scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Sam Erman

Bio: Sam Erman is an academic researcher from University of Southern California. The author has contributed to research in topics: Citizenship & Empire. The author has an hindex of 3, co-authored 7 publications receiving 94 citations.

Papers
More filters
Book
13 Dec 2018
TL;DR: Erman's Almost Citizens as discussed by the authors describes the tragic story of how the United States denied Puerto Ricans full citizenship following annexation of the island in 1898, and shows how, in the wake of the Spanish-American War, administrators, lawmakers, and presidents together with judges deployed creativity and ambiguity to transform constitutional meaning for a quarter-century.
Abstract: Almost Citizens lays out the tragic story of how the United States denied Puerto Ricans full citizenship following annexation of the island in 1898. As America became an overseas empire, a handful of remarkable Puerto Ricans debated with US legislators, presidents, judges, and others over who was a citizen and what citizenship meant. This struggle caused a fundamental shift in constitution law: away from the post-Civil War regime of citizenship, rights, and statehood, and toward doctrines that accommodated racist imperial governance. Erman's gripping account shows how, in the wake of the Spanish-American War, administrators, lawmakers, and presidents together with judges deployed creativity and ambiguity to transform constitutional meaning for a quarter of a century. The result is a history in which the United States and Latin America, Reconstruction and empire, and law and bureaucracy intertwine.

44 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors examines the attempts to win U.S. citizenship for Puerto Ricans by their first representative in Washington, Federico Degetau y Gonzalez, and suggests that the constitutional law of empire emerged as judges together with administrative and elected officials engaged in an iterative process in which they deployed forms of creative ambiguity to manage perceived conflicts between Constitution and empire.
Abstract: This paper proposes a new account of how empire became constitutional. When the United States took a deliberate imperial turn in 1898-1899 by annexing Puerto Rico and the Philippines, many jurists thought that the Constitution automatically made these islands proto-states and their residents U.S. citizens with full constitutional protections. Three decades later, this view was no longer mainstream. Contrary to standard accounts, this momentous change was neither quick nor the result of unilateral judicial action. To perceive dynamics extending beyond the judiciary, this study examines the attempts to win U.S. citizenship for Puerto Ricans by their first representative in Washington, Federico Degetau y Gonzalez. Aware that constitutional meaning was not exclusively the province of courts, he brought claims to U.S. citizenship before administrators, legislators, and the president as well. Officials responded with evasions through concessions. When Degetau sought a right as a citizen, they granted him it on other grounds. Meanings of U.S. citizenship changed as officials reduced the rights that would accompany a grant of citizenship while envisioning without endorsing the possibility of noncitizen U.S. nationals. That novel idea – like the idea of U.S. lands that would never be states and U.S. people with less than full constitutional rights – ripened into conventional wisdom and eventually still-binding doctrine. This suggests that the constitutional law of empire emerged as judges together with administrative and elected officials engaged in an iterative process in which they deployed forms of creative ambiguity to manage perceived conflicts between Constitution and empire.

8 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors provide an empirical analysis that shows how higher cut scores create disparities within the attorney licensing system and affects the diversity of new licensees. But, they also find that maintaining a high cut score does not result in greater public protection as measured by disciplinary statistics but does result in excluding minorities from admission to the bar and the practice of law at rates disproportionately higher than Whites.
Abstract: The selection of a minimum bar exam passing score (“cut score”) shapes the representation of racial and ethnic minorities in the legal profession and the quality of access to justice in the state. This study provides an empirical analysis that shows how higher cut scores create disparities within the attorney licensing system and affects the diversity of new licensees. Analysis of disciplinary statistics from 48 jurisdictions also shows that establishing a high cut score does not result in greater public protection when measured by disciplinary statistics. The study’s first data set included 85,727 examinees who sat for 21 administrations of the CBX from 2009-18 and the race and ethnicity of each examinee. Both historical actual and simulated cut scores were analyzed. The study’s second data set used the ABA discipline data from up to 48 U.S. jurisdictions from 2013-18 and the cut scores in each jurisdiction to examine the relationship between minimum cut scores and rates of attorney discipline. A simulation analysis using actual examinee scores confirmed that selecting a lower cut score would have significantly narrowed the achievement gap between Whites and racial and ethnic minorities and would have increased the number of newly admitted minority attorneys in California. The study also determined that no relationship exists between the selection of a cut score and the number of complaints, formal charges, or disciplinary actions taken against attorneys. The study results indicate that maintaining a high cut score does not result in greater public protection as measured by disciplinary statistics but does result in excluding minorities from admission to the bar and the practice of law at rates disproportionately higher than Whites.

4 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors examines the attempts to win U.S. citizenship for Puerto Ricans by their first representative in Washington, Federico Degetau y Gonzalez, who argued that constitutional meaning was not exclusively the province of courts, but also before administrators, legislators, and the President as well.
Abstract: This Article proposes a new account of how empire became constitutional. When the United States took a deliberate imperial turn in 1898–1899 by annexing Puerto Rico and the Philippines, many jurists thought that the Constitution automatically made these islands proto-states and their residents U.S. citizens with full constitutional protections. Three decades later, this expansive view was no longer mainstream. Contrary to standard accounts, this momentous change was neither quick nor the result of unilateral judicial action. To perceive dynamics extending beyond the judiciary, this study examines the attempts to win U.S. citizenship for Puerto Ricans by their first representative in Washington, Federico Degetau y Gonzalez. Aware that constitutional meaning was not exclusively the province of courts, Degetau brought claims to U.S. citizenship before administrators, legislators, and the President as well. Officials

3 citations


Cited by
More filters
Book
01 Jan 2001
TL;DR: A list of illustrators can be found in this paper, where the authors discuss public health, race, and citizenship in Chinatown, as well as the dangers of queer domesticity.
Abstract: CONTENTS List of Illustrations Acknowledgments Introduction: Public Health, Race, and Citizenship 1. Public Health and the Mapping of Chinatown 2. Regulating Bodies and Space 3. Perversity, Contamination, and the Dangers of Queer Domesticity 4. White Women, Hygiene and the Struggle for Respectable Domesticity 5. Plague and Managing the Commercial City 6. White Labor and the American Standard of Living 7. Making Medical Borders at Angel Island 8. Healthy Spaces, Healthy Conduct 9. Reforming Chinatown Conclusion: Norms as a Way of Life Notes Bibliography Index

213 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Ferrer as discussed by the authors examines the role of black and mulatto Cubans in nationalist insurgency from 1868, when a slaveholder began the revolution by freeing his slaves, until the intervention of racially segregated American forces in 1898.
Abstract: In the late nineteenth century, in an age of ascendant racism and imperial expansion, there emerged in Cuba a movement that unified black, mulatto, and white men in an attack on Europe's oldest empire, with the goal of creating a nation explicitly defined as antiracist. This book tells the story of the thirty-year unfolding and undoing of that movement. Ada Ferrer examines the participation of black and mulatto Cubans in nationalist insurgency from 1868, when a slaveholder began the revolution by freeing his slaves, until the intervention of racially segregated American forces in 1898. In so doing, she uncovers the struggles over the boundaries of citizenship and nationality that their participation brought to the fore, and she shows that even as black participation helped sustain the movement ideologically and militarily, it simultaneously prompted accusations of race war and fed the forces of counterinsurgency. Carefully examining the tensions between racism and antiracism contained within Cuban nationalism, Ferrer paints a dynamic portrait of a movement built upon the coexistence of an ideology of racial fraternity and the persistence of presumptions of hierarchy. |Examines the tensions between racism and anti-racism in Cuba's struggle to become a nation between 1868 and 1898.

149 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the transition from slave emancipation to free labor in Cuba was described in detail, from 1860-1899, and a book, Slave Emancipation in Cuba: The Transition to Free Labor, 1860- 1899, is described.
Abstract: The Description for this book, Slave Emancipation in Cuba: The Transition to Free Labor, 1860-1899, will be forthcoming.

147 citations