Talk:Philip Hamburger

Misquotation

Hamburger is a "leading student" of the First Amendment. He is known for arguing that “the First Amendment, originally thought to limit the government, has been increasingly interpreted by the Court to mean limiting religion and confining it to the private sphere.”

Justice Hugo Black, who served on the Supreme Court 1937 to 1971, came under attack from Hamburger who argues that his views on Church and State were deeply tainted by his membership in the 1920s a vehemently anti-Catholic organization, the KKK. Law professor Daniel L. Dreisbach summarizes Hamburger's critique:

[Black's] affinity for church-state separation and the metaphor was rooted in virulent anti-Catholicism. Philip Hamburger has argued that Justice Black, a former Alabama Ku Klux Klansman, was the product of a remarkable "confluence of Protestant [specifically Baptist], nativist, and progressive anti-Catholic forces.... Black's association with the Klan has been much discussed in connection with his liberal views on race, but, in fact, his membership suggests more about [his] ideals of Americanism," especially his support for separation of church and state. "Black had long before sworn, under the light of flaming crosses, to preserve ‘the sacred constitutional rights' of ‘free public schools' and ‘separation of church and state.'" Although he later distanced himself from the Klan, "Black's distaste for Catholicism did not diminish." Hamburger, Separation of Church and State, pp. 423, 434, 462, 463.

Fringe scholars?

The initial quotation is not what the source says; what Dogliano actually says is Perhaps the leading revisionists in the study of church-state relations are Daniel L. Driesbach and Philip Hamburger. An unsubtle difference that; once we quote this correctly, the fact that one fringe scholar quotes another will become unsurprising (and so of no encyclopedic interest). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

No one says Hamburger is fringe -- and the Driesbach quote is gone. Nussbaum says "A leading US constitutional historian, Philip Hamburger" in Martha Nussbaum, Liberty of conscience p 120 "And now, we have Philip Hamburger's book, which is by any definition ground-breaking. It is a creative, magisterial contribution to our understanding of judicial review and an independent judiciary. Hamburger has a fine grasp of Continental and American history as well as the history of political and legal thought." says Jack Fruchtman in Journal of the Early Republic Summer 2011 p 315. Cogliano p 154 says Hamburger has "made a valuable contribution to our knowledge of Jefferson's thinking and actions with respect to matters of church and state." The point is that "revisionist" is mainstream regarding Jefferson, not "fringe." Rjensen (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

And he has contributed to our knowledge of Jefferson - although not much; that the Danbury letter was political was commonplace thirty years ago. I believe all of the points cited can be found in Dumas Malone, of all people, although with different emphases. But none of that relates to his attack on Hugo Black. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

please follow the RS, -- Cogliano p 154 says Hamburger has "made a valuable contribution." Indeed it was Pmanderson who first cited Cogliano here. The problem is that Pmanderson seems to think that "revisionist" = "fringe" -- that is totally false regarding Jefferson. Compare the articles Historical revisionism (which is Cogliano's usage--he praises Hamburger) with Historical revisionism (negationism) which is Pmanderson's misreading of the word. Rjensen (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

So Cogliano did. But the contribution (such as it was) was to "our knowledge of Jefferson's thinking"; nothing to do with Hugo Black. And he does not say "leading student"; he doesn't use student very often, mostly of Jefferson himself, and never of Hamburger. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments

The comments above from 29 November 2011 leave me wondering what is being discussed about Phillip Hamburger.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 00:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

You're not alone. — MaxEnt 21:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Birth year

Several public libraries have entries giving the birth year as 1957, but I didn't find one worth citing. — MaxEnt 21:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

New Civil Liberties Alliance

Article claims NCLA describes itself as nonpartisan, which is true, but in reality, independent sources not connected to NCLA say it is conservative or right-wing. This needs to be corrected. They are clearly aligned with the conservative right and their funding comes primarily from right-wing foundations.[2] They are famous for promoting conservative goals, such as blocking the bump stock ban and allowing mass evictions during the pandemic and cheerleading the appointment of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. Still looking for the nonpartisan angle, but I don't think I'll ever find it. Viriditas (talk) 11:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)