Constitu-tion reads: The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same
Trang 1the trust property will be given to the beneficiary and the kinds of transactions the trustee may conduct with the trust property
Unless the terms of the trust state otherwise, a trustee may invest trust property but must use reasonable skill and judgment in making the investments In some states, a trustee is required
by statute to make certain investments under certain conditions, but most states let trustees decide on their own whether to invest the trust property However, a trustee may not invest property if it is prohibited by the terms of the trust
Bankruptcy
In BANKRUPTCY cases, a court may appoint a trustee to manage the funds of the insolvent party In the United States, when an individual
or business files for bankruptcy, all property of the filer becomes property of a newly created entity, the bankruptcy estate (11 U.S.C § 541.) For all consumer and business bankruptcies filed under chapter 7 or chapter 13 of Title 11
of the United States Code (USC), a trustee or trustee in bankruptcy (TIB) is appointed by the U.S Trustee As an officer of theDEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, they are charged with ensuring the integrity of the bankruptcy system Along with representatives in each court, they help to manage the property of the bankruptcy estate, including bringing actions to avoid pre-bank-ruptcy transfers of property In bankruptcies filed under chapter 11 or 12, the debtor continues to manage the property of the bankruptcy estate, as “debtor in possession,”
subject to replacement for cause with a trustee
Chapter 7 trustees in bankruptcy are chosen by the U.S Trustee from a panel and are known
as “panel trustees.” Every judicial district has
a permanent chapter 13 trustee, known as a
“standing trustee.”
Trustees who are appointed by bankruptcy courts are paid for their services from public funds Trustees who manage trusts for private parties also are paid for their services, but their compensation comes from the creator of the trust or from the trust’s funds
TRUSTEES OF DARTMOUTH COLLEGE V WOODWARD The legal structure of the modern U.S business corporation had its genesis in Trustees of Dart-mouth College v Woodward, 17 U.S (4 Wheat.)
518, 4 L Ed 629 (1819), which held that private
corporate charters are protected from state interference by the Contracts Clause of the U.S Constitution (art I, § 10)
Dartmouth College was founded in 1769 by Reverend Eleazer Wheelock as a school for missionaries and Native Americans During the 1750s, Wheelock financed the school with his own money He launched an extensive fund-raising effort in England and Scotland in the 1760s and received generous contributions However, his benefactors wanted assurances that the money they were sending overseas would be properly spent To allay their concerns, Wheelock instituted a management structure by which an English board controlled the school’s finances and a colonial board managed the everyday affairs of the school and its missions In 1769 Wheelock obtained a corporate charter from the royal governor of New Hampshire The charter outlined the governing structure of the school, including the English and colonial boards of trustees After Wheelock’s death in 1779, his son, John Wheelock, assumed the presidency of Dartmouth College During the ensuing years, various circumstances, including the American Revolution, brought severe hardships to the college Funding was scarce, land titles were uncertain, and the value of the college’s assets diminished Disputes arose between Wheelock and the colonial—now U.S.—board of trustees over the administration of the college, and in August 1815 a group of dissatisfied board members prepared resolutions to remove Wheel-ock from office A struggle for control followed, and the dissident faction, composed of Repub-licans who wanted the state of New Hampshire
to control the school, enlisted the support of the legislature In December 1816 the legislature passed a law that renamed the college Dartmouth University and made it a public school controlled
by a state-appointed governing board
The controlling faction on the old board, most of whom were Federalists who supported Wheelock, wanted to maintain Dartmouth College’s private, sectarian character They maintained that the school’s charter was a contract between King George III and the trustees Because Article I, Section 10, of the U.S Constitution prohibits states from passing any law that impairs contractual obligations, they argued that the legislature could not alter the governing method prescribed in the charter The Republicans maintained that because the
128 TRUSTEES OF DARTMOUTH COLLEGE V WOODWARD
Trang 2charter was handed down by the English
monarchy before the American Revolution, it
had no legal effect in a U.S court Furthermore,
they contended that even if the charter was
valid, it was not a contract within the meaning
of Article I, Section 10, but rather an amendable
legislative act
In February 1817 the trustees filed a lawsuit
against William H Woodward, a former
secre-tary of the old board who had transferred his
allegiance and become the secretary-treasurer of
the new state-appointed board The suit claimed
that the legislature’s actions violated the old
board’s constitutional freedom of contract and
petitioned the court to compel Woodward to
return the college’s records, books, and seal, and
to pay $50,000 in damages The New Hampshire
Supreme Court ruled against the plaintiffs,
holding that Dartmouth College’s charter was
not a contract entitled to constitutional
protec-tion (Dartmouth College, 1 N.H 111 [1817])
The trustees appealed to the U.S Supreme
Court and enlisted the brilliant lawyer and
orator DANIEL WEBSTERto argue their cause An
1801 graduate of Dartmouth, Webster made an
impassioned plea to the Court to uphold the
original charter and maintain the school’s
private character He argued that the school
was created out of the bounty of its founder and
that the founder conferred on the trustees
certain rights Although the institution may
have some public characteristics, Webster
con-tended that it was still a private enterprise
whose trustees could not be deprived of their
property, immunities, or privileges withoutDUE
PROCESS OF LAW He further argued that a charter
constitutes a contract in the fullest sense of the
law because it includes all the elements of a
contract: competent parties, subject matter,
mutual consideration, agreement of the parties,
and mutual obligations Webster reminded the
justices of the dangers of unchecked legislative
power He argued that no less than the future of
all private colleges hung in the balance of the
Court’s decision and that if the New Hampshire
statute were upheld, all colleges would be
subject to the vagaries of politics He concluded
his arguments by addressing Chief JusticeJOHN
MARSHALL: “It is, sir, as I have said, a small
college And yet there are those who love it.”
Webster’s eloquence reportedly moved some
observers, including Marshall, to tears
The parties completed their arguments near
the end of the Court’s 1818 term At the close of
the term, Justice Marshall announced that the Court was undecided and would continue its consideration of the case to the 1819 term On February 2, 1819, Marshall read the Court’s opinion, which he had written:“The opinion of the court is, that [the charter] is a contract, the obligation of which cannot be impaired without violating the constitution.” The Court held that Wheelock and the college’s trustees had received the charter in return for their agreement to operate the school under the terms of the charter This mutual obligation was the basis of the Court’s finding that a contract existed and that the contract fell within the Contracts Clause’s protection
Marshall’s opinion defined a corporation as
“an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law.” Accord-ing to the Court, a corporation possesses only the properties and powers conferred upon it
by law Dartmouth College was a corporation and, as a party to the contract created by the charter, could enforce its constitutional right
to be free from impairment of its obligation
The Dartmouth College case had far-reaching implications By establishing that private corpo-rate charters are contracts protected by the Constitution, this decision enabled business corporations to operate under whatever terms are dictated in their charters, without fear of interference by the state This freedom was an important agent in the enormous growth of corporations in the nineteenth and early twenti-eth centuries, a necessary adjunct to the development of the U.S economy In addition, the case was the first to recognize that a corporation is a “person” for legal purposes, able to sue and be sued It also established the principle that vested property rights, such as those granted in a corporate charter, fall within the purview of the Contracts Clause By so doing, the decision established that the Contracts Clause protects the right to acquire and dispose
of property This protection, in turn, encouraged economic venture and development
Although the Dartmouth College case is most often cited for its effect on the law of business corporations, it also significantly influ-enced the development of higher education in the United States By confirming the autonomy
of Dartmouth College as a private institution, the Court ensured that other private colleges would operate free of state interference The decision probably influenced the growth of
TRUSTEES OF DARTMOUTH COLLEGE V WOODWARD 129
Trang 3public colleges, as the only schools states could legally control were those founded by the states
Finally, by prohibiting the legislature from interfering with Dartmouth’s trustees, faculty, and students, the Court, perhaps inadvertently, bolstered the concepts ofACADEMIC FREEDOMand tenure for academic faculty Webster, in his arguments before the justices, implored them
to protect the Dartmouth faculty’s “sacred”
property rights, to which they were entitled
by virtue of their forgoing “the advantages of professional and public employments, to devote themselves to science and literature, and the instruction of youth.”
The Dartmouth College case was criticized
by some as awarding free rein to corporations and usurping state regulatory power However, the case was interpreted not to prevent states from regulating businesses but rather to restrict states from interfering with a corpora-tion’s charter provisions In fact, states have always regulated business corporations to benefit the public interest The Court made it clear through subsequent decisions that Dart-mouth College was not to be interpreted as corporate carte blanche For example, in Providence Bank v Billings, 29 U.S (4 Pet.)
514, 7 L Ed 939 (1830), the plaintiff argued that its charter implied an exemption from taxation and that a general tax on banks would
be a burden on its freedom of contract The Court held that the Dartmouth College doctrine did not prohibit states from taxing banks
Corporations have the legal characteristics of any individual, and all individuals are obligated
to share in the public burden of taxation A further refinement of the doctrine came in West River Bridge v Dix, 47 U.S (6 How.) 507,
12 L Ed 535 (1848), in which the Court held that all contracts are subject to the superseding power of EMINENT DOMAINand“the preexisting and higher authority of the laws of nature, of nations, or of the community.” That higher authority gives states the right to tax and regulate corporations
FURTHER READINGS Hart, Benjamin 1984 Poisoned Ivy New York: Stein & Day.
Lee, Mordecai 2007 “Revisiting the Dartmouth Court Decision: Why the US Has Private Nonprofit Agencies Instead of Public Non-Governmental Organizations ” Public Organization Review 7 (June).
Mark, Gregory A 1987 “The Personification of the Business Corporation in American Law ” 1987 Univ of Chicago Law Review 54 (fall).
McGarvie, Mark D 1999 “Creating Roles for Religion and Philanthropy in a Secular Nation: The Dartmouth College Case and the Design of Civil Society in the Early Republic ” Journal of College and University Law 25 (winter).
Shribman, David, and Edward Connery Lathem, eds 1999 Miraculously Builded in Our Hearts: A Dartmouth Reader Hanover, N.H.: Univ Press of New England Stites, Francis N 1972 Private Interest and Public Gain: The Dartmouth College Case, 1819 Amherst: Univ of Massachusetts Press.
Widmayer, Charles E 1977 Hopkins at Dartmouth Hanover, N.H.: Univ Press of New England.
CROSS REFERENCES Academic Freedom; Colleges and Universities; Corporations.
TRUSTIES Prison inmates who through their good conduct earn a certain measure of freedom in and around the prison in exchange for assuming certain responsibilities
A prison trusty might, for example, be charged with the responsibility of maintaining order among fellow inmates
TRUTH IN LENDING ACT The TRUTH IN LENDING ACT (TILA) of 1968 is contained in Title I of the CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION ACT (CCPA) (15 U.S.C.A § 1601
et seq.) The CCPA is designed to ensure that every customer who needs CONSUMER CREDIT is given meaningful information concerning the cost of such credit The Truth in Lending Act requires that the terms in transactions involv-ing consumer credit be fully explained to the prospective debtors It sets forth three basic rules: (1) a creditor may not advertise a deal that ordinarily is not available to anyone except
a preferred borrower; (2) advertisements must contain either all of the terms of a credit transaction or none of them; and (3) if the credit is to be repaid in more than four payments, the agreement must indicate, in clear and conspicuous print, that“the cost of credit
is included in the price quoted for the goods and services.” This law does not impose regu-lations upon the advertising media, only upon the prospective creditor
The Truth in Lending Act also grants consumers the right to cancel certain credit transactions that involve a LIEN on their principal dwelling; regulates certain credit card practices; and provides a means for a fair and
130 TRUSTIES
Trang 4timely resolution of credit billing disputes With
the exception of certain types of high-cost
mortgage loans, TILA does not regulate the
charges that may be imposed for consumer
credit Instead, it requires standardized
disclo-sure of costs and charges so that consumers can
shop It also imposes limitations on home
equity plans that are subject to the requirements
of 12 CFR 226.5b and various higher-cost
mortgages that are subject to the requirements
of 12 CFR 226.32 The regulation prohibits
certain acts or practices in connection with
credit secured by a consumer’s principal
dwelling
The Credit Card Act of 2009
On May 22, 2009, the Credit Card Act of 2009
was enacted and made extensive revisions to
the Truth in Lending Act The FEDERAL RESERVE
BOARDannounced that it plans to issue
amend-ments to Regulation Z to implement those
revisions in accordance with the requirements
of the Credit Card Act The Act requires
many of the amendments in the board’s January
2009 Regulation Z (effective July 1, 2010) to be
changed, but the board is not rescinding any
of those requirements as of October of 2009
CROSS REFERENCE
Consumer Protection.
vTRUTH, SOJOURNER
SOJOURNER TRUTH was a nineteenth-century
African American evangelist who embraced
abolitionism andWOMEN’S RIGHTS A charismatic
speaker, she became one of the best-known
abolitionists of her day
Born a slave around 1797 in Ulster County,
New York, Isabella Baumfree, as she was
originally named, was the second youngest of thirteen children born in SLAVERY to Elizabeth (called Mau-Mau Bett) and James Bomefree
The other siblings were either sold or given away before her birth The family was owned by Johannes Hardenbergh, a patroon and Revolu-tionary War patriot, the head of one of the most prominent Dutch families in late eighteenth-century New York After the colonel’s death, his son Charles Hardenberg inherited hownership
of the family’s slaves Truth was sold to and served two more masters before escaping and
Sojourner Truth LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Sojourner Truth c.1797–1883
❖
c 1797 Born
Isabella
Baumfree,
Ulster
County,
N.Y.
◆
1812–14 War of 1812
1828 Freed from slavery by New York law
◆
◆
1843 Changed her name to Sojoumer Truth
1850 Toured Midwest on speaking tour;
published The Narrative of Sojoumer Truth
1846–48 Mexican War
◆
1854 Settled in Battle Creek, Mich.
◆
1861–65 U.S Civil War
◆
1875 Retired from public speaking
1865 Joined national Freedmen's Relief Association
1864 Met with President Lincoln
❖
1883 Died, Battle Creek, Mich.
TRUTH, SOJOURNER 131
Trang 5ultimately being freed She bore at least five children to a fellow slave named Thomas and took the name of her last master, Isaac Van Wagener, in 1827
In late 1826 Truth and her young daughter Sophia escaped She was forced to depart without other children, because they were not legally freed under the terms of the emancipation order She was freed in 1828 when a New York law abolished
SLAVERY within the state, and with the help of Quaker friends, she recovered a young son who had been illegally sold into slavery in the South
In 1829 she moved to New York City and worked as a domestic servant Since childhood she had experienced visions and heard voices, which she attributed to God Her mystic bent led her to become associated with Elijah Person,
a New York religious missionary She worked and preached with Person in the streets of the city, and in 1843 she had a religious experience
in which she believed that God commanded her
to travel beyond New York to spread the Christian gospel She took the name Sojourner Truth and traveled throughout the eastern states
as an evangelist
Truth soon became acquainted with the abolitionist movement and its leaders She adopted their message, speaking out against slavery Her speaking tours expanded as aboli-tionists realized her effectiveness as a lecturer
In 1850 she toured the Midwest and drew large, enthusiastic crowds Because she was illiterate, she dictated her life story, The Narrative of Sojourner Truth, and sold the book at her lectures as a means of supporting herself
In the early 1850s, she met leaders of the emerging women’s rights movement, most notably Lucretia Mott Truth recognized the connection between the inferior legal status of African Americans and women in general Soon she was speaking before women’s rights groups, advocating the right to vote Her most famous speech was entitled Ain’t I a Woman?
During the 1850s Truth settled in Battle Creek, Michigan, but went to Washington, D.C., in 1864 to meet with President ABRAHAM LINCOLN She remained in Washington to help the war effort, collecting supplies for black volunteer regiments serving in the Union army and helping escaped slaves find jobs and homes
After the war she joined the National Freedmen’s Relief Association, working with
former slaves to prepare them for a different type of life Truth believed that former slaves should be given free land in the West, but her “Negro State” proposal failed to interest Congress Nevertheless, during the 1870s she encouraged African Americans to resettle in Kansas and Missouri
Truth remained on the public speaking circuit until 1875, when she retired to Battle Creek She died there on November 26, 1883
FURTHER READINGS Davis, Peggy Cooper 1996 “’So Tall Within’—The Legacy of Sojourner Truth ” Cardozo Law Review 18 (November) Painter, Nell Irvin, ed 1998 Narrative of Sojourner Truth:
A Bondswoman of Olden Time, with a History of Her Labors and Correspondence Drawn from Her Book of Life New York: Penguin Books.
Whalin, W Terry 1997 Sojourner Truth: American Abolitionist Uhrichsville, Ohio: Barbour & Co CROSS REFERENCES
Abolition; “Ain’t I a Woman?” (Appendix, Primary Document).
TRY
To litigate a legal controversy; to argue a lawsuit
in court as an attorney; to sit in the role of a judge
or jury to investigate and decide upon QUESTIONS
OF LAWand fact presented in such an action
TUCKER ACT Enacted by the U.S Congress in 1887 to remedy inadequacies in the original statutory measures that created theCOURT OF CLAIMS(now the U.S Claims Court) in 1855, theTUCKER ACT(28 U.S C.A § 1346) extended the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims to claims founded upon the Constitution, acts of Congress, or regulations
of executive departments The court was also empowered to entertain claims for liquidated and unliquidated damages in nontort actions It retained jurisdiction to hear contract cases, which it was given under the 1855 measure The Tucker Act has been amended to cover other arcane claims issues For example, the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act amend-ments to the Tucker Act specifically provide for the payment of “bid preparation and proposal costs.”
TURPITUDE SeeMORAL TURPITUDE
STIR ABOUT COLORED
MEN GETTING THEIR
WORD ABOUT
COLORED MEN GET
THEIR RIGHTS AND
NOT COLORED
SEE THE COLORED
MEN WILL BE
MASTERS OVER THE
BE JUST AS HARD AS
—S OJOURNER T RUTH
132 TRY
Trang 6TUSKEGEE SYPHILIS STUDY
The Tuskegee Syphilis Study constituted one
of the most shameful acts in the history of
American medicine The repercussions of this
study, which allowed 400 African American
men afflicted with syphilis to go untreated for a
period of almost 40 years, are still felt in the
early 2000s It resulted in new laws requiring
informed consent for medical experiments on
humans Some argue that the study left a legacy
of suspicion of the medical community that
continues among many African Americans
The Tuskegee Syphilis Study began in 1932,
at the hospital of the prestigious Tuskegee
Institute, a traditionally African American college
located in Alabama The U.S PUBLIC HEALTH
SERVICEsponsored the study, and white physicians
within the public health service administered it
The purpose of the study was to determine the
effects of syphilis in African American men At
the time the study began, there was no cure for
syphilis, a sexually transmitted disease that causes
sores and rashes in its early stages and serious
blood vessel and heart problems, mental
dis-orders, blindness, nerve system problems, and
even death in its latter stages
There were treatments for syphilis available
when the study began, but it was decided to
withhold even those from participants without
their knowledge and chart the course of untreated
syphilis in African American males Four
hun-dred men with syphilis were initially enrolled in
the project, mostly poor uneducated African
American tenant farmers from the surrounding
area, along with 200 uninfected men who served
as controls The first published report of the study
was issued in 1936, and reports were issued every
four to six years after that
In the late 1940s, penicillin first became
available to the general public as a cure for
syphilis However, the decision was made not to
make it available to study participants, who were
allowed to continue in the study without any
treatment for their disease They were
continu-ally supplied with placebos, and no attempt was
made to inform them of possible alternatives to
the so-called medicine that they were being
given As late as 1969, the Centers for Disease
Control recommended the study continue
Finally in 1972, following unflattering news
reports, the study was finally shut down, and
those subjects who were still part of the study
received penicillin A report was issued by the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare that stated that the study was “scientifically unsound and its results are disproportionately meager compared with known risks to the human subjects involved.” The U.S Congress, led by SenatorEDWARD KENNEDY, held hearings in
1973 on the Tuskegee Syphilis Study
Those hearings resulted in the 1974 passage
of the National Research Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C
§§ 201 et seq.), which established institutional review and an ethic guidance program for all future research studies done under the auspices
of the U.S government It stated in part “that each entity which applies for a grant, contract, or cooperative agreement under this chapter for any project or program which involves the conduct
of biomedical or behavioral research involving human subjects submit in or with its application for such grant, contract, or cooperative agree-ment assurances satisfactory to the Secretary that
it has established a board (to be known as an Institutional Review Board) to review biomedical and behavioral research involving human sub-jects conducted at or supported by such entity in order to protect the rights of the human subjects
of such research.”
In the meantime, a lawsuit was filed in 1973,
on behalf of the survivors of the study and the heirs and representatives of the participants who had since died, against the various federal government agencies, the State of Alabama, the private foundation that provided original fund-ing, and individual physicians working for the U.S Public Health Service Eventually, a mone-tary settlement of $10 million was reached with the parties Each surviving subject was to be paid $37,500, each heir or representative of a diseased subject received $15,000, each member
of the control group received $16,000, and the heir or a representative of each control subject received $5,000
In 1997, in a White House ceremony, PresidentBILL CLINTONapologized for the federal government’s role in the Tuskegee Syphilis Study
He spoke of the mistrust and racial animus that resulted from the study to a group of survivors of the study and their families He added:“We can look you in the eye and finally say on behalf of the American people, what the United States govern-ment did was shameful, and I am sorry.”
FURTHER READINGS Herman, Donald H J 2000–2001 “Lessons Taught by Miss Evers ’ Boys: The Inadequacy of Benevolence and the
TUSKEGEE SYPHILIS STUDY 133
Trang 7Need for Legal Protection of Human Subjects in Medical Research ” Journal of Law and Health 15.
Jones, James H 1993 Bad Blood: The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment New York: Free Press.
Palmer, Larry I 1997 “Paying for Suffering: The Problem of Human Experimentation ” Maryland Law Review 56.
Proctor, Margaret, Michael Cook, and Caroline Williams, eds 2005 Political Pressure and Archival Record.
Chicago: Society of American Archivists.
Reverby, Susan M., ed 2000 Tuskegee’s Truths: Rethinking the Tuskegee Syphilis Study Chapel Hill: Univ of North Carolina Press.
CROSS REFERENCES Informed Consent; Patients ’ Rights.
vTUTTLE, ELBERT PARR Elbert Parr Tuttle will be remembered as an influential jurist of theCIVIL RIGHTSera As judge, and later chief judge, of the old Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, he ruled on cases from six southern states (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas) through the storm of civil rights litigation followingBROWN V
BOARD OF EDUCATION, 347 U.S 483, 74 S Ct 686,
98 L Ed 873 (1954)—the landmark 1954 Supreme Court decision that held racial SEGRE-GATIONin public education to be against the law
Because racial segregation was law through-out most of the Sthrough-outh, the Fifth Circuit became the United States’ proving ground for civil rights in the late 1950s and 1960s Tuttle and fellow judges John R Brown, of Houston, Texas, Richard T Rives, of Montgomery, Alabama, and JOHN MINOR WISDOM, of New Orleans—
known derisively as the Four—faced delaying tactics, political pressures, and all manner of threats as they worked to make the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling a reality in key states
of the old Confederacy
The judges of the Fifth Circuit changed the South, and therefore the nation Under their gavels,JIM CROW LAWSwere declared unconstitu-tional, African Americans were granted VOTING RIGHTS, RACIAL DISCRIMINATION in jury selection was curbed, state universities and colleges were desegregated, and equal opportunity in educa-tion became a reality
Tuttle probably reflected on his own schooling when championing equal education for all He was born July 17, 1897, in Pasadena, California In 1906, Tuttle’s father, Guy Har-mon Tuttle, moved his family to Hawaii so that
he could accept a position as bookkeeper on a sugar plantation Young Tuttle, and his older brother Malcolm, were enrolled at the Punahou Academy, in Honolulu, where they were the minority students among classmates of native Hawaiian, Chinese, Japanese, and Portuguese descent
Tuttle returned to the mainland in 1914 to enter college He received his bachelor of arts degree in 1918 and bachelor of law degree in
1923 from Cornell University
Following law school, Tuttle and his brother-in-law, William Sutherland, started to look for a promising location to establish a law practice After investigating several locations in the South, they settled on Atlanta Also in 1923, after being admitted to the Georgia bar, they opened the firm of Sutherland, Tuttle, and Brennan
Though Tuttle specialized in tax litigation,
he also tried severalCIVIL RIGHTS CASES, including
a battle to win a new trial for a black man convicted of raping a white woman, and a challenge to a Georgia statute under which a black man had been sentenced to 20 years on a
Elbert Parr Tuttle 1897–1996
❖
1897 Born,
Pasadena, Calif.
◆
1914–18 World War I
1918 Received B.A from
Cornell University
◆
1923 Admitted
to Ga bar;
opened firm of Sutherland, Tuttle, and Brennan
1939–45 World War II
1950–53 Korean War
◆
1953 Named to general counsel post in the Treasury Department
by President Eisenhower
1961–73 Vietnam War
1954–68 Sat on the U.S Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
1996 Died, Atlanta, Ga.
1981 Continued on as senior judge in the new Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
1968 Took senior (semiretired) status on the Fifth Circuit
1962 Found process of appointment to the Georgia Legislature
unconstitutional in Toombs v Fortson; wrote dissent in Wesberry v Vandiver
1960 Appointed chief judge
of the Fifth Circuit
ONLY USEFUL IN ITS
—E LBERT T UTTLE
134 TUTTLE, ELBERT PARR
Trang 8chain gang for distributing Communist party
literature At a time whenPRO BONOwork (work
donated for the public good) was unusual,
Tuttle frequently represented people who could
not afford an attorney
Tuttle began organizing support for
REPUBLI-CAN PARTY candidates in Georgia and was
acknowledged as a state Republican leader by
the late 1940s He said he allied himself with
the Republican party because he was appalled
at the whites-only policies of Georgia’s
DEMO-CRATIC PARTY
In 1953 President DWIGHT D EISENHOWER
named Tuttle to a general counsel post in the
TREASURY DEPARTMENT In 1954, just three months
afterSCHOOL DESEGREGATIONwas struck down by
the Supreme Court’s Brown decision, the
president asked Tuttle to sit on the U.S Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
It was not easy for Tuttle to decide whether
to accept the president’s offer Nevertheless,
mindful of the social and legal upheaval that
would follow the Supreme Court’s decision,
he chose to take on the challenge Though he
received threats and hate mail for following the
Brown decision, Tuttle faced frustrated
segrega-tionists head on—and in the process helped to
change the course of a nation
Two of Tuttle’s early opinions on the Fifth
Circuit helped to shape the political history of
the state of Georgia In Toombs v Fortson, 205
F Supp 248 (1962), Tuttle found the process of
appointment to the Georgia legislature to be
unconstitutional and ordered it changed In
Wesberry v Vandiver, 206 F Supp 276 (1962),
Tuttle wrote a dissenting opinion concerning
congressional district reapportionment; on
ap-peal, the U.S Supreme Court agreed with his
dissent Although Tuttle was in favor of
correct-ing the malapportionment that diminished the
power of black votes, he believed that such action
should arise from the states, not the courts
By 1961 Tuttle had become the Fifth
Circuit’s chief judge During his tenure, he
decided many landmark cases involving Jim
Crow laws, voting rights, jury discrimination,
employment discrimination, reapportionment,
and school desegregation—including the order
to admitJAMES MEREDITH, an African American,
to the then all-white University of Mississippi
in 1962 Tuttle stepped down as chief judge in
1968, taking senior (or semiretired) status He
died June 23, 1996, in Atlanta, Georgia
RESOURCES Bass, Jack “The ‘Fifth Circuit Four’.” The Nation (May 3, 2004).
“Excerpts from the Elbert Tuttle Portrait Ceremony and Eleventh Circuit Historical Society Ceremony ” 1983.
Cornell Law Review (January 24).
Tuttle, Elbert P “To My Dear Friend, John R Brown.” 1993.
Texas Law Review 71 (April).
CROSS REFERENCES Apportionment; Integration.
TWELFTH AMENDMENT The Twelfth Amendment to the U.S Constitu-tion reads:
The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists
of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and
of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;—The President of theSENATEshall, in the presence of the Senate and HOUSE OF
the votes shall then be counted;—The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number
of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose im-mediately, by ballot, the President But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and
a majority of all the states shall be necessary
to a choice And if the House of Representa-tives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next follow-ing, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.—
The person having the greatest number of votes as President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and
if no person have a majority, then from the
TWELFTH AMENDMENT 135
Trang 9two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds
of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice But no person con-stitutionally ineligible to the office of Presi-dent shall be eligible to that of Vice-PresiPresi-dent
of the United States
The Twelfth Amendment was proposed on December 9, 1803, and ratified on July 27, 1804
It superseded Article 2, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution and changed the method used
to select the president and vice president in the Electoral College The amendment resulted from the emergence of the two-party system and the presidential election of 1800
The Twelfth Amendment was the first
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT that corrected a mistake made at the Constitutional Convention
The Framers of the U.S Constitution provided for an indirect method of presidential selection
Under this arrangement, each state was autho-rized to appoint as many electors as it had senators and representatives in Congress This
ELECTORAL COLLEGE, as it came to be called, was empowered to choose the president, and the person receiving the second highest number
of votes served as vice president Each elector voted for two individuals without specifying which he wanted for president It was assumed that the electors would act independently of the people in making their selections
In the 1790s, however, the two-party sys-tem developed, and the FEDERALIST PARTY and the DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN PARTY became bitter rivals The two parties selected their slates of electors, which reduced the independent role
of the electors In 1796 JOHN ADAMS, a Federa-list, defeated THOMAS JEFFERSON, a Democratic-Republican, for president, but Jefferson served
as Adams’s vice president because he had the second highest vote total The antagonism bet-ween the two men and their parties meant that there was no certainty that a president and vice-president could serve as a team On the contrary, with the growth of the two major parties, there was a good chance that the Adams-Jefferson scenario would be repeated
The presidential election of 1800 revealed another problem with the election process and precipitated the Twelfth Amendment The two Democratic-Republican candidates—Thomas Jefferson, the presidential candidate, andAARON
BURR, the vice presidential candidate—received the same number of votes The tie threw the election into the House of Representatives After
35 ballots, the House chose Jefferson as pre-sident, but the divisive battle took so long that it aroused fears that there would be no president
to take office on inauguration day
The amendment was quickly and over-whelmingly ratified Opponents argued that the amendment would devalue the office of vice-president in the eyes of the citizenry and remove
a check on presidential authority Of the 16 states then admitted to the Union, only Delaware and Connecticut rejected the amendment
FURTHER READINGS Kuroda, Tadahisa 1994 The Origins of the Twelfth Amendment: The Electoral College in the Early Republic, 1787–1804 Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press Levinson, Sanford, and Ernest A Young 2002 “Who’s Afraid of the Twelfth Amendment?” Florida State University Law Review 29 (winter).
Palmer, Kris E 2000.Constitutional Amendments: 1789 to the Present Farmington Hills, Mich.: Gale.
TWENTIETH AMENDMENT The Twentieth Amendment to the U.S Consti-tution reads:
Section 1 The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin
Section 2 The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day Section 3 If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term,
or if the President elect shall have failed
to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President
or Vice President shall have qualified
136 TWENTIETH AMENDMENT
Trang 10Section 4 The Congress may by law provide
for the case of the death of any of the persons
from whom the House of Representatives
may choose a President whenever the right of
choice shall have devolved upon them, and
for the case of the death of any of the persons
from whom the Senate may choose a Vice
President whenever the right of choice shall
have devolved upon them
Section 5 Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on
the 15th day of October following the
ratification of this article
Section 6 This article shall be inoperative
unless it shall have been ratified as an
amendment to the Constitution by the
legislatures of three-fourths of the several
States within seven years from the date of its
submission
The Twentieth Amendment was proposed
on March 2, 1932, and ratified on January 23,
1933 The amendment moved the date on
which new presidential and vice presidential
terms begin as well as the date for beginning
new congressional terms, ended the abbreviated
congressional session that had formerly
con-vened in even-numbered years, and fixed
procedures for presidential succession if the
president-elect dies before inauguration day
Senator GEORGE W NORRIS of Nebraska was
the primary sponsor of the Twentieth
Amend-ment He was concerned about the gap between
the holding of federal elections on the first
Tuesday in November and the installation of the
newly elected officials in March of the following
year The Constitution specified that the
presidential and vice presidential terms should
begin on March 4 and the congressional terms
on March 3 As a result, senators and
repre-sentatives who were defeated in November
could remain in office and vote on measures
for four months, thereby earning the name
“lame ducks.”
The Constitution also required Congress to
hold an abbreviated session in even-numbered
years from early December until the next
Congress convened in March These “lame
duck” sessions were generally unproductive, as
the members engaged in virtually no legislative
activity At the same time, however, these
sessions provided the opportunity for defeated
members to vote on measures without any
accountability to the voters
Under the Twentieth Amendment, the
presidential and vice presidential terms begin
on January 20, and congressional terms begin
on January 3 The lame duck session require-ment was also abolished
Another section of the amendment deals with presidential succession should the president-elect die before taking office The amendment provides that the vice president elect shall become the president-elect and take office on January 20; the amendment also authorizes Con-gress to legislate on other matters of presidential succession
RESOURCES Lewis, Anthony Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biogrpahy of the First Amendment New York: Basic.
Nagle, John Copeland 1997 “A Twentieth Amendment Parable ” New York Univ Law Review 72 (May).
Neustadt, Richard E 2001 “The Contemporary Presidency:
The Presidential ‘Hundred Days’: An Overview.”
Presidential Studies Quarterly 31 (March).
TWENTY-FIFTH AMENDMENT The Twenty-fifth Amendment to the U.S
Constitution reads:
Section 1 In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President
Section 2 Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress
Section 3 Whenever the President transmits
to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representa-tives his written declaration that he is unable
to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President
Section 4 Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body
as Congress may by law provide, transmit
to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Represen-tatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties
TWENTY-FIFTH AMENDMENT 137