Call for Submissions Spring 2020 - Faulkner Law Review - The Journal of the Anglo-American Legal Tradition - Accelerated Review

1
51
Posted by Talmadge Butts, community karma 51
Faulkner Law Review is reviewing submissions on an accelerated basis for our Spring 2020 issue!  We are especially looking for any articles that discuss the Anglo-American Legal Tradition, including but not limited to common law, natural law, American legal history, federalism and states' rights, originalist and textualist jurisprudence, etc.

If your article does not discuss any of the above, please still submit!  Our Spring issue is a general issue, so we do regularly publish various other articles that we believe our readership will resonate with.  

Thank you,
Talmadge Butts
Faulkner Law Review Articles Editor

1 Comment

0
245
Peter G. Wales, community karma 245
This article begins with the Russian collusion investigation and the claims by dueling congressional committee chairmen the same week, each crying out for protection of the rule of law, one against the president and the other against the intelligence community; and the same week, the most recent appointee to justice of the Supreme Court in a nearly half page editorial opinion in a global newspaper, promising to preserve “American Rule of Law.”
It traces the rule of law to the British Americans before the Revolutionary War and reveals their original understanding of key terms like law of nature, nature’s god, inalienable, founding principles like dignity of man, equality of all men, life, liberty and property.
It traces the origins of rule of law before their time back to England and identifies its earliest memorialization in Britain, by the English Common law, Runnymede, and reviews commentary by its Henry de Bracton, William Blackstone, Sir Edward Coke and its defense at Naseby.
It traces the history of the rule of law, to Rome and the presumption of innocence.
And it traces it back to the time of Alexander the Great, Cyrus, Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel and Moses in Deuteronomy.
Two sections look at the biblical evidence, corroborated by clay tablets written by Babylonian scribes as an account of their great empire and demonstrating the authenticity of the historical figures of Daniel and Jerimiah and their part in preserving the ancient rule of law first recorded in the Book of the Law, Deuteronomy.
One section explores the substantive differences between the Mosaic Deuteronomic law which are consistent with human rights, dignity and equality of all men, and contrasts them with the laws of Hammurabi and other contemporary laws of the Ancient Middle east at the same time, which are not.
One section shows how the Hebrew civilization and their dependence on what came to be American founding principles, may have originated with them, and was the foundation of their Covenant, and how the consent of the governed was the basis of their system of government with their YAHWEH as the totalitarian head but their submission by gratitude, not parity.
The comparisons of Israel as the first Commonwealth and their covenant based law first established at Mt. Sinai, and renewed at Shechem and then Jerusalem and every year since, to the American covenants, the Mayflower Compact and the Declaration of Independence, later codified in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights with Amendments, shows the dramatic parallel between the two and links them candidly to the Babylonian and Persian empires where Daniel ruled as Supreme Court Justice and Secretary of State for nearly 70 years, leaving a trail of individual rights unknown in history before his time.
Lastly, there is an analysis of the Courts history from Chief Justice Roger Taney on the Dred Scott case, and how substantive due process de-legitimized the court then, and also in Lochner, then in the Fuller and Taft courts and right thru to Timbs. This section emphasizes just how damaging the effects of substantive due process are on the courts and gives a summary analysis how it is jeopardizing the rule of law, the American covenant and America’s “crowning achievement,” not the Bill of Rights, but the structure of government that is intended to preserve them.

Please advise if interested in a review of this article, as it touches on most if not all your key words. It is, however 29,000 words and I wish to get it published even if I have to cut a few. 
Thanks.

Peter G. Wales
about 2 years ago
login to leave comment