Gale Encyclopedia Of American Law 3Rd Edition Volume 10 P4 pot

First, the court ruled that under the Due Process Clause of theFOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, the Third Amendment applies to action taken by the state governments no less than it applies to actio

Trang 1

recognized Local regulations may require that theater buildings be constructed with flame-proof materials for floors, walls, seats, curtains, and carpeting; that, in general, a certain amount

of light be on even during performances; and that exits large enough to handle crowds be placed at different sides of the building and clearly marked Theaters are ordinarily required

to have ushers on duty to maintain order by supervising the movement of crowds

Ticket Sales

To protect the public, a number of communities have enacted statutes regulating the resale of tickets for any kind of theater or show in order to discourage speculation, which weakens the market for the tickets Such measures also prevent scalping (the process whereby large numbers of tickets purchased at the normal price

in order to create a shortage are then sold at extremely inflated prices) A state or local government may make it a criminal offense to sell a ticket for more than the price stamped on it

Frequently the statutory scheme that pro-scribes resale of tickets for more than the printed price includes special provisions for ticket brokers, who are in the business of selling tickets for a number of theaters to members of the public Brokers are strictly regulated to protect the public from FRAUD,EXTORTION, and exorbitant rates A dishonest broker could possibly sell tickets for performances not scheduled, sell seats already sold, or scalp the tickets For the public protection, a state or city may require anyone reselling tickets to be licensed and may revoke the license of any broker who abuses the privilege

Obscenity

Communities have a proper interest in placing limitations upon OBSCENITY in theaters It is deemed appropriate to protect unsuspecting

or unwilling adults from assaults of indecency and to protect children from graphic displays

interpreted the Constitution to permit indivi-duals to view obscene materials in the privacy

of their own homes; however, because theaters are public places, the law may regulate inde-cent exhibitions, even where everyone present expected to view pornography and willingly entered Some states, however, decline to prose-cute the spectators under such circumstances

Exhibitors of lewd films in coin-operated booths in amusement arcades cannot claim

any right of privacy even though patrons view the films alone in the booths

however, it is sometimes difficult to determine what is obscene The U.S Supreme Court has decided that works that describe or depict sexual conduct can be regulated if, when taken

as a whole, they appeal to a prurient interest, portray sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and lack serious literary, artistic, political,

or scientific value In addition, the Supreme Court has said that communities may apply their own local standards in judging shows, which has led to conflicting decisions in various courts

A state can regulate theaters and shows in order to control pornography in a number of ways For example, a state might require distributors or exhibitors who handle films commercially to be licensed and may revoke the license of anyone who traffics in obscene films Certain states and municipalities have set up a board of censors who are authorized to view films prior to their exhibition to the public The concept of censorship by PRIOR RESTRAINT is in direct conflict with notions of free speech

CROSS REFERENCES Entertainment Law; First Amendment; Freedom of Speech; Movie Rating; X Rating.

THEFT

A criminal act in which property belonging to another is taken without that person’s consent The term theft is sometimes used synony-mously withLARCENY Theft, however, is actually

a broader term, encompassing many forms of deceitful taking of property, including swin-dling, EMBEZZLEMENT, FALSE PRETENSES, IDENTITY

materi-als Some states categorize all these offenses under a single statutory crime of theft

CROSS REFERENCES Burglary; Robbery.

THEODOSIAN CODE The legal code of the Roman Empire promulgated

in A.D 438 by the emperor Theodosius II of the East and accepted by the emperor Valentinian III

of the West

The Theodosian Code was designed to eliminate superfluous material and to organize

18 THEFT

Trang 2

the complex body of imperial constitutions that

had been in effect since the time of the emperor

Constantine I (306–337) It was derived

pri-marily from two private collections: the

Grego-rian Code, or Codex GregoGrego-rianus, a collection

of constitutions from the emperor Hadrian

(117–138) down to Constantine compiled by

the Roman jurist Gregorius in the fifth century;

and the Hermogenian Code, or Codex

Hermo-genianus, a collection of the constitutions of the

emperors Diocletian (284–305) and Maximian

(285–305) prepared by the fifth-century jurist

Hermogenes to supplement the Gregorian

Code The Theodosian Code was one of the

sources of the CIVIL LAW, the system of Roman

direction of the Byzantine emperor Justinian

Until the twelfth century, when theCORPUS JURIS

Civilis became known in the West, the

Theo-dosian Code was the only authentic body of civil

law in widespread use in Western Europe

FURTHER READINGS

Matthews, John 2000 Laying Down the Law: A Study of the

Theodosian Code New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ Press.

The Theodosian Code and Novels, and the Sirmondian

Constitutions 2001 Trans by Clyde Pharr Union,

N.J.: Lawbook Exchange.

CROSS REFERENCE

Roman Law.

THIRD AMENDMENT

The Third Amendment to the U.S Constitution

reads:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered

in any house, without the consent of the

Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner

to be prescribed by law

Ratified in 1791, the Third Amendment to

the U.S Constitution sets forth two basic

requirements During times of peace, the

military may not house its troops in private

residences without the consent of the owners

During times of war, the military may not house

its troops in private residences except in

accordance with established legal procedure

By placing these limitations on the private

quartering of combatants, the Third

Amend-ment subordinates military authority to civilian

control and safeguards against abuses that can

be perpetrated by standing armies and

profes-sional soldiers

The Third Amendment traces its roots to

prohibited the maintenance of a standing army in time of peace without the consent of Parliament Less than a century later Parliament passed the Quartering Acts of 1765 and 1774, which authorized British troops to take shelter

in colonial homes by military FIAT (order)

During the American Revolution, British Red Coats frequently relied on this authorization, making themselves unwelcome guests at private residences throughout the colonies By 1776 the

king of England for quartering“large bodies of troops among us” and keeping “standing armies without the consent of our legislature.”

Against this backdrop, a number of colonies enacted laws prohibiting the nonconsensual quartering of soldiers The Delaware Declara-tion of Rights of 1776, provided that“no soldier ought to be quartered in any house in time of peace without the consent of the owner, and

in time of war in such a manner only as the legislature shall direct.” Similar expressions appeared in the Maryland Declaration of Rights

of 1776, the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights of 1780, and the New Hampshire Bill

of Rights of 1784 Originally drafted by JAMES

embo-dies the spirit and intent of its colonial antecedents

Primarily because the United States has not been regularly confronted by standing armies during its history, the Third Amendment has produced little litigation The SUPREME COURT

has never had occasion to decide a case based solely on the Third Amendment, though the court has cited its protections against the quarter-ing of soldiers as a basis for the constitutional right to privacy (Griswold v Connecticut, 381 U.S 479, 85 S Ct 1678, 14 L Ed 2d 510 [1965]) In lower federal courts, Third Amend-ment claims typically have been rejected without much discussion

In 1982, the U.S Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued the seminal interpretation

of the Third Amendment in Engblom v Carey,

677 F.2d 957 (1982) Engblom raised the issue of whether the state of New York had violated the Third Amendment by housing members of

correctional officers who were living in a dormitory on the grounds of a state

THIRD AMENDMENT 19

Trang 3

to quell disorder at the penitentiary during a protracted labor strike

Although the Second Circuit Court did not decide whether the Third Amendment had been violated, it made three important rulings First, the court ruled that under the Due Process Clause of theFOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, the Third Amendment applies to action taken by the state governments no less than it applies to actions by the federal government Second, the court ruled that the two correctional officers were“owners”

of their residences for the purposes of the Third Amendment, even though they were renting their dormitory room from the state of New York Any person who lawfully possesses or controls a particular dwelling, the court said, enjoys a reasonable expectation of privacy in that dwelling that precludes the nonconsensual quartering of soldiers Third, the court ruled that members of the National Guard are

“soldiers” governed by the strictures of the Third Amendment

Property owners have attempted to use the Third Amendment in concert with the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause to challenge alleged interference with their property In Custer County Action Association v Garvey, 256 F.3d

1024 (10th Circ.2001), Colorado property own-ers challenged an order by the FEDERAL AVIATION

airspace above the plaintiffs’ land The FAA order permitted military fighter jets to practice

in this airspace and shifted the flight paths of commercial aircraft so that the plaintiffs would

be subjected to increased noise The plaintiffs claimed they had a Third Amendment right“to refuse military aircraft training in airspace within the immediate reaches of their property,” and that military overflights occurring in the imme-diate reaches of their property during peacetime, and without their consent, were unconstitu-tional The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged that judicial interpretation of the Third Amendment was“nearly nonexistent” but concluded that the amendment was limited to real property and not airspace The court stated that if taken to its logical extreme, every property owner in the U.S would have to consent to the use of airspace by the military It did not believe that “the Framers intended the Third Amend-ment to be used to prevent the military from regulated, lawful use of airspace above private property without the property owners’ consent.”

FURTHER READINGS Barron, Jerome, and Thomas Dienes 2006 First Amendment Law in a Nutshell 6th ed St Paul, MN: Thomson West Fields, William S 1989 “The Third Amendment: Constitu-tional Protection from the Involuntary Quartering of Soldiers ” Military Law Review 124.

Levy, Leonard Williams 1999 Origins of the Bill of Rights New Haven, CT: Yale Univ Press.

CROSS REFERENCES Bill of Rights; Incorporation Doctrine.

THIRD DEGREE

A colloquial term used to describe unlawful methods of coercing an individual to confess to a criminal offense by overcoming his or her free will through the use of psychological or physical violence

The least serious grade of a specific crime—the grades being classified by the law according to the circumstances under which the crime is committed— for which the least punishment specified by statute will be imposed

THIRD PARTY

A generic legal term for any individual who does not have a direct connection with a legal transac-tion but who might be affected by it

A third-party beneficiary is an individual for whose benefit a contract is created even though that person is a stranger to both the agreement and the consideration Such an individual can usually bring suit to enforce the contract or promise made for his or her benefit

A third-party action is another name for the procedural device ofIMPLEADER, which is used in

a civil action by a defendant who wants to bring

a third party into a lawsuit because that party will ultimately be liable for all, or part of, the damages that may be awarded to the plaintiff

THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT The Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S Con-stitution reads:

Section 1 Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdic-tion Section 2 Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation

The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S Constitution were approved by Congress and ratified by the states

20 THIRD DEGREE

Trang 4

after the U.S.CIVIL WAR Known collectively as

the Civil War Amendments, they were designed

to protect individual rights The Thirteenth

Amendment forbids INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE or

on an individual as punishment for a crime

For many decades, however, the goals of

the Civil War Amendments were frustrated

Due perhaps to the waning public support for

postwar Reconstruction and the nation’s lack of

sensitivity to individual rights, the U.S Supreme

Court severely curtailed the application of the

amendments The Supreme Court thwarted

the amendments in two ways: by restrictively

interpreting the substantive provisions of the

amendments and by rigidly confining

Con-gress’s enforcement power

Congress enacted a number of statutes to

enforce the provisions of the Civil War

Amend-ments, but by the end of the nineteenth century,

most of those statutes had been overturned by

the courts, repealed, or nullified by subsequent

legislation For example, Congress enacted the

provided that all persons should have full and

equal enjoyment of public inns, parks, theaters,

and other places of amusement, regardless of

race or color Although some federal courts

upheld the constitutionality of the act, many

courts struck it down These decisions were then

appealed together to the U.S Supreme Court and

became known as theCIVIL RIGHTS CASES, 109 U.S

3, 3 S Ct 18, 27 L Ed 835 (1883) The cases

involved theaters in New York and California

that would not seat African Americans, a hotel in

Missouri and a restaurant in Kansas that would

not serve African Americans, and a train in

Tennessee that would not allow an African

American woman in the“ladies” car

The Supreme Court struck down the Civil

Rights Act of 1875 by an 8–1 vote, holding that

Congress had exceeded its authority to enforce

the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments

The Court held that private discrimination

against African Americans did not violate the

Thirteenth Amendment’s ban on slavery

Fol-lowing this decision, several northern and

western states began enacting their own bans

on discrimination in public places But many

other states did the opposite: they began

codifying racialSEGREGATION and discrimination

in laws that became known as theJIM CROW LAWS

In 1896, the U.S Supreme Court decided

the case ofPLESSY V.FERGUSON, 163 U.S 537, 16

S Ct 1138, 41 L Ed 256, in which it upheld segregation on railroad cars Desegregationists had hoped that the Supreme Court would acknowledge that the federal government’s power to regulate interstate commerce allowed

it to ban segregation on public transportation

But the Court avoided this issue, holding that this particular railway was a purely local line

In addition, the Court found that the segrega-tion rules did not violate the Thirteenth Amend-ment because they did not establish a state of involuntary servitude, although they did distin-guish between races In a lone dissent, Justice

separation of citizens, on the basis of race, while they are on a public highway, is a badge of servitude wholly inconsistent with the civil free-dom and the equality before the law established

by the constitution.”

During the next six decades, the U.S

Supreme Court continued to uphold segrega-tion of the races in schools, public accommoda-tions, public transportation, and various other aspects of public life, so long as the treatment

of the races was equal The Court refused to hear cases arguing that the Thirteenth Amend-ment was violated by private covenants between whites who agreed not to sell or lease their homes to African Americans Thus, the cove-nants were allowed to stand Gradually, though, the Supreme Court’s narrow view of the Civil War Amendments expanded, resulting in sig-nificant changes in civil and CRIMINAL LAW This expansion began in 1954, when the Court overturned its decision in Plessy v Ferguson and outlawed the separate-but-equal doctrine (BROWN V.BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOPEKA,KANSAS,

347 U.S 483, 74 S Ct 686, 98 L Ed 873[1954])

Although the Supreme Court had declared invalid the Civil Rights Act of 1875, it had not invalidated an earlier act, the Civil Rights Act of

1866 (42 U.S.C.A § 1982) The Civil Rights Act

of 1866 was specifically enacted to enforce the Thirteenth Amendment’s ban on slavery By

1968 the U.S Supreme Court was relying on the act to prohibit individuals from discriminating against racial minorities in the sale or lease of housing (Jones v Alfred H Mayer Co., 392 U.S

409, 88 S Ct 2186, 20 L Ed 2d 1189[1968])

The Jones decision was issued just weeks after Congress enacted the first federal fair housing laws

In reaching their decision the Supreme Court first had to decide whether Congress had the power to enact the Civil Rights Act of

THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT 21

Trang 5

1866 Justice POTTER STEWART, writing for the majority, turned to the Thirteenth Amendment and observed that it was adopted to remove the

“badges of slavery” and that it gave Congress power to effect that removal Stewart wrote:

Congress has the power under the Thirteenth Amendment rationally to determine what are the badges and the incidents of slavery, and the authority to translate that determi-nation into effective legislation [W]hen racial discrimination herds men into ghettos and makes their ability to buy property turn

on the color of their skin, then it too is a relic of slavery

The Supreme Court continues to address issues that arise under the Thirteenth Amend-ment In the 1988 case of United States v

Kozminski, 487 U.S 931, 108 S Ct 2751, 100 L

Ed 2d 788, the Court explored the meaning of the term involuntary servitude This case add-ressed the Thirteenth Amendment as well as a federal criminal statute (18 U.S.C.A § 1584) that forbids involuntary servitude At issue in the case were two mentally challenged men in poor health who had been kept laboring on a farm The men worked seven days per week, 17 hours per day, initially for $15 per week and then for no pay at all Their employers used various forms of physical and psychological threats and force to keep the men on the farm

The Court held that “involuntary servitude”

requires more than mere psychological coer-cion; it also requires physical or legal coercion

But, the Court noted, the Thirteenth Amend-ment was designed not only to abolish slavery of African Americans, but also to prevent other forms of compulsory labor akin to that slavery

Observing that the definition of slavery has shifted since the Civil War, courts have held that involuntary servitude does not necessarily require a black slave and a white master (Steirer v

Bethlehem Area School District, 789 F Supp 1337 [E.D Pa 1992]) The courts have found that religious sects may be guilty of subjecting an individual to involuntary servitude if the sect knowingly and willfully holds an individual against her will (United States v Lewis, 644 F

Supp 1391 [W.D Mich.], aff’d, 840 F.2d 1276 (6th Cir 1986) In addition, forcing a mental patient to perform nontherapeutic labor may be

a form of involuntary servitude (Weidenfeller v

Kidulis, 380 F Supp 445 [E.D Wis 1974])

The Thirteenth Amendment does not pro-hibit the government from compelling citizens

to perform certain civic duties, such as serving

on a jury (Hurtado v United States, 410 U.S

578, 93 S Ct 1157, 35 L Ed 2d 508 [1973])

or participating in the military draft (Selective Draft Law cases, 245 U.S 366, 38 S Ct 159, 62

L Ed 349[1918])

A related statute is the Anti-Peonage Act (42 U.S.C.A § 1994) Peonage is defined as compulsory service based upon the indebted-ness of the peon to the master The courts have held that neither the Thirteenth Amendment nor the Anti-Peonage Act prevents a convicted person from being required to work on public streets as part of his sentence (Loeb v Jennings,

67 S.E 101 (Ga 1910), aff’d, 219 U.S 582, 31

S Ct 469, 55 L Ed 345 [1911]) In addition, neither of these laws prevents the government from garnishing wages or using the court’s

[N.D Cal 1969]; Knight v Knight, 996 F.2d

1225[9th Cir 1993])

The courts have also held that state workfare programs that require or encourage citizens to obtain gainful employment in order to partici-pate in the state’s public assistance programs do not constitute involuntary servitude or peonage (Brogan v San Mateo County, 901 F.2d 762 [9th Cir 1990]) In another interesting applica-tion of these laws, a federal court held that a high school program that required all students

to complete 60 hours of community service in order to graduate did not constitute involuntary servitude or peonage (Steirer v Bethlehem Area School District, 789 F Supp 1337 [E.D Pa 1992])

FURTHER READINGS Azmy, Baher 2002 “Unshackling the Thirteenth Amend-ment: Modern Slavery and a Reconstructed Civil Rights Agenda ” Fordham Law Review 71 (December) Avail-able online at http://law2.fordham.edu/ihtml/page3 ihtml?imac=1137&pubID=500&articleid=1424; website home page: http://law2.fordham.edu (accessed August

27, 2009).

Congressional Quarterly 2004 Guide to the U.S Supreme Court 4th ed Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly.

Glasser, Ira 1991 Visions of Liberty New York: Arcade Schleichert, Elizabeth 1998 The Thirteenth Amendment: Ending Slavery Berkeley Heights, NJ: Enslow Smolla, Rodney A 1997 Federal Civil Rights Acts 3d ed Vol.

1 Eagan, MN: Thomson/West.

Vorenberg, Michael 2001 Final Freedom: The Civil War, the Abolition of Slavery, and the Thirteenth Amendment New York: Cambridge Univ Press.

22 THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT

Trang 6

Wolff, Tobias Barrington 2002 “The Thirteenth

Amend-ment and Slavery in the Global Economy ” Columbia

Law Review 102 (May).

CROSS REFERENCES

Civil Rights; Fifteenth Amendment; Fourteenth Amendment.

vTHOMAS, CLARENCE

Associate Justice Clarence Thomas survived

tense, nationally televised Senate confirmation

hearings in 1991 to become the second African

American in U.S history to reach the Supreme

Court

Thomas was born June 23, 1948, in Pin

Point, Georgia, a small town near Savannah He

attended Savannah’s Saint Benedict the Moor,

Saint Pius X High School, and Saint John

Vianney Minor Seminary When he graduated

from Saint John in 1967, he was the only

African American in his class After just one

year as a seminarian at Missouri’s Immaculate

Conception Seminary, Thomas abandoned his

plans to become a priest Instead, he enrolled

in Massachusetts’s Holy Cross College After

graduating in 1971, he attended Connecticut’s

Yale University Law School and earned a doctor

Thomas married Kathy Grace Ambush in

1971 The couple had a son, Jamal Thomas, in

1973, and divorced in 1984 In 1986, Thomas

married Virginia Lamp, a political activist and a

lawyer for the U.S.LABOR DEPARTMENT

Thomas’s first job out of law school was as

assistant to Missouri’s Republican attorney

gen-eral John C Danforth Thomas specialized in tax

and environmental issues In 1977, he accepted

a position in the law department of Monsanto Chemical Corporation Thomas returned to public service in 1979, when Danforth was elected to the U.S Senate Danforth invited Thomas to work for him as a legislative aide

in Washington, D.C

Thomas’s star rose quickly during the Republican administration of President RONALD

secretary in the CIVIL RIGHTS division of the

path crossed that of ANITA HILL, a recent Yale

Clarence Thomas STEVE PETTEWAY, COLLECTION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

2000 1975

1950

1950–53

Korean War

1961–73 Vietnam War

1948 Born,

Pin Point, Ga.

2002 Wrote majority opinion

in Earls v.

Tecumseh

2000 Joined majority in

Bush v.

Gore

1974 Graduated from Yale Law School 1974–77 Served as assistant attorney general of Mo.

1977–79 Worked as staff attorney at Monsanto Chemical Corp.

1981–82 Appointed assistant secretary in civil rights division of U.S Department of Education

1982 Appointed

as chair

of EEOC

1990–91 Sat on U.S.

Court of Appeals for the District

of Columbia

1994 Joined majorities in Shaw v Reno and Johnson v DeGrandy

1991 Appointed to replace Thurgood Marshall on High Court; accused of sexual harassment during confirmation hearings 1991– Served as associate justice of the U.S Supreme Court

1993 Joined majority in St.

Mary’s Honor Center v Hicks

◆◆

1996 Joined majorities in invalidating minority voting districts

in Shaw v Hunt and Bush v Vera

◆

1992 Joined dissent in Hudson v McMillan

◆

2007 My Grandfather’s Son:

A Memoir published

THOMAS, CLARENCE 23

Trang 7

University Law School graduate In 1982, when Thomas became chair of theEQUAL EMPLOYMENT

to the federal agency

In 1990 Thomas became a federal judge for the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia In 1991, PresidentGEORGE H.W.BUSH

nominated Thomas to the U.S Supreme Court

During the confirmation process, Hill accused Thomas of sexually harassing her while she worked for him at the EEOC After tense hearings before the U.S Senate, Thomas was confirmed by a vote of 52–48 On October 18,

1991, he was sworn in as the 106th justice of the U.S Supreme Court

Thomas is known as a conservative justice, voting to uphold STATES’ RIGHTS and limit the powers of the federal government He has frequently voted with Justice ANTONIN SCALIA

and Chief JusticeWILLIAM REHNQUIST Legal com-mentators have noted that Thomas rarely asks questions during the Court’s oral arguments

Thomas’ majority opinions have varied by topic In the area ofFOURTH AMENDMENT, Thomas wrote the plurality opinion in Board of Educa-tion of Independent School District No 92 of Pottawatomie County v Earls, 536 U.S 822, 122

S Ct 2559, 153 L Ed 2d 735 (2002), in which the Court upheld random drug testing of students engaged in extracurricular activities The case was unusual in that liberal justiceSTEPHEN BREYER

concurred with Thomas’ opinion, while mod-erate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor sided with a

Thomas also wrote the majority opinion in another Fourth Amendment case, Samson v

California, 547 U.S 843, 126 S Ct 2193, 165 L

Ed 2d 250 (2006), in which the Court upheld searches of parolees where the search was not based on suspicion of wrongdoing

Thomas frequently writes concurring and dissenting opinions In Grutter v Bollinger, 539 U.S 306, 123 S Ct 2325, 156 L Ed 2d 304 (2003), Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion in

a case involving the University of Michigan’s law school’s AFFIRMATIVE ACTION program The Court concluded that the program was consti-tutional In a lengthy opinion, Thomas argued that the law school’s use of race as a factor amounted toDISCRIMINATION, and that any form

of racial discrimination should be categorically prohibited by the Constitution Thomas echoed this opinion when he concurred in Grutter’s

companion case, Gratz v Bollinger, 539 U.S

244, 123 S Ct 2411, 156 L Ed 2d 257 (2003) Several books have been published about the Supreme Court’s only African American justice, including two unauthorized biographies published in 2001 Numerous publishers sought the rights to Thomas’s memoirs, and in January

2003, HarperCollins announced that it would publish Thomas’s account of his life Thomas received an advance of more than $1 million for the book, which was published in 2007

FURTHER READINGS Gerber, Scott Douglas 1999 First Principles: The Jurisprudence

of Clarence Thomas New York: New York Univ Press Thomas, Andrew Peyton 2001 Clarence Thomas: A Biography New York: Encounter Books.

Thomas, Clarence 2007 My Grandfather’s Son: A Memoir New York: HarperCollins.

CROSS REFERENCES Hill, Anita Faye; Sexual Harassment “Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill Hearings ” (In Focus).

vTHOMPSON, SMITH Smith Thompson served as associate justice of the U.S Supreme Court from 1824 until his death in 1843 He was among the most experi-enced judges ever appointed to the Supreme Court, and his tenure on the bench linked the constitutional doctrines of the Marshall Court and the Taney Court A prominent member of the New York bar and chief justice of the New York Supreme Court, Thompson also served as secretary of the navy during President JAMES

presi-dent of the American Bible Society, he provided

a copy to every officer and enlisted man in the Navy The Navy named a war ship after him, the U.S.S Smith Thompson

Thompson was born on January 17, 1768, in New York City, New York After graduating from Princeton University in 1788, he studied law with Gilbert Livingston, a member of a politically powerful family, and JAMES KENT, a towering figure in U.S.JURISPRUDENCE Thompson was admitted to the New York bar in 1792 When Kent left the law firm in 1795, Thompson became Livingston’s partner and eventually married Livingston’s daughter Sarah

Thompson was elected to the New York legislature in 1800 and then used Livingston’s political connections to obtain an appointment

to the state supreme court in 1802 He was

FROM THE PREMISE

LANGUAGE IS

WE ASSUME THAT IN

—C LARENCE T HOMAS

24 THOMPSON, SMITH

Trang 8

promoted to chief justice in 1814, in which

position he presided until 1818

President Monroe appointed Thompson

secretary of the navy in 1819 As head of the

department, Thompson earned Monroe’s trust

and respect Although he had presidential

ambitions, Thompson agreed to accept

Mon-roe’s offer of a seat on the U.S Supreme Court,

joining the Court in 1824 In 1828, however, he

returned to politics, running unsuccessfully for

the governorship of New York even though he

did not resign from the bench

As a justice, Thompson believed that the

states should be allowed to regulate commerce

unless their laws directly conflicted with federal

law This position put him in conflict with Chief

Justice JOHN MARSHALLand Justice JOSEPH STORY,

who interpreted the Constitution’s COMMERCE

exclusive right to regulate interstate commerce

Thompson wrote the concurring opinion in the

landmark case of Ogden v Saunders, 25 U.S (12

Wheat.) 213, 6 L Ed 606 (1827), which held

that any law passed after the execution of a

contract, in this case a New York insolvency

statute, was part of the contract In another

important case, Kendall v United States ex rel

Stokes, 37 U.S (12 Pet.) 524, 9 L Ed 1181

(1838), Thompson supported the right of

federal courts to issue a writ of MANDAMUS to

compel a cabinet officer to perform

nondiscre-tionary, ministerial obligations Thompson

died on December 18, 1843, in Poughkeepsie,

New York

Định dạng
Số trang	10
Dung lượng	524,82 KB