BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
METHOD:PUBLISH
PRODID:-//Telerik Inc.//Sitefinity CMS 15.1//EN
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:Eastern Standard Time
BEGIN:STANDARD
DTSTART:20251102T020000
RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYDAY=1SU;BYHOUR=2;BYMINUTE=0;BYMONTH=11
TZNAME:Eastern Standard Time
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
DTSTART:20250301T020000
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&nbsp\;\
 n\n\n 
DTEND:20150925T173000Z
DTSTAMP:20260314T052312Z
DTSTART:20150925T160000Z
LOCATION:
SEQUENCE:0
SUMMARY:Sawyer Law and Politics Program presents: Emily Zackin
UID:RFCALITEM639090481927706816
X-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html:<p></p><p>Emily Zackin\, Johns Hopkins Univers
 ity</p><p>"Debtors and\nState-Driven Constitutional Development"</p><p><br
 ></p><p>\n\n</p>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 <i>Blaisdell v. Home Building and Loan\nAs
 sociation</i> (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 <i>Blaisd
 ell</i> 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.<p>\n\n&nbsp\;\n
 \n\n </p><p></p>
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR