This year’s 50th anniversary of the 1965 Voting Rights Act has been a bittersweet milestone. The passage of the act is rightly regarded as a landmark legislative achievement.
Part of what makes doing history so exciting is that the questions and interpretive challenges never really end. In the process of tackling one question, a new one always emerges.
On June 10, the chief judge of the Northern District of Illinois granted a petition to unseal the records of a 1942 grand jury proceeding in response to a suit brought by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP) in November 2014.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled Section 215 of the Patriot Act illegal under federal law but did not rule on constitutionality. Dane Kennedy reports back on a recent seminar discussion that provides historical perspective on this issue.
In the summer issue of Perspectives on History, published online, historians wrote about the historical context of the Supreme Court decision on Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.
Guided by the conviction that history and historical thinking can help illuminate just about any contemporary discussion, Perspectives on History has, for three years running, invited historians to comment on significant Supreme Court decisions.
Just over one year ago, the Supreme Court handed down its ruling on the Affordable Care Act, and Perspectives on History organized its first AHA Roundtable, guided by the idea that history and historical thinking has something to offer just about any contemporary discussion on any contemporary topic.
As we have often tried to demonstrate, we at the AHA believe that public discourse on any topic benefits from historical context and historical thinking. In that spirit, we’re rolling out a series of AHA Roundtables on two of the significant Supreme Court decisions handed down this summer. We have asked a group of historians to comment on these opinions, and we’ll be posting their responses over the next two weeks.