ILNews

IU McKinney author series spotlights faculty writers

IL Staff
September 5, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law professor will kick-off the school’s series of faculty book lectures by examining the birth of the 14th Amendment.

Gerard Magliocca, professor of law and associate dean for research, will discuss his new book, “American Founding Son: John Bingham and the Invention of the Fourteenth Amendment,” Sept. 10. The lecture begins at 5 p.m. in the Wynne Courtroom, Inlow Hall, 530 W. New York St., Indianapolis. A reception and book signing will follow at 6 p.m.

Magliocca draws on personal letters and speeches to examine the life and work of antislavery lawyer and Ohio congressman John Bingham. Magliocca described Bingham, who wrote the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as the architect of the rebirth of the United States after the Civil War.   

One hour of Indiana Continuing Legal Education credit is available for attending the lecture. To register, visit mckinneylaw.iu.edu.

Other faculty authors scheduled to speak as part of the series include Yvonne Dutton, an associate professor of law who will present her book, “Rules, Politics, and the International Criminal Court: Committing to the Court,” Sept. 12 at 5 p.m..

David Oretlicher, professor and co-director of Law School Clinical Programs. He will discuss his book, “Two Presidents are Better than One: the Case for a Bipartisan Executive Branch,” Sept. 19 at 5 p.m..

All book talks will be held in the Wynn Courtroom.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT