MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4360972849 · doi:10.1353/sch.2000.0002

The Naturalization of Douglas Clyde Macintosh, Alien Theologian

2000· article· en· W4360972849 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ronald B. Flowers

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Supreme Court History · 2000
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésNaturalizationSupreme courtAlienDivinityConscienceChristian ministryLawProtestantismReligious studiesDeclarationSociologyClassicsTheologyHistoryPolitical sciencePhilosophyPolitics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The Naturalization of Douglas Clyde Macintosh, Alien Theologian RONALD B. FLOWERS On May 25,1931, the Supreme Court ofthe United States decided the case of United. States v. Macintosh.1 It was one of the most famous cases of its era. The Christian Century compared it to the infamous Dred Scott case.2 In the same editorial, it said the decision “outrages the na­ tion’s conscience,” and called it “incredible,” “monstrous,” “the inevitable death of spiritual re­ ligion.”3 Who was Douglas Clyde Macintosh, why did he have a case before the Supreme Court, and why did a liberal Protestant magazine become so exercised about it? Douglas Clyde Macintosh was bom in Canada in 1877 and received his undergraduate de­ gree from McMaster University in Toronto. In 1904 he became a graduate student at the Uni­ versity of Chicago. He was ordained to the ministry of the American Baptist Church in 1907. That same year he returned to Canada to teach in a small college. In 1909, the same year he completed his Ph.D. at the University of Chicago, he was invited tojoin the faculty of Yale Di­ vinity School.4 At the time of his case, he was Chaplain of the Yale Graduate School and Dwight Professor of Theology in the Divinity School, one of the luminaries of the faculty. In 1925 Macintosh filed with the U.S. District Court in New Haven, Connecticut, a declaration of intent to become a citizen. On March 18, 1929, he filed his application for naturalization. As part of that process, an ap­ plicant had to complete a form that provided pertinent information for the application. Question 20 on that form asked, “Have you read the following oath of allegiance?” which was then quoted. After the quotation the form asked: “Are you willing to take this oath in be­ coming a citizen?” Macintosh answered both halves of this question “Yes.” Question 22 asked: “Ifnecessary, are you willing to take up arms in defense of this country?” Macintosh answered the question: “Yes, but I should want to be free tojudge of the necessity.”5 This was not an acceptable answer to the government. Some background is necessary to understand why. The Naturalization Act of 244 JOURNAL OF SUPREME COURT HISTORY 1906, operative at the time of Macintosh’s ap­ plication, required that an applicant for citi­ zenship take an oath in which one promised to “support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies, for­ eign and domestic, and bear true faith and alle­ giance to the same” and demonstrate that one was “attached to the principles ofthe Constitu­ tion of the United States, and well disposed to the good order ... of the same.”6 Conse­ quently, the actual oath of naturalization read: I hereby declare, on oath, that I abso­ lutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, and particularly to _______________ , of whom I have heretofore been a subject; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; and that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.7 This oath appeared as Question 20 on the pre­ liminary form. The applicant was asked if he/she was willing to take the oath to become a citizen. Macintosh answered “Yes.” So it was not his response to the oath that got him in trouble, but his desire to qualify his answer about bearing arms. Prior to Macintosh’s application for citi­ zenship, the Supreme Court had already de­ cided a case. United States v. Schwimmer, in which the applicant for naturalization was not willing to promise to bear arms in defense of the country.8 Rosika Schwimmer was an inter­ nationally known feminist and pacifist. When she was confronted with the naturalization questionnaire, she answered Question 22 “I would not take up arms personally.” She ex­ panded on her refusal to fight in war by saying “I am an uncompromising pacifist for whom even Jane Addams is not enough ofa pacifist. I am an absolute atheist. I have no sense...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,910
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,002
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,018
Tête enseignante GPT0,269
Écart entre enseignants0,251 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2000
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Supreme Court HistoryMême sujetAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsTravaux en français237 207