Zywicki on AoA Election

Joe Malchow points us to this post by Todd Zywicki ’88 over at the Volokh Conspiracy. Trustee Zywicki provides a brief history of the controversy surrounding this year’s AoA election. He also looks at the similarities between the current case and the famous Dartmouth College v. Woodward case.

Below the fold: Todd Zywicki on Dartmouth v. Woodward, Daniel Webster, and the current election.

One final note–in this context I’ve been reading a great deal in recent months about the famous Dartmouth College v. Woodward case (the Dartmouth College I case). Interestingly, those such as Daniel Webster who opposed that earlier board-packing plan were roundly criticized at the time as reactionary opponents of progress. Moreover, many thought it frivolous for Webster to contend that the board-packing plan breached a contract in violation of the Contracts Clause. Webster won, of course, as the Supreme Court found that the College charter was a contract that could not be abrogated. Despite contemporary opposition to Webster’s litigation, few today would doubt that bringing the case to enforce the contract was appropriate and a pivotal moment for Dartmouth. America is a country animated by the rule of law and when a party legitimately believes its rights to be violated, it is appropriate to ask a neutral judge to decide the matter.

Read the full post here.