Comments for Legal History

Comment on The Rise of Credit Cards and the Fall of the New Deal Order by Michael Gallegos

Michael Gallegos — Sat, 18 Apr 2026 04:10:11 +0000

Thank you for that clarification of which I was unaware I needed to know but I’m grateful for!

I personally do not use credit cards and would prefer if credit card rates were regulated.

Nationally of course!

Perhaps with your excellent writing you could write a bill and present it to our government for establishment thus regulating credit, which would be tied to the lowest economics state, in the country, per lowest employees pay rate!

Comment on The Forgotten Violence and Perpetual Tensions of American Labor History by Arrows Go

Arrows Go — Thu, 16 Apr 2026 05:08:55 +0000

A profound review of Montoya’s work, unearthing the forgotten violence of Colorado’s mining labor conflicts and the enduring tensions between labor, capital, and democracy that still resonate today.

Comment on The Cigarette and the State by MakeBead

MakeBead — Thu, 02 Apr 2026 15:01:01 +0000

The detail about high school smoking lounges being featured in yearbooks really underscores how culturally embedded the habit was. It makes me wonder what common practice today will seem equally unthinkable in forty years.

Comment on Recovering an Erased Era of Early American Imperial Legal Experimentation by Immigration Updates

Immigration Updates — Fri, 21 Mar 2025 17:01:04 +0000

It dives into how early American imperial legal practices—especially in territories like the Philippines and Puerto Rico—have been overlooked or erased in mainstream legal narratives. And wow, it really makes you think about how law and power have always been deeply intertwined.

What stood out to me is how the piece highlights the U.S. experimenting with different legal systems in its colonial holdings—systems that were often intentionally kept separate from domestic American law. It’s like a legal double life: democracy and rights at home, while something totally different played out abroad.

The article is based on a review of recent scholarship that’s digging deep into this erased era, and it makes a strong case for why we need to re-examine legal history with a more critical and global lens. Because the legal ideas tested in these imperial contexts didn’t just stay there—they often came back and shaped American law in surprising ways.

Comment on Contesting Birthright Citizenship: The Aftermath of Wong Kim Ark by Frederick

Frederick — Sat, 11 Jan 2025 16:16:43 +0000

Well written article, however Marbury v. Madison did not give the Supreme Court the authority to legislate their personal perspective on what the Constitution should mean, only what it states. The judicial review they gave themselves was only to strike down laws that they found to be unconstitutional. They also chose jus soli – right of soil over jus sanguinis – right of blood which also was not according to anything other than their own personal believe…nothing to do with reading and following the law.

Comment on Entrenched or Evolving? “History and Tradition” in Constitutional Jurisprudence by Despacho jurídico

Despacho jurídico — Sat, 12 Oct 2024 20:45:25 +0000

It is a retrograde act that the court’s arguments are anchored in history as if people had to be slaves to it, times change and the enormous conquest of rights that women have had in recent decades should prevail above all because Since their voice has usually never been heard, will it be necessary for feminist movements to take to the streets again and demand that their rights be respected?

Comment on Original Glue: The Role of Race at America’s Founding by John Young

John Young — Mon, 06 May 2024 17:09:38 +0000

Professor Walker, it saddens me that you appear to buy into this notion that the American Revolution was fought to preserve slavery. It’s absurd on its face because Great Britain also embraced the institution of slavery before, during, and after the American Revolution. It’s not as if the American colonies were fighting to maintain an institution that Britain sought to eradicate. After all, Britain actively participated in the slave trade until 1807, and it wasn’t until 1834 that it passed the Slavery Abolition Act. The fact remains that slavery was not unique to the American colonies, nor was it the basis on which we fought for our independence.

I recall reading Joseph Ellis’ American Creation: Triumphs and Tragedies at the Founding of the Republic in your class. It’s probably one of the most impactful books I’ve read in terms of shaping my understanding of the founding of this country. Yes, land ownership was an essential factor if one was to be included among the men that Jefferson wrote of in the Declaration. However, land ownership did not equal slave ownership. For example, John Adams owned an 188-acre farm and never owned slaves, nor did he use slaves in the White House during his tenure. Much has been written about Jefferson and his conflicted conscience about slavery. And, didn’t the Massachusetts Supreme Court rule in the Quock Walker case that slavery was incompatible the the Massachusetts Constitution in April 1783, thus outlawing it prior to the conclusion of the American Revolution? Could it be that, like Ellis, we should refrain from “wildly extravagant claims…” that vilify the Founders as “racists, classists, and sexists?”

Comment on Living Under Imperial Constitutional Law in Puerto Rico by Rafael Torrens

Rafael Torrens — Wed, 06 Mar 2024 21:44:34 +0000

A sad and true reality. Puerto Rico has been a colony since Columbus set foot on our shore 1493.
First Spain and since 1898 USA

Comment on What Does Civil-Rights History Have to Say About Abortion? by Nancy

Nancy — Mon, 26 Jun 2023 03:56:39 +0000

This is confusing. (fetal rights vs. women’s rights). One might assume that the civil rights commissions would protect the rights of the unborn. Which way is this? What about kids?

Comment on Contesting Birthright Citizenship: The Aftermath of Wong Kim Ark by Gail

Gail — Mon, 05 Sep 2022 15:59:09 +0000

You neglect to mention that The Slaughterhouse Cases(about 25 years before) affirmed the meaning of the 14th Amendment’s jurisdiction clause, agreeing with the congressional record that clearly explained its intent. Unless a parent is a citizen, the child born to that parent is not a citizen. There is NO birthright citizenship if you believe that the Constitution is our rule of law.

The high court took it upon itself to void OUR constitutional amendment. That is not a story that deserves praise. It deserves derision.