Link to us
HOME | EVENT INFO | WEBCAST ARCHIVES | DISCUSSION | CONTACT US
Arguing the Violence Against Women Act:
Two Views
May 1, 2000 - 7:30pm
Ames Courtroom, Harvard Law School
Readings
The arguments about the constitutionality of the Violence Against Women Act arise out of a long history of Supreme Court precedents and interpretation of Congress’s power to legislate under the Commerce Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. Congress’s decision to legislate on the substantive issue of violence against women arises out of an even longer, sad history of violent acts against women. To help you understand the both the importance of the substantive issue and the constitutional arguments upon which the Violence Against Women Act stands and falls we are providing a group of readings that cover both the substantive and constitutional issues involved in the Violence Against Women Act case U.S. v. Morrison.
Supreme Court Opinion in U.S. v. Morrison
Commentary on the Supreme Court Decision in U.S. v. Morrison
| Professor Charles Fried, "Opponents of Federalism Are Mired in a Time Warp" in The Wall Street Journal |
| Professor Jack M. Balkin "The Court Defers to a Racist Era" in the New York Times |
| Professor Charles Fried and Berkman Fellow Diane Rosenfeld, "Violence Against Women" on NPR's "The Connection" |
| Linda Greenhouse for the New York Times, "Women Lose the Right to Sue Attackers in Federal Court" |
| Linda Greenhouse for the New York Times, "Battle on Federalism" |
| Aman Verjee, Teaching Fellow, Comments on the Opinion |
U.S. v. Morrison: the constitutionality of the civil right to be free from gender-motivated violence
Library
We are building a library of additional readings related to the Violence Against Women Act. These include readings from Diane Rosenfeld's "Violence Against Women" Online Lecture and Discussion Series, additional case briefs and oral argument transcripts, and interesting articles authored and/or submitted by participants.