of Education—Landmark 1954 Supreme Court segregation case
Case
Bolling v. Sharpe—1954 Supreme Court case involving school segregation in Washington, D.C.
Paper
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan—Landmark 1964 Supreme Court free expression and defamation case
Case
Mapp v. Ohio—1961 Supreme Court case applying the exclusionary rule to the states
Case
Map v. Ohio—Spelled as Map v. Ohio in lecture, referring to Mapp v. Ohio
Part of course·Lecture 7 of 19
LAW-CONST2: America's Unwritten Constitution
About the lecturer
Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University
Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University and one of the most cited scholars of the U.S. Constitution.
2 courses · 35 lectures in archiveView profile
Discussion
Share a seminar note, question, or timestamped reference (e.g. 14:20)...Sign in