Block, Upload, Automoderated users, edit, move, protect, rollback
57,799
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 55:
Line 55: − +
→Law professor and author
==Law professor and author==
==Law professor and author==
Prior to his move to Washington in 1986, Rees had served for seven years as an assistant professor at the [[University of Texas Law School]] in [[Austin]]. He wrote numerous law review articles, one of which declared the 1979 congressional vote to extend ratification of the [[Equal Rights Amendment]] for three additional years to be unconstitutional. <ref>{{cite web|url=https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4266&=&context=lalrev&=&sei-redir=1&referer=https%253A%252F%252Fwww.bing.com%252Fsearch%253Fq%253Dgrover%252Brees%25252c%252Biii%2526qs%253DPF%2526cvid%253Dddce9576c371498cbcb8de94ba9c3a62%2526cc%253DUS%2526setlang%253Den-US%2526first%253D7%2526FORM%253DPERE#search=%22grover%20rees%2C%20iii%22|title=Rescinding Ratification of Proposed Constitutional Amendments - A Question for the Court|publisher=''Louisiana Law Review,'' Vol. 37 No. 4|author=Grover Rees, III|date=Spring 1977|accessdate=May 14, 2020}}</ref>In that the ERA was not added to the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]], the [[United States Supreme Court]] never ruled on the constitutionality of the extension. Reese said that many judges insert their personal legal and political views in their decisions.<ref name=fedso>{{cite web|url=https://fedsoc.org/contributors/grover-rees|title=Hon. Grover Joseph Rees, III|publisher=[[The Federalist Society]]|accessdate=May 14, 2020}}</ref>
Prior to his move to Washington in 1986, Rees had served for seven years as an assistant professor at the [[University of Texas]] Law School in [[Austin]]. He wrote numerous law review articles, one of which declared the 1979 congressional vote to extend ratification of the [[Equal Rights Amendment]] for three additional years to be unconstitutional. <ref>{{cite web|url=https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4266&=&context=lalrev&=&sei-redir=1&referer=https%253A%252F%252Fwww.bing.com%252Fsearch%253Fq%253Dgrover%252Brees%25252c%252Biii%2526qs%253DPF%2526cvid%253Dddce9576c371498cbcb8de94ba9c3a62%2526cc%253DUS%2526setlang%253Den-US%2526first%253D7%2526FORM%253DPERE#search=%22grover%20rees%2C%20iii%22|title=Rescinding Ratification of Proposed Constitutional Amendments - A Question for the Court|publisher=''Louisiana Law Review,'' Vol. 37 No. 4|author=Grover Rees, III|date=Spring 1977|accessdate=May 14, 2020}}</ref>In that the ERA was not added to the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]], the [[United States Supreme Court]] never ruled on the constitutionality of the extension. Reese said that many judges insert their personal legal and political views in their decisions.<ref name=fedso>{{cite web|url=https://fedsoc.org/contributors/grover-rees|title=Hon. Grover Joseph Rees, III|publisher=[[The Federalist Society]]|accessdate=May 14, 2020}}</ref>
In another law article, Rees argued for traditional constitutional law, rather than judge-made law in which the jurists insert their personal legal and political views into their decisions.<ref name=fedso/>
In another law article, Rees argued for traditional constitutional law, rather than judge-made law in which the jurists insert their personal legal and political views into their decisions.<ref name=fedso/>