Avoiding the Guillotine: The Need for Balance and Purpose in Determining Fundamental Rights Under the Fourteenth Amendment
Loading...
Authors
Campbell, Timothy
Issue Date
2015-12
Volume
49
Issue
1
Type
Journal Article
Language
Keywords
Alternative Title
Abstract
FIRST PARAGRAPH(S)|The United States Supreme Court's use of history in fundamental rights jurisprudence has recently come under criticism in legal and academic circles. The traditionalists Cicero and Schama both share the belief that history has value in society. But for rationalists, history has little to no value in the determination of individual rights and liberties because it is backward looking and allows for little progress in society. Rationalists argue fundamental rights should be determined by objective reason, not history. |Is rationalism the answer in defining fundamental rights? For traditionalists, because history still has value in today's world, the answer is no. According to Schama, "history is of necessity" in order to understand where humanity will go in the future. An individual living "entirely within the contemporary" is "an act of dangerous intolerance." In a similar vein, Cicero argues that to be ignorant of one's history is to remain a child...
Description
Citation
Publisher
Creighton University School of Law