Jeremiah Hickey | St. John's University (original) (raw)

Papers by Jeremiah Hickey

Constitutive rhetoric focuses on the idea that in times of historical crisis, speakers possess th... more Constitutive rhetoric focuses on the idea that in times of historical crisis, speakers possess the ability to repair the language of the community and reshape the identity of the community. This dissertation relies upon the concept of constitutive rhetoric to examine the Supreme Court's reapportionment and redistricting decision. By employing constitutive rhetoric, the Supreme Court reacts to the crisis of representation because of malapportionment and redistricting to transform our Constitutional republic to a Constitutional democracy and, further, to debate competing visions of representation and democracy necessary to sustain political life and the democratic experience. Chapter I offers readers a literature review on constitutive rhetoric, a literature review on reapportionment and redistricting, and presents readers with an outline of the dissertation. Chapter II provides a brief history of redistricting in the United States since Colonial times, the development of apportionment and redistricting law at the state court level, and the Supreme Court's invention of a rhetorical tradition in apportionment and districting law before the Reapportionment Revolution. In the last section of Chapter II, I iv argue that the Pre-Revolution Supreme Court cases weakened the authority of the rhetorical tradition of judicial deferment. Chapter III examines the Supreme Court's decision in Baker v. Carr, which reconstitutes the authority of the judiciary in apportionment and redistricting law by redefining the meaning of voting rights and the political questions doctrine, as well as reconceptualizing the law behind voting rights. Further, this chapter outlines the new role of the judiciary in American society and the ethos of judicial restraint that is to guide apportionment and redistricting cases. Chapter IV examines the development of the new rhetorical tradition in apportionment law from the Reapportionment Revolution cases of Gray v. Sanders, Wesberry v. Sander, Reynolds v. Sims, and the rest of the Supreme Court cases form the 1960s. In this new rhetorical tradition, the Supreme Court reconstitutes the American republican to create a legal and moral American democracy, a form of government that rests on the development of the democratic experience and the expansion of the right to vote at the local, state, and federal level. Chapter V examines the Supreme Court cases during the 1970s and the 1980s where, because of their ideological divisions, the Justices offer the American people competing visions of representation and democracy in an attempt to gain interpretive dominance for their visions. Finally, Chapter VI examines the Supreme Court's decisions from the 1990s and 2000s. In these decisions, the Justices debate the best means to achieve racial reconciliation through apportionment and redistricting law and the best formation of democracy to secure that reconciliation. v DEDICATION I dedicate this text to the development of the democratic experience and the fulfillment of the American promise. vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank James Arnt Aune for providing me with his guidance to pursue my degree and complete my dissertation. Throughout my time at Texas A&M, your wisdom has been invaluable, showing me what it means to be a researcher and an instructor. I thank you for all you have done for my education. James S. Burk has been a tremendous help to my development as a scholar. In the classroom and in your research, you provide an excellent example of instruction and intellect. I thank you for exemplifying the necessary habits of a scholar and hope, because of your example, I can do the same for others. Charley Conrad, I thank you for introducing to me a way to think about constitutions and constitutive rhetoric. Your guidance in the classroom helped me rethink my approach to my studies, especially with carving out necessary time to read what is important. Leroy Dorsey has helped me out time and time again at Texas A&M, from mentoring me as an instructor to helping me complete my dissertation. I would specifically like to thank you for showing me how necessary it is to be serious, yet humorous, rigorous, yet humane in the classroom. Jennifer Mercieca: without you, I would not have been introduced to the world of representation, political theory, and the early American republic. I hope you are enjoying Italy. I look forward to conversing with you about my dissertation. vii I would like to thank my colleagues at St.

First amendment studies, Oct 1, 2013

In the recent decisions of United States v. Stevens, 599 U.S. ___ (2009) and Brown v. Entertainme... more In the recent decisions of United States v. Stevens, 599 U.S. ___ (2009) and Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association 564 U.S. ___ (2011), the Supreme Court of the United States struck down legislation that restricted access to depictions and representation of violent expression on the grounds that the restrictions violated the First Amendment’s prohibition on content-discrimination. Though the Supreme Court decides Stevens and Brown as a straightforward protection of freedom of speech, it is my contention that these decisions provide citizens with an understanding of the constitutionality of representations of violence through competing aesthetic discourses. By examining these cases in terms of the aesthetic arguments inherent in them, this paper extends an understanding of constitutional interpretation as well as discusses the way in which the argumentative strategies over aesthetics offer competing visions of rights and responsibilities in civic life.

First amendment studies, Jul 2, 2016

In the controversy over trigger warnings, authors tend to focus more on the warning rather than t... more In the controversy over trigger warnings, authors tend to focus more on the warning rather than the trigger aspect of the debate. Trigger warnings serve as an important means to understand the nature of universities as well as how students, professors, and administrators view the university experience. I contend that trigger warnings should be seen as campus-wide interventions, not limited only to classrooms. After all, trauma can be triggered anywhere. This article argues that the trigger warnings controversy signifies the presence of an institutional crisis for universities, especially in relation to the allocation of resources necessary to help students suffering from trauma. Debating the use of trigger warnings is one thing; however, if students feel threatened or if they suffer trauma from controversial material, then the university needs to set aside resources to help students succeed. Eleanor Amaranth Lockhart's essay in this issue argues that trigger warnings preserve freedom of speech and academic freedom. The warnings, according to Lockhart, provide protection for students because they prepare them for an imminent conversation on controversial issues. By creating a safe physical and mental space for communication, professors strive for the "inclusion of people with mental disabilities and trauma in society, and to increase the overall diversity of the college classroom. " 1 Consequently, rather than diminish or threaten academic freedom, trigger warnings, counterintuitively, allow for greater academic freedom. Lockhart's argument in favor of trigger warnings deflects attention away from one of the most important parts of the trigger warning debate: What happens when the learning material in the classroom does trigger a traumatic response from students? Triggers, Colleen Flaherty notes in Inside Higher Education, may refer to any fiction or nonfiction depiction of sexual assault, violence, "classism, sexism, heterosexism, cissexism, ableism, and other issues of privilege and oppression. " 2 For those who support them, professors should use trigger warnings because the triggers from a text may disrupt learning or cause individuals to feel unsafe in the classroom. 3 In her article, Lockhart presumes that the students will still be able to respond to the material after they receive a context and/or trigger warning.

Rhetoric and public affairs, Dec 1, 2010

First Amendment Studies, 2016

First Amendment Studies, 2013

Argumentation and Advocacy

Drawing on James Aune’s published and unpublished writings on incitement, hate speech, and the re... more Drawing on James Aune’s published and unpublished writings on incitement, hate speech, and the relationship between language and conduct, we offer a space for scholars to remember Aune’s contribution to the study of legal rhetoric and the field of communication. In our study, we channel the pothos that brought Aune to the study o f rhetoric: the belief that our public controversy should and can be better than it is. We embrace Aune’s method, asking, “What is the implicit theory o f language and rhetoric here?” By examining Aune’s work on the communicative nature of incitement, we argue that rather than examine the degree to which the speech may lead to conduct, it is best to examine the relations of power inherent in the message itself; in the context of the communicative act and in the contact between the speaker and audience; and in the opportunity that the discourse allows for resistance. Key Words: James Aune, First Amendment, incitement, language, rhetoric

Free Speech Yearbook, 2006

Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 2010

South Central Review, 2013