Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorCampbell, Timothyen_US
dc.date.accessioned2016-02-09T18:20:03Z
dc.date.available2016-02-09T18:20:03Z
dc.date.issued2015-12en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10504/84524
dc.description.abstractFIRST 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...en_US
dc.publisherCreighton University School of Lawen_US
dc.titleAvoiding the Guillontine: The Need for Balance and Purpose in Determining Fundamental Rights Under the Fourteenth Amendmenten_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.rights.holderCreighton Universityen_US
dc.description.volume49en_US
dc.publisher.locationOmaha, Nebraskaen_US
dc.title.workCreighton Law Reviewen_US
dc.description.note2015en_US
dc.description.pages73-120en_US
dc.description.issue1en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record