Thesis (Ed.M.)--Boston University

The ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791 brought freedom of the press into the sphere of constitutional legitimacy such that it could not be nullified by the whims of elected officials. Traditionally the guarantee of a free press has been treated as an adjunct of the Speech Clause with little, if any, independent status. Recently, however, that traditional conception has come under increasing attack. Many attorneys, judges and academicians have argued for a separation of the Press and Speech Clauses. For example, former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart has stated his belief that the Press Clause is a structural guarantee which provides greater First Amendment protection to the press than that generally accorded the public. Therefore, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Zurcher v. Stanford Daily (1978) that ratified searches of non-suspect, third-party newsmen exemplified for these supporters the nadir of press freedom in recent years. In this study the importance of the Zurcher decision to public policy, public law and legal studies is examined in detail. The study utilizes the systems model popularized by David Easton to observe the events leading up to the decision and both the judicial and legislative responses to that decision. In addition, a new theory of press freedom is presented which analogizes the Press Clause to the Free Exercise of Religion Clause. This theory suggests that the Press Clause should be separated from the Speech Clause in the same way as the Free Exercise Clause has been separated. This would establish the Press Clause as an independent clause granting a special status to the press: a status which the author believes to be warranted by the language of the First Amendment and the absolute necessity for a press free of governmental intrusion and regulation.

Government / Controversies regarding the slavery and the Constitution often turn on investigation of original intent: Is the Constitution an antislavery or proslavery document? The arguments of West, Storing, Graber, and Finkelman show that scholarly opinion is greatly divided on this issue. This study, however, will present the case that the status of the document need not be resolved in order to determine whether the Constitution inaugurated a proslavery or antislavery project. Instead of attempting to determine the intent of the founders or to derive constitutional principles directly from their document a different task will be undertaken here. This paper will examine the “political logic” of the Constitution, both in terms of specific clauses and the structure of the whole. This study shows that the political logic of the Constitution is hostile to abolitionist paths of national, political development. Instead of setting in motion a project that places the institution of slavery on the road to elimination, the Constitution’s concessions to slavery provided a permanent privileging of slaveholding interests in the further development of the polity. / text

No description available.

The purpose of this study is to trace the judicial history of the disintegration of the traditional concept of "state action" and the consequent development of the new concept that the prohibitions of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments apply to private action among individuals.

This study provides a comparative analysis of attitudes of high school principals toward the First Amendment in the schoolplace in 2004 and 2007. It builds on the seminal work done in 2004 by Connecticut researchers Ken Dautrich and David Yalof. It also rigorously examines their 2004 data for the first time. An analysis of the 2004 data and my own 2007 findings revealed that principals in 2007 reported being less likely to support the expression of unpopular opinions and more likely to think the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees. While principals strongly agreed that professional newspapers should be able to publish without interference from authorities, they were significantly less likely to say the same about high school newspapers. This study includes interviews with 10 randomly selected administrators who took the 2007 survey. Their comments verified the key quantitative findings. / Department of Journalism

How much the writer of this thesis is blazed on the subject of religion can be determined accurately only in his own mind. However, there must be the recognition that a person's background, especially his religious training and church affiliation, has its influence no matter how objectively a religious question is approached in a study. Even though this thesis is concerned with the legal concepts within the oases of the Supreme Court of the United States, the question of religious bias probably has its place, large or small„ Let it suffice to state that the writer is of a Protestant faith, specifically the Presbyterian denomination. The degree that has biased the treatment of the study should be a consideration of the reader, keeping in mindthe reader's own bias.

No description available.

Academic freedom has gone through three distinct eras yet each era overlaps a great deal with the one following it. The first era was the bureaucratic. It was exemplified by the negotiations between administrators and professors in the 1920s. The American Association of University Professors and the American Association of Colleges began cooperating and a hierarchical structure emerged, with the tenured professor at the top of the faculty. The second era was the political era and it was mainly a result of loyalty oaths, which began after the first World War and then escalated again during the 1930s when communism became a major concern. The political era then gave way to the legal era when the first academic freedom cases went to the United States Supreme Court in the 1950s. The first cases were the result of political pressures that became legal pressures. Most of the early court cases were based on communism. The legal era has produced changes. There are now more rights; for students and teachers of all levels, including pre-college levels, are guaranteed some academic freedom rights. However, the First Amendment and academic freedom are not synonymous because a professor usually cannot win a case based solely on his free speech rights under academic freedom. It is only when academic freedom is guaranteed through some form of due process, custom or contract—and that guarantee has been violated—that a professor normally wins a suit. There are times, too, when a professor's free speech rights have been violated and she can then win a suit based on the First Amendment, but academic freedom is not always a part of the decision. Many times academic freedom is simply used as dictum in a decision that is, in fact, based on a different part of law such as contract law, public employee law, or a First Amendment violation. Academic freedom has been recognized by the courts but standing alone it is not usually sufficient to win a suit.

Puerto Rico has been a United States territory since 1898. Since then, the island has remained in an ill-defined relationship with the United States, lacking autonomy and sovereignty. The Supreme Court and Congress have been the primary agents dealing with Puerto Rico's territorial trajectory. While the island has faced many setbacks throughout the years, this thesis asserts that the zenith in autonomy and sovereignty was reached in the 1950s, after two key legislative developments. This set forth an experiment in territorial administration. But the experiment was abandoned and closed in 2016, after two Supreme Court decisions and an Act of Congress sent Puerto Rico—the experiment—in retrograde motion. This thesis explores Puerto Rico's politico-legal developments, with a focus on the 1950s and 2016.