About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

40 J. Sup. Ct. Hist. v (2015)

handle is hein.journals/jspcth40 and id is 1 raw text is: Introduction Melvin I. Urofsky We begin our fortieth year of publication with pride and optimism. Pride that over the years we have been able to bring to our readers interesting articles about many dif- ferent aspects of U.S. Supreme Court history written by some of the leading scholars in the field. Optimism that we can continue to do this in the years to come. This issue suggests that our optimism is not unfounded. Historians have long puzzled over John Jay and his decision to step down as Chief Justice, and then a few years later to decline an offer to re-establish him in that position. A leading figure of the Revolutionary period, a statesman, jurist, a co-author of The Federalist Papers, governor of New York, a diplomat, and our nation's first Chief Justice, there is no question that his place in American history is honored and secure. He failed, however, to see the opportunity that leading the High Court could provide to help shape the new nation's destiny. When he resigned, he claimed that the judiciary would never be an important part of the government. Matthew Van Hook explores Jay's ambivalence about the Court, and tries to make sense of it in light of Jay's own ambitions and talents. Mr. Van Hook is a Ph.D. candidate in political science at the University of Notre Dame. One can hardly pick up the newspaper these days, nor turn on the radio or television news, without another story about immigra- tion. Historians are well aware that immigra- tion did not just become a contentious issue in the past few years. During the Progressive Era there was a great national debate over the wisdom of continuing to allow unrestricted numbers of people, especially those from eastern and southern Europe, to enter the country. The debate finally ended in the 1924 statute severely limiting migration into the United States. In the nineteenth century the debate involved those who came from China, many of whom helped build the transconti- nental railroad. A question then, as now, is who had the power to regulate that migration-the states or the federal government. While we pay little attention to those decisions now, the Supreme Court heard several cases on the matter, and whether there was a federal police power that could be called into service. Adam Carrington, v

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most