•  
  •  
 
The University of Chicago Law School Record

Start Page

24

Abstract

Professor Cramton discusses Pennsylvania v. Nelson, as an example of the Supreme Court's jurisprudence in preemption over sedition crimes. Nelson was decided incorrectly, relying on a vague test and ignoring plain language. The Court is making policy decisions when it determines preemption cases, an act Professor Cramton argues is inappropriate. Professor Crampton analyzes the relationship between state and federal laws through the lens of sedition and the Communist Party. First, he criticizes the

COinS
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.