| dc.contributor.author | George, Tracey E., 1967- | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2013-11-19T16:48:08Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2013-11-19T16:48:08Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2004 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 69 Mo. L. Rev. 951 (2004) | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/1803/5686 | |
| dc.description.abstract | How do governments and their citizens respond to fear and risk in times of crisis? Dr. Lee Epstein and Professor Christina Wells, in papers presented on the final symposium panel focus in particular on the Supreme Court's response to government encroachment on individual liberties during a national emergency. Their work is made particularly timely by three Supreme Court decisions this past term. In this essay, I begin by framing the issue very briefly. I then argue that understanding this issue requires scholars to follow Epstein and Wells by looking to other disciplines, methodologies, and countries. | en_US |
| dc.format.extent | 1 document (9 pages) | en_US |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | en_US |
| dc.publisher | Missouri Law Review | en_US |
| dc.subject | Hamdi v. Rumsfeld | en_US |
| dc.subject.lcsh | Judicial process -- United States | en_US |
| dc.subject.lcsh | Crisis management -- United States | en_US |
| dc.title | Other Disciplines, Methodologies, and Countries: Studying Courts and Crisis | en_US |
| dc.type | Article | en_US |
