Research & Litigation
Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens died on Tuesday at the age of 99. When he retired in 2010, he had served for over 34 years and was the third-longest serving justice on the Supreme Court.
Justice Stevens was born in Chicago in 1920, the youngest of four boys. He received his undergraduate degree from the University of Chicago in 1941. During college, Stevens trained in cryptology and served as a codebreaker in the United States Navy from 1942 to 1945 during World War II. He later received a Juris Doctor from Northwestern University School of Law in 1947 and clerked for Associate Justice Wiley B. Rutledge during the 1947-1948 term. After his clerkship, he primarily practiced antitrust law in Chicago until 1970. In 1951, Stevens served as Associate Counsel to the Subcommittee on the Study of Monopoly Power, a subcommittee of the House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary. He also taught at the law schools at Northwestern and University of Chicago.
In 1970, President Richard M. Nixon appointed Justice Stevens to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In November 1975, Associate Justice William O. Douglas retired, giving President Ford an opportunity to fill a vacancy. Justice Stevens was put forward as a moderate conservative whose opinions from the Seventh Circuit reflected discipline and restraint. On November 28, 1975, President Ford announced his decision to nominate Justice Stevens. The Senate’s unanimous vote for confirmation occurred quickly, and on December 19, 1975, Justice Stevens was sworn in as an Associate Justice to the Supreme Court, at age 56.
In his early years on the Supreme Court, Justice Stevens was considered an independent voice who authored both liberal- and conservative-leaning opinions (Barnhart & Schlickman, pp. 200-201). As his tenure on the court continued, Justice Stevens came to be generally regarded as a justice on the Court’s liberal side (Barnhart & Schlickman, p. 21). Justice Stevens’ views on judicial restraint and impartiality were reflected in some of his opinions. In writing the 1984 majority opinion in Chevron USA v. National Resources Defense Council, Justice Stevens emphasized that, while judges must sometimes resolve competing political interests, they are not part of the political branches of government and must not make decisions based on their own policy preferences. Sixteen years later, in his dissent in Bush v. Gore, Justice Stevens wrote that that the clearest loser in the 2000 presidential election was the “Nation’s confidence in the judge as the impartial guardian of the rule of law.”
Justice Stevens’ insightfulness, pragmatism, modesty, and grace were highlighted in remarks by President Barack Obama in awarding Justice Stevens with the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2012: “Even in his final days on the bench, Justice Stevens insisted he was still ‘learning on the job.’ But in the end, we are the ones who have learned from him.”
Justice Stevens had four children with his first wife, Elizabeth Sheeren. The marriage ended in divorce, and Elizabeth died in 1985. He was married to his second wife, Maryan Mullholland Simon, for thirty-seven years before she died in 2015. Two of Justice Stevens’ children predeceased him. Justice Stevens leaves behind two children, nine grandchildren, and thirteen great-grandchildren.
On June 13, 2011, the Law Library of Congress presented Justice Stevens with the Wickersham Award, given for exceptional public service and dedication to the legal profession. The video from the event is available in the Library of Congress online film and video collections.
Three of Justice Stevens’ books in the Library’s collection are:
The Experimental Congress.gov Browser Extension Can Now Search the Compilation of Presidential Documents
This latest update to the experimental Google Chrome Congress.gov browser extension that is hosted by LC Labs adds the ability to highlight text on a page and search for it in the Compilation of Presidential Documents on govinfo. The compilation includes executive orders and executive proclamations issued after 1992. The new version of the extension can also search Congressional Research Service Reports, the United States Code, and the eCFR. After you have installed the browser extension, just highlight text on a page, click on the dome icon, and use the drop-down menu to select a collection to search.
To see a list of the features added in previous releases, please click here.
The goal of this project is to increase convenient access to primary sources, such as Congress.gov collections, when you are on a third-party site. We need your feedback. If you have bug reports or enhancement requests related to this project, please send them to firstname.lastname@example.org.
This month’s first release includes an enhancement to the Committee Schedule detail pages display, providing supporting documentation when available.
Enhancements for July 2019, Part 1
This release also includes page navigation, which is available at the top of each search results page to make it easier to move through large sets of results.
The Search Tip for this first release in July relates to data bulk downloads of bills.
Bill Status Data Bulk Download
Find more information at About Congress.gov XML Bulk Data.
Most- Viewed Bills
Below are the most-viewed bills on Congress.gov for the week of July 7, 20191. H.R.1044 [116th] Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act of 2019 2. S.386 [116th] Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act of 2019 3. H.R.3151 [116th] Taxpayer First Act 4. H.R.3401 [116th] Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Humanitarian Assistance and Security at the Southern Border Act, 2019 5. H.R.5428 [115th] Stand with UK against Russia Violations Act 6. H.R.3564 [116th] To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate the Optional Practical Training Program, and for other purposes. 7. S.1790 [116th] National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 8. H.R.6 [116th] American Dream and Promise Act of 2019 9. H.R.5 [116th] Equality Act 10. H.R.2527 [116th] Vaccinate All Children Act of 2019
On July 12, 2004—15 years ago today—the European Union’s (EU) Council Joint Action 2004/551/CFSP created the European Defence Agency (EDA). In 2011, the Joint Action was replaced by Council Decision 2011/411/CFSP, which was revised in 2015 by Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1835. These legislative acts implement the requirements of article 42 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), which, among other things, sets out the EDA’s tasks.
The EDA is an intergovernmental agency in the “field of defence capabilities development, research, acquisition, and armaments.” (Joint Action, art. 1.) Its mission is “to support the Council [of the European Union] and the Member States in their effort to improve the EU’s defence capabilities in the field of crisis management and to sustain the ESDP [European Security and Defence Policy] as it stands now and develops in the future.” (Id. art. 2, para. 1.)
The idea of a common European Defence Agency is not new. As early as 1952, after the European Coal and Steel Community was created, plans for a European Defence Community (EDC) accompanied by a European Political Community (EPC) were discussed. The French National Assembly, however, was opposed to the establishment of an EDC, in particular to a German remilitarization, and rejected the treaty in August 1954. As the EPC was supposed to be the institutional corollary to the EDC (EDC Treaty, art. 38), both plans were abandoned. It was therefore decided in 1954 to instead invite Germany and Italy to join the Western European Union (WEU), an international organization founded in 1948 with the goal to “collaborat[e] in economic, social and cultural matters and for collective self-defence.”
In February 1976, the thirteen European members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) founded the Independent European Program Group (IEPG) to foster cooperation on armaments procurement. On December 10, 1991, the WEU ministers at a meeting in Maastricht called for ”enhanced cooperation in the fields of armaments with the aim of creating a European armaments agency.” In December 1992, the defense ministers of the IEPG countries decided to transfer the functions of the IEPG to the WEU and agreed on the following main principles for the transfer:
- All 13 nations should be entitled to participate fully and with the same rights and responsibilities, in any European armaments cooperation forum.
- There should be a single European armaments cooperation forum.
- Armaments cooperation in Europe should be managed by the National Armaments Directors of all the 13 nations, who will be accountable to the Ministers of Defense of those governments.
- The existing links with NATO and EDIG [European Defence Industries Group] should be maintained.
In May 1993, the WEU Council of Ministers reaffirmed the key principles on which armaments cooperation should be based, and created the Western European Armaments Group (WEAG). In March 1993, the WEAG set up an ad hoc study group “to examine all matters related to the possible creation of a European Armaments Agency (EAA).” It concluded that the conditions for the creation of such an agency did not exist at the time. However, the work of the ad hoc study group contributed to the establishment of the Western European Armaments Organisation as a WEU subsidiary body in November 1996. In 1998, the WEAG ministers agreed upon a ”Masterplan for the the European Armaments Agency” to develop the rules and regulations as well as the structure and working procedures for an EAA.
The topic of European defense and cooperation in defense matters was also taken up in the European Union (EU) treaties adopted during that time. The Treaty on European Union (Maastricht Treaty), which entered into force on November 1, 1993, created the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). The CFSP was strengthened in the Treaty of Amsterdam (1997). The Treaty of Amsterdam also created the position of High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, which was to be exercised by the Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union. (Treaty of Amsterdam, art. J.8, para. 3.) The Treaty of Lisbon (2007) made the High Representative one of the Vice Presidents of the European Commission. (Treaty of Lisbon, art. 9 E, para. 2.)
On July 6, 1998, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom signed a Letter of Intent concerning “Measures to Facilitate the Restructuring of European Defence Industry.” Building on the Letter of Intent, they signed a Framework Agreement in 2000, an intergovernmental treaty outside of the framework of the EU, which was ratified in 2001. The Framework Agreement further intensified defense cooperation in the EU, in particular in the areas of restructuring of the European defense industry; security of supply; export control procedures for military goods and technologies; security of classified information; research and technology; intellectual property rights; and harmonization of military requirements of armed forces. (Framework Agreement, art. 1.)
Starting in December 1998, Member States of the EU called for the CFSP to be given the means and capabilities to respond to international crises. This culminated in the Helsinki Headline Goal in 1999, a set of military capability targets to be completed by 2003. In December 2001, the Convention on the Future of Europe was established, which presented a draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe in 2003. It contained a provision that required the establishment of an “European Defence Agency” (Draft Constitution, art. I-41). The Constitution was ultimately rejected by France and the Netherlands and did not enter into force; however, the requirement to establish an EDA was included in the Treaty of Lisbon of 2007. As mentioned, on July 12, 2004, the EDA was formally created.
Current Activities of the EDA
All EU Member States participate in the activities of the EDA, with the exception of Denmark, which has opted out of the Common Security and Defence Policy. One of the EDA’s current priorities is the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO). The PESCO is a process to deepen defense cooperation by jointly developing defense capabilities and making them available for EU military operations. It takes place on a voluntary basis. Other areas of activity in which the EDA supports the EU Member States are the development of remotely piloted aircraft systems, developing air-to-air refueling capabilities, developing a new generation of governmental satellite communications, assisting Member States in developing cyber defense capabilities, defense research and technology, data sharing solutions for European navies, exercise and training, pooled procurement, supporting the fight against improvised explosive devices, harmonizing European military regulations, the Single European Sky, and many more.
Additional Resources on the European Union
- Jenny Gesley, Happy Birthday European Union! (Nov. 2018)
- Jenny Gesley, 20th Anniversary of the Establishment of the European Central Bank (June 2018)
- Jenny Gesley, Personal Data Protection and the EU GDPR (May 2018)
- Jenny Gesley, 60-Year Anniversary of the Rome Treaties (March 2017)
- Micaela DelMonte, A Guide to Researching EU Law (June 2016)
- Theresa Papademetriou, FALQs: The European Union’s Approach to the Current Refugee Crisis (Oct. 2015)
- Theresa Papademetriou, European Union Law – Global Legal Collection Highlights (July 2013)
- Global Legal Monitor articles on the “European Union”
- Guide to Law Online on the “European Union”
- Comprehensive Index of Legal Reports: various reports that include the EU
The following is a guest post by Anna Price, a legal reference librarian at the Law Library of Congress.
Back in May, in honor of Law Day, we introduced you to our new Research Guides service, using the LibGuides platform, where you can find research guides the Law Library has assembled on a variety of topics. Because we are frequently asked research questions related to congressional hearings, committee reports, and debates of Congress, today we are highlighting Compiling a Federal Legislative History: A Beginner’s Guide and the helpful tips and strategies found within it.
Digging through federal laws and legislative history can be overwhelming, even for the advanced researcher. But the Law Library is here to alleviate that fear! The “Compiling a Federal Legislative History: A Beginner’s Guide” research guide walks users through the search strategies one may take, beginning with explaining how to learn if a given law has changed over time by using information in the U.S. Code to navigate public laws in the Statutes at Large.
Understanding that many researchers want to glean more information about legislative intent, the research guide also provides information about other legislative history resources, including committee reports, debates of Congress, and presidential communications, among others. Additionally, each section lists resources where documents can be accessed either for free online, or through the Law Library’s print collection or electronic subscription databases.
Please enjoy browsing through “Compiling a Federal Legislative History: A Beginner’s Guide.” We hope it helps you with your research. If you have any questions, please contact us through Ask A Librarian.
Everybody seems to be talking about artificial intelligence (AI). Some people laud its possibilities, whereas others envisage nightmare scenarios where robots take over. But what is AI exactly and how are countries dealing with it?
The Oxford Dictionary defines AI as “the theory and development of computer systems able to perform tasks normally requiring human intelligence, such as visual perception, speech recognition, decision-making, and translation between languages.” In a recently published report, ”Regulation of Artificial Intelligence,” the Law Library of Congress looks at the emerging regulatory and policy landscape surrounding AI, including guidelines, ethics codes, and actions by and statements from governments and their agencies, in jurisdictions around the world. An international part deals with approaches that United Nations agencies and regional organizations have taken towards AI. The country surveys look at various legal issues, including data protection and privacy, transparency, human oversight, surveillance, public administration and services, autonomous vehicles, and lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS). However, the most advanced regulations were found in the area of autonomous vehicles, in particular for the testing of such vehicles. The report includes three maps on national AI strategies, a country’s position on LAWS, and the testing of autonomous vehicles. As the regulation of AI is still in its early stages and constantly evolving, this report offers a snapshot of the legal situation at the time the report was written (January 2019). Updates will be provided on the Global Legal Monitor (GLM) website.
If you are attending the 112th Annual American Association of Law Libraries (AALL) Conference in Washington, D.C. from July 13, 2019, until July 16, 2019, and want to know more about the regulation of AI, we recommend attending our program “The Age of AI: Emerging Regulatory Landscape Around the World” on July 15. Don’t forget to also check out the other presentations by Law Library of Congress staff.
You can search the Current Legal Topics or Comprehensive Index of Legal Reports for additional reports from the Law Library. To receive alerts when new reports are published, you can subscribe to email updates and the RSS feed for Law Library Reports (click the “subscribe” button on the Law Library’s website).
On Friday, June 28, 2019, the Law Library held a ribbon-cutting ceremony to open a new secure storage facility that will be home for much of the Law Library’s rare book collection. The Law Library currently stores some of its rare collection in a smaller vault as well as storing some of its rare materials in space borrowed from other divisions at the Library of Congress. Consolidating the collection improves collection security and access.
The secure storage facility differs from our existing vault in a few important ways: it has over 9,000 linear feet of shelving; it has modern compact shelving; and it has state-of-the-art cooling, humidification, fire retardation and security systems.
This new storage facility has about 4 times more shelf space than the existing vault contains. The temperature of this vault hovers between 50 to 55 degrees Fahrenheit–better than the Law Library’s current vault shelving space, which generally stays at 65 degrees. Relative humidity is very important for storing rare books in particular, and the relative humidity for this room is ideal. The Library can now store its manuscripts, incunables and other very rare and special materials in this modern facility knowing they are in the very best conditions possible. The vault has two rooms, with one room dedicated to holding Prints & Photographs Division collection items.
Thanks to the large size of the vault and the maximization of its shelving capacity, we will have space for growth as the Law Library continues to build its rare law book and manuscript collection. We are excited to consolidate collections and populate this room!
Today’s interview is with Samantha Winslow, our newest technician in the Collection Services Division. Samantha was with us previously as a contractor and she decided to join our staff when the opportunity arose. We are certainly glad that she did! She brings with her a whole host of library and language experience.
Describe your background.
My mother was an English teacher and a technical editor from a Jewish family in Queens, New York City, and my father was a Vermonter from the Silent Generation, a WWII veteran, and a civil engineer who studied at MIT and Berkeley. My older sister followed in his footsteps in her pursuit of science and attended MIT and GW for microbiology and forensic science. We all love books and reading. My interests gravitate toward art and nature, as well as learning about how people live across the world and across time.
What is your academic/professional history?
After high school I attended St. John’s College in Annapolis, Maryland and studied classics. I had already studied Latin for five years, and there I studied Ancient Greek for a year. My interests are broad and the world is wide, so I decided to transfer to George Mason University and majored in sociology. I also had the opportunity to study Italian and sociology in Florence, Italy for a semester. In 2006, a high school friend contacted me and asked if I would be interested in working with her on a contract at the Library of Congress, and I jumped at the opportunity. I was hired as an inspector for the Baseline Inventory Project (editor’s note: this, as well as subsequent projects, involve inventorying volumes into the Library’s catalog). I loved working in the Jefferson Building for the architecture and seeing all sorts of unexpected old books from the General Collection. Over the years, BIP became RHIP, Retrospective Holdings Integrity Program, and I helped transfer materials to the new Ft. Meade storage facility. Meanwhile, I took courses online at FIT (Fashion Institute of Technology) in New York for fashion merchandising management, and held a variety of service and marketing jobs. After a few years away from the Library, I joined another contract on the CAMPI project (a collections processing and maintenance contract) in the Law Library, checking in new acquisitions. Then I worked on the NAP project in the Adams Building, processing books to transfer to Cabin Branch (the Library’s newest high density storage facility.) Now I’ve come back to the Law Library as a federal employee and I am working in the stacks doing collections and catalog maintenance and retrieving and delivering patron requests.
How would you describe your job to other people?
I go on daily scavenger hunts in the sub-basement of the Madison Building to find legal materials for Congressional patrons and the public. Then I help ensure they are safely stored where they can be found again.
Why did you want to work at the Law Library of Congress?
The scope of the collection is amazing. I especially like that I can “walk around the world” and access so many books from so many countries, in so many languages.
What is the most interesting fact you’ve learned about the Law Library?
There are almost 60 miles of shelves in the stacks. Finding a book for a patron can be like searching for a needle in a haystack!
What’s something most of your co-workers do not know about you?
I attended beauty school to become certified in nail technology, and have taken yoga teacher training to maintain my health. I love to learn vocabulary from different languages. I’ve studied Spanish, Japanese, Korean, Mandarin, Dutch, German, and French. I don’t speak these languages but I like to be able to decipher them when I see them in books! My guilty pleasure is Korean pop music, particularly girl groups. My co-workers probably already know this, but I feel I should mention that I have four cats and they are great company.
On May 1, 2019, American Bar Association President, Bob Carlson, visited the Library of Congress in celebration of this year’s Law Day for an interview conducted by Law Librarian of Congress, Jane Sánchez. This year’s topic, “Free Speech, Free Press, Free Society”, focused on these cornerstones of representative government and called on society to understand and protect these rights ensuring, as the U.S. Constitution proposes, “the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.”
In their conversation, Bob Carlson discussed on the limits of free speech in a democratic society, the value of protecting all speech, even if unpopular or hurtful, the differences between speech and the press, and what it mean to have a free society. He also dove into modern practices in free speech explaining how social media and free speech intersect and contemplated whether free media translate into a free society. Throughout the discussion, Bob Carlson also spoke about the limits of free speech and the moments where a citizen can be held accountable for their words. To watch the entire conversation, please visit the link below for a video of the event.
Years earlier, in 1958, Sweden had prohibited corporal punishment as a form of disciplinary action in Swedish public schools, preschools, after care institutions, and the like. That legislation was inspired by Norwegian law.
Since 1979, all corporal punishment of children has thus been forbidden in Sweden. This means that corporal punishment is viewed as criminal assault, depending on the severity of the actionas there is no exception (defense) of parental discipline. The explicit exception for “aga” (disciplinary violence) was removed from the Criminal Code in 1957.
The explicit purpose of the revised language was to make it clear that any action taken against a child, that would constitute an assault against an adult, would likewise be an assault against a child, and thus illegal. (Compare prop. 1978/79:67 s. 31 f. )
History and Timeline of the Prohibition on Disciplinary Corporal Punishment of Children in Sweden
- 1864 – A new Penal Act (Strafflagen) is passed and corporal punishment of children by their parents was expected, and indeed required, when the child had committed a crime and had not otherwise attained the age of criminal responsibility (i.e. was younger than 15)
(5 kap. 1 § Strafflagen [Penal Act] 1864 no. 11.) At this time, disciplinary actions performed by a person (generally the father) against people who were under his command were considered a right (rätt att aga). This included disciplinary reprimands of wives, children, as well as women and men who worked at your farm (and thereby were part of your household unit). Such disciplinary violence was explicitly exempt from liability under the Penal Code. (14 kap. 16 § Strafflagen.)
- 1902 – The specific duty to discipline your child with the use of corporal punishment discipline was removed.
(5 kap. 1 § Strafflagen.)
- 1949 – A Parental Code passed, requiring that parents discipline their children as they see fit. (6 kap. 3 § Föräldrabalken 1949:381.)
- 1957 – The explicit liability exception in the Penal Code for actions that constituted “aga” (disciplinary violence) was removed. By eliminating the provision, corporal punishment of children was no longer automatically excused.Prosecutors who had previously been of the opinion that only the most egregious cases of corporal punishment of children could be prosecuted now had to make a determination of whether the discipline constituted assault. (Prop. 1957:170.) By this time, head of households did not have a right to corporally discipline farm workers who lived on their farm but parents still had a right to discipline (tukta) their children and teachers had the same right to discipline their pupils.
- 1966 – The Parental Code (SFS 1966:308) was revised to mandate that parents must keep their children under “erfoderlig uppsikt” (necessary supervision) – i.e. the code no longer required that they discipline them. However, Swedes in general were confused over what this meant and many believed that the language included a duty to discipline their children using physical force.
- 1979 – A specific prohibition on corporal punishment of children was included in the Parental Act (SFS 1979:122).
Text of the 1979 provision (6 kap. 3 § Föräldrabalken [FB], translation by author):
Guardians must perform such supervision over the child that is needed in consideration of the child’s age and other circumstances.
The child must not be subjected to physical punishment or other demeaning treatment.
What kind of corporal punishment was prohibited by the 1979 provision?
In short, all. The legislative text explicitly exemplified hitting a child’s hand to prevent it from touching something (SOU 1978:10 at 29), and meant that any such violence “was inappropriate and that such means of discipline could not be used.” However, such violence is not criminalized under the Swedish Criminal Code as assault requires that there is a either “bodily injury, illness, or pain” (3 kap. 5 § Brottsbalken(BrB) [Criminal Code].) For example, hitting someone with an open hand in the face is considered a minor offense.
The legislator, who wanted to protect children from physical harm, discussed multiple approaches, including informational campaigns via the media and the pediatricians offices before settling on the explicit prohibition language (SOU 1978:10 Barnens rätt 1. Om Förbud mot aga, at 21-22 ).
Isolated Instance of Corporal Discipline = Minor Offense
In 2003, the Swedish Supreme Court (NJA 2003 s. 537) declared that one isolated instance of corporal punishment that only caused minor harm to the child is considered a “ringa brott” (minor offense) and thus not subject to imprisonment, and can only be punished with monetary day-fines (compare 3 kap. 5 § BrB). In the specific case, the mother, angry that the child had repeatedly misbehaved in school, hit him with a wooden spoon eight times.
In 2017, the Swedish Supreme Court (NJA 2017 s. 1129) again reviewed the boundaries between what is considered misshandel (assault) and ringa misshandel (assault - minor offense) in relation to disciplinary violence against children. Following the case in 2003, the legislator had included new aggravating circumstances in the criminal provision (29 kap. 2 §BrB) that were meant to guide judges when determining whether the act was a minor offense or a crime “in the normal degree.” 29 kap. 2 § 8 BrB, provides that actions “intended to harm the confidence and trust of a child in its relationship with a family member” are aggravating. The court found that the language used by the legislator meant that violence against children was now further prohibited and the fact that it was directed at children, could already at this stage influence the level of crime. However, the court found that one isolated instance of hitting a child with a belt did not, even together with the new provision, qualify as assault, but as assault in the lesser degree.
Repeated Disciplinary Violence – Defenses
As recently as in February of this year, a Swedish resident received a straffrabatt (mitigated sentence) and was sentenced to time served, because the courts determined that she was not aware that disciplinary violence against children was unlawful in Sweden. In that case, the court found that there were extraordinary circumstances surrounding her ability to find out that the act was criminalized as she was illiterate and had immigrated from a part of the world where corporal punishment of children was common.
Is it a Crime Also Outside of Sweden?
Yes, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has said that withdrawing parental rights in response to continuous caning (beating the child with a cane) does not violate article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Inhumane and degrading treatment of children is explicitly prohibited in article 3 of the ECHR. In 1998, the ECtHR found that corporal punishment by a parent violated that article. The Council of Europe provides an overview of the general framework and the ECtHR’s case law on corporal punishment of children on its website.
Other sources on Children and Corporal Punishment:
The Punishment of Rebellious Children and Witches
Today we bring you the latest update from our Spanish Legal Documents series. For more information about the history of this collection, as well as our ongoing work to make it fully available online, see our introductory post describing the Opinions & Judgments subsection.
As a reminder, the collection is divided into six categories:
Our second published subsection is Canon Law, which in this area of the collection refers to the ecclesiastical law enforced by the Catholic Church in 17th–19th century Spain (and Spanish colonies in the Americas). This subsection of 107 documents includes papal decrees, issuances by provincial bishoprics, opinions of legal scholars of the Church on a range of issues, briefs concerning cases before the Church, jurisdictional agreements between bishoprics, and statements concerning vicariates in the Americas.
While much of this material might be of primary interest to theologians, seminarians, or other scholars of Church history, this subsection also deals with many ordinary and familiar legal topics (such as marriage and taxes), and, has even been embraced by popular meme culture.
For a closer look at a well-known chapter in European history, see the 1767 order by the Zaragoza Tribunal of the Spanish Inquisition. Even though the Spanish Inquisition was declining in power by the end of the Age of Enlightenment, it nevertheless appears to have been interested in investigating crimes against the Catholic faith into the latter half of the 18th century. This announcement to the citizens of Zaragoza in the Kingdom of Aragon lists several acts considered crimes and heresies according to the Inquisition, and asks citizens with knowledge of these crimes to come forward to the Inquisitors. Among the heretical acts and persons described in this document are: practitioners of a mystical form of Christianity (“Secta de los Alumbrados”), persons who act against or deny the teachings of the Church, persons engaging in Jewish prayers and rituals, as well as followers of Islam (“Secta de Mahoma”) and Lutheranism (“Secta de Lutero”).
With four more subsections (and the majority of the 2,400+ documents in the collection) still left to share, we’ll continue to update you over the next several months as additional parts of this collection are made available.
Describe your background.
I grew up in Salt Lake City, Utah, where I enjoyed taking advantage of hiking, biking, and national parks. Since finishing college, I have lived in Iowa; Montana; Brussels, Belgium; Washington, D.C.; and Virginia.
What is your academic/professional history?
I attended the University of Utah and tried many majors before graduating with a B.A. in History. While going to school, I worked at the Salt Lake Public Library in multiple roles. I also worked at the University of Utah Multimedia Archives on digitization projects. I attended library school at the University of Iowa as an IMLS Digital Librarianship Fellow, working on different digitization projects each semester for the Iowa Digital Library. After graduate school, I worked as Project Coordinator for the Montana Historical Society’s National Digital New Program (NDNP) grant. In 2011, I became a Digital Conversion Specialist in the Library of Congress’s Serial and Government Publications Division working on the National Digital Newspaper Program. In this position, I ingested content into Chronicling America, assisted state partner institutions with their awards, and worked on digitization projects of other divisions . In April of this year, I was hired as a Digital Project Coordinator in the Law Library to manage the digitization of the United States Congressional Serial Set.
How would you describe your job (or research project) to other people?
I am the project coordinator for digitizing the United States Congressional Serial Set. The Serial Set is a collection of over 14,000 volumes of the reports and documents of the United States Congress. The scope of this project is to digitize the Serial Set volumes published from the 15th through the 103rd Congress, spanning the years 1817-1995. Serial Set volumes contain congressional documents, reports, and also executive branch material. These include reports on the Perry Expedition to Japan, reports on meteorological observations, and the registration of patents. The collection will be made available to the public through the Library of Congress website. Currently, I work with colleagues at the Law Library and Government Publishing Office to develop digitization specifications, workflows, and ensure that the volumes selected for digitization are complete.
Why did you want to work at the Law Library?
I was excited to work at the Law Library because my interest in historical newspapers aligns closely with the Serial Set digitization project. Just as newspapers are important primary source records that reflect American life, the Serial Set consists of primary source documents containing the legislative history of our nation. Digitizing the legislative record unlocks opportunities for the public to access primary resources used by historical Congresses and researchers to analyze this corpus, including through computational methods.
What is the most interesting fact you’ve learned about the Law Library of Congress?
I continue to be surprised by the breadth of the collections within the Law Library of Congress. There is always something new to discover, such as the Spanish Legal Documents collection containing documents back to the 15th century about legal issues ranging from disputes to papal bulls.
What’s something most of your colleagues do not know about you?
I take any opportunity I can to travel. When I worked at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Library in Brussels, Belgium, I was able to visit six countries in Europe. In the United States, I have traveled to 34 states and my goal is to visit all 50. When I’m not on a plane, train, or in a car, I’m usually enjoying my vinyl collection and visiting local museums—the National Air and Space Museum is my favorite.