Worst Constitutional Law Movie Ever

Gerard Magliocca

Gerard N. Magliocca is the Samuel R. Rosen Professor at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law. Professor Magliocca is the author of three books and over twenty articles on constitutional law and intellectual property. He received his undergraduate degree from Stanford, his law degree from Yale, and joined the faculty after two years as an attorney at Covington and Burling and one year as a law clerk for Judge Guido Calabresi on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Professor Magliocca has received the Best New Professor Award and the Black Cane (Most Outstanding Professor) from the student body, and in 2008 held the Fulbright-Dow Distinguished Research Chair of the Roosevelt Study Center in Middelburg, The Netherlands. He was elected to the American Law Institute (ALI) in 2013.

You may also like...

3 Responses

  1. Rational says:

    mmm, i would personally nominate double jeapordy for telling a whole generation that murder is legal under the right circumstances… at least that deserves an honorable mention.

    i wonder if these movies can be streamed on netflix. i mean i hate to waste a spot in my DVD queue for it, but for morbid curiousity.

    Btw, by the same argument that 1776 sort of counts, wouldn’t birth of a nation also qualify, in its ugly way? certainly in an Ackermanian sense, it captures a very negative “constitutional moment.”

  2. Howard Wasserman says:

    Agree about Double Jeopardy. I would add “The Star Chamber” (judges, angry about having to release bad guys because of the Fourth Amendment, form a board that puts out contract hits on them).

  3. David Lyons says:

    I have not seen Tennessee Johnson, but it sounds as though the complaint here might be more about historical interpretation and inaccuracy than poor representation of constitutional law. On the latter, I have to agree with the two previous comments: Double Jeopardy was a movie made by and for the hard of thinking.