BEGIN:VCALENDAR VERSION:2.0 METHOD:PUBLISH PRODID:-//Telerik Inc.//Sitefinity CMS 14.4//EN BEGIN:VTIMEZONE TZID:Eastern Standard Time BEGIN:STANDARD DTSTART:20231102T020000 RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYDAY=1SU;BYHOUR=2;BYMINUTE=0;BYMONTH=11 TZNAME:Eastern Standard Time TZOFFSETFROM:-0400 TZOFFSETTO:-0500 END:STANDARD BEGIN:DAYLIGHT DTSTART:20230301T020000 RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYDAY=2SU;BYHOUR=2;BYMINUTE=0;BYMONTH=3 TZNAME:Eastern Daylight Time TZOFFSETFROM:-0500 TZOFFSETTO:-0400 END:DAYLIGHT END:VTIMEZONE BEGIN:VEVENT DESCRIPTION:Emily Zackin\, Johns Hopkins University"Debtors and\nState-Driv en Constitutional Development"\n\nThose studying American\nconstitutional history and development have heeded the call of the Law and\nSociety movem ent to “decenter” the Supreme Court\, and have emphasized that the\nCourt is embedded in larger national governing regimes and ideological\nprojects . However\, most accounts of constitutional development have remained\nfir mly centered on the national government. Using the case of emergency relie f\nlaws for the protection of debtors\, this article argues that we must f urther\ndecenter our view of American constitutional development to includ e states. It\ndemonstrates that the landmark case Blaisdell v. Home Buildi ng and Loan\nAssociation (1934) brought about a change in judicial doctrin e\, but that\nthe Constitution’s practical meaning had already changed lon g before this\ndoctrinal shift. Drawing on secondary histories and legal w ritings from the\nnineteenth and early-twentieth centuries\, it argues tha t Blaisdell was\nmerely the Supreme Court’s capitulation to long-establish ed state practices\,\nand that these state-level practices were the drivin g force behind the\ndevelopment of the Constitution’s meaning.\n\n \;\ n\n\n DTEND:20150925T173000Z DTSTAMP:20240329T073515Z DTSTART:20150925T160000Z LOCATION: SEQUENCE:0 SUMMARY:Sawyer Law and Politics Program presents: Emily Zackin UID:RFCALITEM638472801156297739 X-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html:
Emily Zackin\, Johns Hopkins Univers ity
"Debtors and\nState-Driven Constitutional Development"
\n\n
Those studying American\nconstitutional history and develo pment have heeded the call of the Law and\nSociety movement to “decenter” the Supreme Court\, and have emphasized that the\nCourt is embedded in lar ger national governing regimes and ideological\nprojects. However\, most a ccounts of constitutional development have remained\nfirmly centered on th e national government. Using the case of emergency relief\nlaws for the pr otection of debtors\, this article argues that we must further\ndecenter o ur view of American constitutional development to include states. It\ndemo nstrates that the landmark case Blaisdell v. Home Building and Loan\nAs sociation (1934) brought about a change in judicial doctrine\, but tha t\nthe Constitution’s practical meaning had already changed long before th is\ndoctrinal shift. Drawing on secondary histories and legal writings fro m the\nnineteenth and early-twentieth centuries\, it argues that Blaisd ell was\nmerely the Supreme Court’s capitulation to long-established s tate practices\,\nand that these state-level practices were the driving fo rce behind the\ndevelopment of the Constitution’s meaning.\n\n \;\n \n\n
END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR