ISSN 0018-6694
Vol. 37, Issue 2, 2000June 18, 2000 CDT
The Politics of Art and the Irony of Politics: How the Supreme Court, Congress, The NEA, and Karen Finley Misunderstand Art and Law in National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley
The Politics of Art and the Irony of Politics: How the Supreme Court, Congress, The NEA, and Karen Finley Misunderstand Art and Law in National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley
Articles in Vol. 37, Issue 2, 2000
Vol. 37, Issue 2, 2000
- Who Gives a Hoot About Legal ScholarshipAlex Kozinski
- Neo-Scholasticism: Technique, Purpose, and Law ReviewsLynn Hughes
- The Relevance of Legal Scholarship: Reflections on Judge Kozinski's MusingsDavid Dow
- The Scope of State Autonomy Under the United States ConstitutionSidney Buchanan
- The Politics of Art and the Irony of Politics: How the Supreme Court, Congress, The NEA, and Karen Finley Misunderstand Art and Law in National Endowment for the Arts v. FinleyNeil Patten
- Re-Examining the False Statements Accountability ActMichael Gomez
- Operation Rescue v. Planned Parenthood, Inc.: A Judicial Showdown over Sidewalk Counselors and First Amendment RightsLolita Youmans
- Kicking the Tires After Kumho: The Bottom Line on Admitting Financial Expert TestimonySofia AdroguéAlan Ratliff
Neil Patten, The Politics of Art and the Irony of Politics: How the Supreme Court, Congress, The NEA, and Karen Finley Misunderstand Art and Law in National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley, 37 Hou. L. Rev. (2000).