1868 and 2024: The Relevance of the Past to the Present
SSRN Electronic Journal
2024
- 1,607Usage
- 1Captures
- 3Mentions
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Most Recent News
What the Colorado Oral Argument Missed
Often the outcome of a Supreme Court case is hard to predict from its oral argument. Not yesterday’s. The justices’ questions in Trump v. Anderson made clear that the Court will rule—perhaps even unanimously—that no state can decide to disqualify Donald Trump from serving as president unless and until Congress enacts a statute granting that permission. Because Congress hasn’t done so, the Court, i
Article Description
The historical circumstances surrounding the presidential election of 1868, the first after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, shed light on a crucial question in the Colorado case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court concerning whether Donald Trump is disqualified by the amendment. The question is whether Congress must enact a statute to enforce the amendment’s disqualification provision before any state legislature may adopt its own statute to provide a procedure to adjudicate whether a presidential candidate is disqualified by the amendment. In considering this question, it is worth reflecting on the possibility that in 1868 the Democratic party might have chosen Clement Vallandigham as its presidential nominee. Vallandigham, a former member of Congress from Ohio and a leader of “peace Democrats” during the Civil War, sought a seat in the U.S. Senate after the war, but his candidacy provoked a debate on whether his conduct during the war disqualified him from serving in office again. If Democrats had nominated him for president in 1868, when there was not yet a federal statute creating procedures for the enforcement of the amendment’s disqualification provision, state legislatures would have had authority under Article II of the Constitution to enact their own statutes to provide for an adjudication of the amendment’s applicability to Vallandigham in order to prevent the presidential electors appointed pursuant to state law from voting for a disqualified presidential candidate.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know