| The dissertation analyzes, in its first part, the works of three liberal theorists, John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and John Rawls, and, in its second part, the key decisions of three American jurists, Justices Stephen Field, Oliver Wendell Holmes, and Hugo Black. The first part of the dissertation establishes the existence of important conflicts within liberal political theory. These conflicts arise because liberal theorists hold strong commitments both to the autonomy and integrity of nation-states, on the one hand, and on the other, to the inalienable rights of persons, as well as to broader principles of equality and fairness, irrespective of ascriptive status. These commitments conflict, however, in certain contexts, especially when liberal nation-states are confronted by persons who reside within their borders, but are not full members. The second part of the dissertation analyzes how important American jurists have responded to these conflicts, when non-citizens---facing exclusion, deportation, or discriminatory treatment---have appealed to the federal courts for justice. Feeling the need to protect national sovereignty, and also the duty to uphold constitutional rights and protections, the judges have issued decisions that collectively underscore the difficulties of maintaining both types of commitments. The dissertation concludes with an explanation for why these tensions will tend to recur, in liberal theory and in public law, in spite of proposals to alleviate them. |
