A Reply to Professor Thomas
Bryan H. Wildenthal
Thomas Jefferson School of Law
October 5, 2007
Ohio State Law Journal, Vol. 68, No. 6, p. 1659, 2007
Thomas Jefferson School of Law Research Paper No. 1019308
This article replies to the response offered by Professor George C. Thomas III to Professor Wildenthal's lead article, Nationalizing the Bill of Rights: Revisiting the Original Understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1866-67, 68 Ohio State Law Journal 1509 (2007) (available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=963487). See Thomas, The Riddle of the Fourteenth Amendment: A Response to Professor Wildenthal, 68 Ohio State Law Journal 1627 (2007) (available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1005685).
Wildenthal's lead article offers a fresh analysis, building upon extensive prior work by other scholars (including Thomas, in an important 2001 article), of the evidence regarding whether the Fourteenth Amendment was originally understood to incorporate and apply the Bill of Rights to the states. The lead article concludes that the evidence is sufficient to support that inference. Thomas's response agrees in part with the analytical approach of the lead article, but disagrees with its conclusions in several important respects.
This article offers a concise reply to Professor Thomas's thoughtful arguments in his response. The reply points out the common ground shared and seeks to clarify the extent and nature of the disagreements, so as to facilitate further study and debate.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 11
Keywords: Fourteenth Amendment, Bill of Rights, originalism, incorporation theory, George Thomas
JEL Classification: K10Accepted Paper Series
Date posted: October 5, 2007 ; Last revised: May 8, 2010
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo1 in 2.218 seconds