The 2017 annual meeting of the organization of american historians. Our session is called historians in court. It examines the complex roles of historians applying their scholarly skills to courtroom litigation. Thanks first for organizing this session and, in particular, to the president for her support of our endeavor here today. Today, we will address a timely topic the participation of historians in courtroom proceedings. Theres no systematic study, but the evidence we have indicates that the use of, for instance, scholarly amicus briefs, where scholars file amicus briefs in court proceedings, has been increasing. Theres a long history of scholarly input into Appellate Court cases stretching back at least to the famous brandeis brief in the Supreme Court case in 1908. But for our purposes, our pedigree as historians might be traced back to the brown versus board of education litigation in which the distinguished helped the naacp make the case against School Segregation. More recent
The organization of american historians hosted this 90minute event at their annual meeting in new orleans. Ok. Ok, so, i think we are ready to get started. Sorry for the delay, but welcome to the first Plenary Session of the 2017 annual meeting of the organization of american historians. Our session is called historians in court. It examines the complex roles of historians applying their scholarly skills to courtroom litigation. Thanks, first, to the o. A. H. For organizing this session and, in particular, to the president , nancy cott, for her support of our endeavor here today. Today, we will address a timely topic the participation of historians in courtroom proceedings. Theres no systematic study, but the evidence we have indicates that the use of, for instance, scholarly amicus briefs, where scholars file amicus briefs in court proceedings, has been increasing. Theres a long history of scholarly input into Appellate Court cases stretching back at least to the famous brandeis brief
Of thinking about this proposal thats on the table. Lets thank beth. [applause] and thank all of you for your terrific questions which made for an enlightening discussion and as i said before that this book is on sale outside. Please help yourselves. [applause] [inaudible conversations] im very honored to have a chance to be with you today and to be able to moderate our Wonderful Program on the Death Penalty. I am Michael Gerhardt a constitutional law professor and also i have the honor of being a scholar at the National Constitution center. We have three terrific panels today who are going to be available after the program to be able to sign their books and talking about those books. Although the next panel will start promptly at 2 15. Just to get us started we have on my far left sub122 was judge robert m. Parker and dominant of law into his right ms. Carol steiker the in closest to me is grace and justice on death row widely regarded as one of the nations leading Capital Punishment
Dont get the support. There are many factors. One of them being that again, its largely an immigrant community. You have a lot of the resources, that are provided by either the government or by lgbt organizations, not always in the languages that they speak. Theyre not always addressed to their specific needs. In a lot of the Hindu Community centers, there tends to be a lack of focus on lgbt people. I think thats because its such a new issue for many. There hasnt been a very large hindu Lgbt Community. It is growing very quickly. As a result, when you have issues, hindu students who to want come out and fight, any potential backlash, in many cases they face communities who dont know how to help them. So they are in a curious bind. In my time, i have had a chance to have these conversations with them and also, to work on both sides on educating the community, on how to help them and serving as advocate. Its important to expand this conversation beyond just the Public School system. Talk
Now, landmark cases. Tonight looks at the 1873 slaughterhouse cases. Lead marquesas, cspan special history series produced in cooperation with the National Constitution center exploring the human stories and constitutional dramas behind 12 historic decisions. Number 759, Ernest Miranda Petitioner Versus arizona. Argument 18, rule against roe versus wade. Quite often, famous decisions took to that the court be quite unpopular. Lets go through a few cases that illustrate very dramatically and visually what it means to live in a society of 310 million different people who helped stick together because they live in a rule of law. Landmark cases. Of series will look at some the Supreme Courts most interesting and impactful historic decisions. Tonight, we are talking about a case you might not know very much about. It is called the slaughterhouse cases. It was the first time that the Supreme Court reviewed the newly enacted for to them in the to the constitution. I may introduce it to our gu