National Interest: Assimilation or Liberation: Post-Modern American Women - Speech and Property Law (original) (raw)
Related papers
THE LEGAL AND POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS CHALLENGING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN
Rechtstheorie, 2017
The development of feminist themes and trends in legal thought reveals a diversity that suggests anumberofwaystogoaboutinvestigatingthathisto ry. But whichever angle we may takein suchaninvestigation, we cannot es cape the conclusion that this history and development has brought about a breakpoint, abreach torn in the canvas of aculture that–onaccount of an ancient and deep-rooted legacy–isused to seeing social and legal discrimi nation against women not as oppressive but simply as natural and justified.
Marianne Constable’s erudite book Our word is our bond: How legal speech acts opens with an examination of President Barack Obama’s infamous inaugural oath of 20th January 2009 (Constable 2014, 1–2, 5–8, 145). She recalls that commentary on the event focused on the significance of the grammar and meaning which could be gleaned from Obama’s ill-fated oath: ‘I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear that I will execute the office of President of the United States faithfully’. When reviewing Obama’s televised oath it is clear to see that the blame for his error lies with Chief Justice John Roberts because his dictation of the oath as set out in Article Two, Section One, Clause Eight of the United States Constitution, was incorrect. Roberts failed to position the word ‘faithfully’ before the word ‘execute’ and it has been rumoured (by those concerned with the significance of grammar and meaning) that this dictation to Obama ‘‘unilaterally amended the Constitution’’ because Roberts was ‘‘a famous stickler for grammar’’ and accordingly could not bear to abide the split verb as penned in the Constitution (Pinker 2014, 228). There was even comment that this ‘‘split-verb superstition’’ led ‘‘to a crisis of governance’’ because the legal legitimacy of Obama’s inauguration was called into question (Pinker 2014, 228).
Feminist Jurisprudence and Free Speech Theory
Tul. L. Rev., 1993
Law. This essay was presented as a public lecture as part of the Phelps Lecture series on the First Amendment at Tulane Law School on November 17, 1993. I am grateful to the faculty of Tulane for their invitation to speak and for their helpful comments and suggestions at a related faculty seminar. 1. See, e.g., MARraX C. NUJSSBAtrM, LOva's KNowLEDGE 3-10 (1990) (suggesting that some knowledge is most accurately conveyed by literature or poetry rather than by propositional prose).