these two combine, they form an entirely new thesis, or synthesis. (3) This synthesis is the beginning of a new series of developments. Hegel believed that life eternally fo rms itself by setting up oppositions. Hegel’s system has special implications for the progress of history, particularly the evolu- tion of people and government. He believed that the ideal universal soul can be created through logic that is based on his dialectic. This, he argued, was the foundation of all develop- ment. Using his three-part dialectic, he laid out the development of society. Hegel’s thesis was that the primary goal of persons is to acquire property, and the pursuit of property by all persons necessitates the antithesis of this goal, laws. The association of persons and laws produces a synthesis, called ethos, that com- bines the f reedom and interdependence of the people and creates a state. According to Hegel, the state is above the individual. Allowed to reach its highest form of development, Hegel believed, the state evolves into a monarchy (a government ruled by a single person, often called a king or queen). Hegel’s view of government is at odds with the historical course pursued by the United States. In fact, he was a critic of the individual- ism at the heart of the American Revolution. But his ideas have nonetheless had an immea- surable effect on modern thought in the United States as well as Europe. He saw human history as the progression from bondage to freedom, attainable only if the will of the individual is made secondary to the will of the majority. This view shaped the development of the philosophy of idealism in the United States and Europe. Hegel’s dialectic was also adapte d by KARL MARX as the basis for Marx’s economic theory of the struggle of the working class to achieve revolu- tion over the owners of the means of produc- tion. In the twentieth century, Hegel inspired the academic methodology called deconstruc - tionism, used in fields ranging from literature to law as a means to in terpret texts. Although Hegel was largely ignored or attacked by U.S. legal scholars for two centuries, the 1950s brought a new interest in his ideas that has grown in the ensuing decades. Generally speaking, scholars have examined his work for its views on liberalism and the concepts of freedom and responsibility. Hegeli- an thought has been used to address everything from historical problems such as SLAVERY to Georg Hegel. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel 1770–1831 ❖ 1770 Born, Stuttgart, Germany 1788–93 Studied theology at University of Tübingen 1807 The Phenomenology of the Mind published 1818 Appointed professor at University of Berlin 1831 Died, Berlin, Germany ▼▼ ▼▼ 17751775 18251825 18501850 18001800 1775–83 American Revolution 1812–14 War of 1812 1821 Philosophy of Right published ◆ 1817 Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences published ❖ ◆ 1793–1800 Worked as tutor in Bern and Frankfurt am Main 1802–03 Edited the Critical Journal of Philosophy with Friedrich Schelling 1808–16 Headed the Gymnasium in Nuremberg 1812–16 Science of Logic published ◆◆◆ 1816 Appointed professor at University of Heidelberg GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 258 HEGEL, GEORG WILHELM FRIEDRICH contemporary issues in contracts, property, torts, and CRIMINAL LAW. It has also influenced the CRITICAL LEGAL STUDIES movement. FURTHER READINGS Althaus, Horst. 2000. Hegel: An Intellectual Biography. Michael Tarsh, trans. Cambridge, UK: Polity. Carlson, David Gray. 1999–2000. “How to Do Things with Hegel.” Texas Law Review 78 (May). ———. 1992. “The Hegelian Revival in American Legal Discourse.” Univ. of Miami Law Review 46 (March). Hegel, Georg. 1977. The Difference between Fichte’s and Schelling’s System of Philosophy. Translated by H.S. Harris and Walter Cerf. Albany, NY: State Univ. of New York Press. Hoffheimer, Michael H. 1995. “Hegel’s First Philosophy of Law.” Tennessee Law Review 62 (summer). McCracken, Chad. 1999. “Hegel and the Autonomy of Contract Law.” Texas Law Review 77 (February). Pinkard, Terry. 2001. Hegel: A Biography. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge Univ. Press. CROSS REFERENCE Jurisprudence. HEIGHTENED SCRUTINY Heightened scrutiny is a standard of judicial review for a challenged law or policy in which the court presumes the law to be invalid unless the law furthers an important government interest in a way that is substantially related to that interest. Heightened scrutiny is also known as intermediate scrutiny because it is the middle level of three tests develop ed by the Supreme Court to decided constitutional questions. The lowest level of constitutional review is the RATIONAL BASIS TEST, whereas the highest level is the STRICT SCRUTINY test. The outcome of a case where constitutional arguments are made often depends on which level of review is applied. The Supreme Court has identified issues that quali fy for one of these three tests. The least rigorous of the three, the rational basis test, is employed in cases where a PLAINTIFF alleges that the legislature has made an arbitrary or irrational decision. Plaintiffs rarely succeed because this test gives great deference to the legislative branch. The legislature’s reasons for enacting a law may be misguided or clearly wrong, but as long as the body did not act arbitrarily, the Court will not overturn statutes on constitutional grounds. The most rigorous test is called strict scrutiny. The Supreme Court has mandated that courts apply strict scrutiny when fundamental rights are at issue. The Court has identified the right to vote, the right to travel, and the right to privacy as fundamental rights. In addition, when a law or policy makes distinc- tions based on a SUSPECT CLASSIFICATION, strict scrutiny must be appli ed. Race, national origin, alienage, and religious affiliation are suspect classifications. However, gender, age, and dis- ability are not. Unlike rational basis, the government has the burden of proving that the suspect law is narrowly tailored and the least restrictive means to further a compelling government interest. Heightened scrutiny was developed by the Supreme Court to deal with classifications that did not, in the Court’s view, reach the level of race and other suspect classifications. The test was announced in Craig v. Boren (429 U.S., 97 S. Ct. 451, 50 L.Ed.2d 397 [1976]). Boren dealt with an Oklahoma law that treated women differently than men. Because the Court was unwilling to make gender a suspect classifica- tion but did not believe rational basis was the proper standard of review, it came up with heightened scrutiny. The law prohibited the sale of “nonintoxi- cating” 3.2 beer to males under the age of 21 but permitted females over the age of 18 to buy it. The law was challenged as discriminatory under the EQUAL PROTECTION clause of the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT by three plaintiffs: two men, who were over 18 but under 21, and a female beer vendor. In a 7–2 vote with four co ncurring opinions, the Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional. Oklahoma attempted to show the legislature had a rational basis for enacting a law it believed would reduce drunk driving. It provided statistics showing that arrests of males 18 to 20 years of age outnumbered those of females of similar age by a factor of nine for “drunk” driving (2 percent versus 18 percent), by a factor of eighteen for “drivi ng under the influence,” and by a factor of ten for public drunkenness. Justice William Brennan, in his majority opinion, announced that gender-based classifi- cations were subject to a higher level of scrutiny than provided by the rational basis test. For the law to survive, the state would have to show that classifying by gender “must serve important governmental objectives and must be substan- tially related to those objectives.” This test was somewhat less rigorous than strict scrutiny. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION HEIGHTENED SCRUTINY 259 Justice Brennan applied the test to the facts of the case and concluded the law was unconstitutional. He agreed that the state had an important government interest in keeping people from driving while intoxicated. The statistical evidence demonstrated that there was a problem with underage drinking and driving, but it failed to show that the law was “substantially related to those objectives.” The heightened or intermediate scrutiny t est has been applied to a number of gender-based classifications. In Mississippi University for Wom- en v. Hogan (458 U.S. 718, 102 S. Ct. 3331; 73 L. Ed. 2d 1090), the Supreme Court held that the single-sex admission policy of a Mississippi University violated the equal protection clause. In this case, an otherwise qualified male nursing school candidate was denied admission because of his gender. Mississippi did have two coeduca- tional schools of nursing, but he would have had to relocate because of they were in other parts of the state. The federal district court used the rational basis test, ruling that maintaining the nursing school as a single-sex school had a rational relationship to the state’s legitimate interest “in providing the greatest practical range of educational opportunities for its female student population.” In addition, the single-sex policy was not arbitrary. The Supreme Court applied the heightened scrutiny test and conclud- ed that the state had an important government interest in providing educational options for all its residents. However, the single-sex admission policy was not substantially related to that interest. The Court noted that there must be an “exceedingly persuasive justification” for gender- based classification to be judged constitutional. Heightened scrutiny has also been applied to legal restrictions based on illegitimacy. In Caban v. Mohammed (441 U.S. 380, 99 S. Ct. 1760, 60 L. Ed. 2d 297 [1979]), the state of New York had a law that only allowed mothers to block adoptions of children born out of wedlock, regardless of the relationship between the children and the natural father. In this case, the unwed mother and father lived together for five years and had two children. The father acknowledged paternity on the birth certificate. When the couple later separated, the mother retained custody of the children, but the father visited the children regularly. When the mother married another man, the husband sought to adopt the children. The father opposed the adoption, but the trial court granted the adoption based on the best interests of the children. The Supreme Court ruled that the law violated the equal protection clause because the father had a relationship with the children fully comparable to that of the mother. The law was unequal because the mother had an absolute veto over an out-of-wedlock child, whereas the father was required to prove that it was in the best interest of the child for the child not to be adopted. The state could not give the mother an absolute veto, while forcing the father to show child’s best interest before he could retain parental rights. FURTHER READINGS Flack, Horace Edgar. 2003. The Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. Birmingham, Ala.: Palladium Press. Langran, Robert. 2003. The Supreme Court: A Concise History. New York: Peter Lang. Tribe, Lawrence. 2008. The Invisible Constitution. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. CROSS REFERENCES Rational Basis Test; Strict Scrutiny; Suspect Classification. HEIR An individual who receives an interest in, or ownership of, land, tenements, or hereditaments from an ancestor who has died intestate, through the laws of descent and distribution. At common law, an heir was the individual appointed by law to succ eed to the estate of an ancestor who died without a will. It is commonly used in the early 2000s in reference to any individual who succeeds to property, either by will or law. An heir of the body is an heir who was either conceived or born of the individual who has died, or a child of such heir. This ty pe of heir is anyone who descends lineally from the dece- dent, excluding a surviving spouse, adopted children, and collateral relatives. Ordina rily, property can be given by will to anyone named or can be shared by all heirs, but historically, the owner of an entail could only pass his or her property on to heirs of the body. This type of inheritance is largely abolished by statute in the early twenty-first century. HELD In relation to the opinion of a court, decided. The holding in a particular case is the ultimate decision of a court of a justiciable controversy. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 260 HEIR v HELMS, JESSE ALEXANDER, JR. The career of Jesse Alexander Helms Jr. is unique in post-World War II U.S. politics. Few legislators have fought as relentlessly, caused as much uproar, or arguably, had as much influence as the ultraconservative Republican from North Carolina. As a fiery radio editorialist in the 1960s, Helms waged a one-man war on liberalism. His notoriety helped him win a historic 1972 Senate race, a breakthrough in a state that had not elected a Republican in the twentieth century, and three reelections fol- lowed. He emerged not only as a party leader but as an independent legislator with his own tough agenda on social issues and foreign policy. Born October 18, 1921, in the small segregated town of Monroe, North Carolina, Helms was named for his formidable fathe r. JESSE HELMS Sr. was the town’s police and fire chief, and he exacted obedience from Monroe and his two sons alike. “My father was a six- foot, two-hundred pound gorilla,” Helms affectionately said. “When he said, ‘Smile,” I smiled.” His mother, Ethel Mae Helms, mar- shaled her fam ily off to the First Baptist Church twice a week. In Helms’s childhood, Monroe still romantically celebrated Confederate Me- morial Day, and patriotism, regional pride, RELIGION, and racial separation were formative influences on the boy. He showed early promise in writing, by high school already reporting for the local newspaper. Journalism held such interest for Helms that he quit Wake Forest College in 1939 to work on the Ral eigh News and Observer. The 20-year-old moved up rapidly. By 1941 he was assistant city editor of the Raleigh Times, the city’s smaller, more conservative paper. Then Pearl Harbor intervened. Accepted by the U.S. Navy for limited duty in recruitment and public speak- ing, Helms made a crucial discovery: he was good at broadcasting. Starting in 1948, he began a new career as a radio news director at station WRAL in Raleigh. Helms soon moved from the role of political observer to that of political insider. His reporting in the vicious, racially divided 1950 Democratic primary race for the Senate led to accusations that he had doctored a photo of the wife of the loser, Frank Graham, so that she appeared to be dancing with a black man—a fatal blow to the cand idate’s chances in the segregated state. Helms denied it. The winner, Jesse Alexander Helms Jr. 1921–2008 ▼▼ ▼▼ 1925 2000 1975 1950 ◆ ◆◆❖◆ ◆ ◆◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ❖ 1921 Born, Monroe, N.C. 1939 Left Wake Forest College to join editorial staff of Raleigh News and Observer 1939–45 World War II 1942–45 Served in U.S. Navy 1948 Hired as radio news director at WRAL in Raleigh 1951 Became administrative assistant to Senator Willis Smith 1950–53 Korean War 1957–61 Served on Raleigh City Council 1960–72 Served as officer of Capital Broadcasting Company 1976 When Free Men Shall Stand published 1984 Established new record— $16.5 million— for Senate campaign fundraising in his reelection race against Jim Hunt 1990 Won tough reelection campaign against Harvey Gantt 1994 Elected chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 2000 Accused United Nations of not respecting U.S. sovereignty 1972–2002 Represented North Carolina in U.S. Senate 1961–73 Vietnam War 2001 September 11 terrorist attacks 2008 Died, Raleigh, N.C. 2005 Here’s Where I Stand published Jesse Helms. U.S. SENATE HISTORICAL OFFICE GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION HELMS, JESSE ALEXANDER, JR. 261 Senator Willis Smith, took him to Washington as his administrative assistant in 1951. Working in the Senate propelled Helms closer to a political career. From 1953 to 1960 Helms was a lobbyist and editorialist for the North Carolina Bankers Association. He had an opportunity to exercise his poli tics in a weekly column and at the same time held his first elective office, on the Raleigh City Council, where, although nominally a Democrat, he opposed virtually all taxes. The great turning point in Helms’s life came in 1960. As the executive vice president of the Capital Broadcasting Company, he began broadcasting fierce radio editorials on radio station WRAL. Here, for the next 12 years, he developed views that would last the rest of his life. These broadcasts were fire and brimstone. In much the same way that radio host Rush Limbaugh criticized liberals in the 1990s, Helms attacked liberal trends in the 1960s. He referr ed to the 1960s as “this time of the fast buck and the ‘New Morality’—the age of apathy and indifference, the season of disdain for simple virtues and common honesty.” What riled Helms most was the CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT . Carried across the state of North Carolina, Helms’s attacks on desegregation were reprinted in newspapers under such titles as “Nation Needs to Know of Red Involvement in Race Agitation!” The liberal media were to blame, Helms reasoned, and if they would stop distorting the truth, then “there would be millions around the world who would change their minds about race relations in the South.” Despite his own biases, Helms and WRAL survived repeated complaints to the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION . It was only a matter of time before the conservative Helms gave up on the DEMOCRATIC PARTY . In 1972, he switched parties and ran for the U.S. Senate as a Republican. Helms liked to tell his radio listeners that he had never voted for a Democrat for president, and now, with the decidedly liberal George S. McGovern as the Democratic nominee, he had even more reason to sever his symbolic ties to the party. McGovern stood for everything that Helms detested: support for welfare and ABORTION, and opposition to the war in Vietnam. To Helms, such views were typical of the way liberalism betrayed traditional values, and why he could not remain a Democrat. When Helms jumped ship, he took an extreme gamble. North Carolina— indeed, the South as a whole—had been the Democratic Party’s stronghold for generations. In fact, not since the late nineteenth century had the state elected a Republican senator. Helms changed everything. One key to his beating the favorite, Democrat Nick Galifianakis (by only 120,000 votes), was Helms’s use of national politics. The presidential election offered excellent coattails upon which to ride. Helms allied himself with Republican candidate RICHARD M. NIXON, linking Galifianakis with the highly unpopular McGo- vern. Galifianakis saw a much different, and worse, kind of tarring at work. He accused the Helms campaign of using his Greek American ethnicity to imply that he was not a loyal U.S. citizen. Not surprisingly, Helms’s first term in Washington, D.C., established the same hard- line politics of his broadcasting career. He was soon nicknamed Senator No for voting against federal spending—with the exception of sup- port for the military and farmers. He opposed federal aid to education, food stamps for striking workers, government-subsidized abor- tion, and the creation of the CONSUMER PROTEC- TION Agency. Returning politics to traditional values would be the hallmark of his career, a philoso- phy outlined in his 1976 book, When Free Men Shall Stand. During his first term in the U.S. Senate, he introduced an amendment designed to circumvent the Supreme Court’s decisions banning prayer in public schools. Although the effort failed, it paid personal dividends: Helms came to the attention of conservative organiza- tions and contrib utors who would be increas- ingly supportive of him over the next two decades. He saw no conflict with his faith in opposing government aid to the needy. He believed it was the role of the private individual to help others, as he and his wife, Dorothy Helms, had done by adopting a nine-year-old orphan with cerebral palsy. In Congress he voted against federal aid to disabled people and against school lunch programs. Unlike some social conservatives, Helms had an equal passion for foreign policy. He was staunchly anti-communist, a belief that formed the basis for his opposition to any cooperation between the United States and left-wing govern- ments. He opposed President Nixon’s historic opening of ties to China. Supporting right-wing WE ARE LIVING IN AN AGE WHERE ANYTHING GOES . —JESSE HELMS GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 262 HELMS, JESSE ALEXANDER, JR. governments—even those associated with abuses of HUMAN RIGHTS, such as Turkey, or with all-white rule, such as Rhodesia and South Africa—made more sense to him. Helms gained influence as his career pro- gressed. By the late 1970s he was already shaping the Republican presidential platform behind the scenes. In Senate votes, he could openly defy the party on nomina tions and policy decisions. Helms had little fear of the party leadership because he was building a national base of support. He did this with the help of a powerful insider in national politics, Richard A. Viguerie, publisher of the Conserva- tive Digest. Viguerie was an early advocate of using direct-mail techniques, a marketing tool borrowed from business. As campaign manager for Helms in 1978, he blanketed the United States with letters asking fo r support. It worked, fantastically. Helms raised $6.2 million for his successful 1978 reelection, two-thirds of it from outside of North Carolina. Politicians of all kinds soon followed his lead in using this powerful technology. In the 1980s the importance of direct mail to Helms grew in proportion to the rise of conservative Christian politics. Analysts called this emerging constituency the New Right. It favored mandating school prayer, outlawing abortion, and preventing gays and lesbians from acquiring equal rights. Helms tapped its mem- bers with dramatic fund-raising letters. By 1982, Helms could count on great support for brash, independent actions in the Senate: filibustering against the renewal of the Voting Rights Act, for example, or attaching a school prayer amend- ment to the annual extension of the natio nal debt. The 1980s was a period of great activity for Helms in domestic policy. He railed against the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) for funding art that he found offensive, chiefly that of the gay photographer Robert Mapplethorpe and of the artist Andres Serrano, whose work Piss Christ depicted a crucifix submerged in urine. The national controversy he engen dered continued to divide liberals and conservatives well into the 1990s. He also led a highly publicized attempt to take over CBS, exhorting conservatives to buy up stock in o rder to end liberal bias in news reporting. He introduced antiabortion legislation that made him the leading enemy of pro-abortion forces, which began demonizingHelmsintheirowndirect-mail campaigns. He was most successful in agriculture policy. Helms won continued back- ing for tobacco price supports, an issue key to one of his most active advocates, the tobacc o industry. In a combative 1990 reelection campaign, Helms nearly lost to African American Harvey Gantt. The former Democratic mayor of Charlotte was ahead of Helms until the last weeks of the campaign, when Helms’s forces mailed 125,000 postcards to voters warning them that they could be prosecuted for FRAUD if they voted improperly. At least 44,000 cards were sent to black voters, according to the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, which sent observers to the state to ensure fair elections. Helms edged out Gantt by just over 100, 000 votes. In 1992 the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ruled that the Helms campaign had violated federal CIVIL RIGHTS and voting laws by intimidating, threatening, and discouraging African Americans from voting. Helms’s office denied that he was involved in the mailings. Helms was an outspoken critic of President BILL CLINTON. The Republican takeover of Congress in November 1994 gave him chair- manship of the Foreign Relations Committee, a powerful post from which he could authorize money for foreign aid, make recommendations on ambassadors and foreign treaties, and control the budget of the STATE DEPARTMENT. Almost immediately, he blasted the president as unfit to conduct foreign policy and warned that Clinton “better have a bodyguard” if he planned to visit North Carolina military bases. Politicians from both parties denounced the remark, which came on the anniversary of the ASSASSINATION of President JOHN F. KENNEDY. Helms called his statement a “mistake,” but refused to apologize. Despite surgery for serious health problems, Helms seemed eager to enter more battles. He was reelected to another term in 1996, again defeating Harvey Gantt. He served on the Foreign Relations Committee until 2001. Dur- ing his tenure as chair, the committee approved 143 treatises (although some were later rejected or returned to the president), confirmed 477 presidential nominations for ambassadorships and other administrative posts, and conducted 597 hearings. In 2001, after serving on the Senate for 30 years, Helms announced that he would not seek reelection in the 2002 elections. He continued, GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION HELMS, JESSE ALEXANDER, JR. 263 however, to spark controversy even in the final year of his term as senator. He allegedly made some racially charged comments to the press, not dissimilar to those made by Senator TRENT LOTT at the birthday celebration of Senator Strom Thurmond. (These comments eventually cost Lott his position as Senate majority leader). Helms also openly criticized the lifestyles of homosexuals. Nevertheless, many conservatives celebrated his numerous accomplishments prior to his retirement in 2003. And no one could deny the indelible imprint he left on U.S. politics. Helms supported Elizabeth Dole, wife of former Senator Bob Dole, as his successor in the 2002 senatorial election in North Carolina. Dole won a heated race in the nation’s most expensive congressional campaign. Helms married the former Dorothy Jane Coble in 1942, with whom he had three children and seven grandchildren. They were longtime cerebral palsy advocates, and were actively involved with the Jesse Helms Center in Wingate, North Carolina. The nonprofit center promotes free enterprise, representative democ- racy, and traditional values. Here’s Where I Stand, which came out in 2005, is Helms’s memoir of his life, his ideological positions, and his political career. He died on July 4, 2008. FURTHER READINGS Furgurson, Ernest B. 1996. Hard Right: The Rise of Jesse Helms. New York: Norton. The Jesse Helms Center. Available online at www. jessehelmscenter.org (accessed August 18, 2009). Snider, William D. 1985. “Helms & Hunt: The North Carolina Senate Race, 1984.” Chapel Hill, N.C.: Univ. of North Carolina Press. Wagner, John. 2003. “Helms Looks Back.” The News & Observer (January 3). CROSS REFERENCES Election Campaign Financing; Republican Party. HENCEFORTH From this time forward. The term henceforth, when used in a legal document, statute, or other legal instrument, indicates that something will commence from the present time to the future, to the exclusion of the past. v HENRY II OF ENGLAND King Henry II was born March 5, 1133, in Le Mans, France. He reigned from 1154 to 1189 and founded the Plantagenet dynasty of English Henry II of England 1133–1189 ▼▼ ▼▼ 11251125 12001200 11751175 11501150 1133 Born, LeMans, France 1150 Became Duke of Normandy 1152 Became Duke of Aquitaine after marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine 1153 Invaded England in quest to unseat King Stephen 1154 Recognized as lawful successor to the throne; crowned king of England, founded Plantagenet dynasty 1164 Convocation at Clarendon; Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Becket, fled to France 1170 Becket murdered in Canterbury cathedral 1171 Invaded and annexed Ireland 1188 Glanvill's Tractatus first appeared 1189 Died, near Tours, France 1180 Ranulf Glanvill appointed chief justiciar of England ◆◆◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆◆◆ ❖ ❖ Henry II of England. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 264 HENCEFORTH rulers. Henry’s many innovations in civil and CRIMINAL PROCEDURE had a lasting effect upon ENGLISH LAW and his expansion of the royal court system made royal justice available throughout England. Building upon the earlier tradition of the inquest, Henry issued several assizes, or ordi- nances, that introduced the procedures that eventually developed into the GRAND JURY.He also developed a number of w rits to bring cases from the feudal courts of the barons into the royal courts. In addi tion, Henry sent itinerant justices on regular circuits through the kingdom to make royal justice more easily obtainable. Henry’s expansion of royal justice did, how ever, bring him into conflict with THOMAS BECKET , the archbishop of Canterbury, w ho opposed the king’s efforts to pu nish members of the clergy who had been convicted of crimes in ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS and removed from their clerical status. Becket was murdered in 1170 by some of the king’s men, though apparently not at his command, and Henry thereafter gave up his efforts to punish members of the clergy. Henry died July 6, 1189, near Tours, France. v HENRY, PATRICK Patrick Henry was a leading statesman and orator at the time of the American Revolutionary War. Several of Henry’sspeecheshaveremained vivid documents of the revolutionary period, with “Give me liberty or give me death” his most remembered statement. Henry was born May 29, 1736, in Hanover County, Vi rginia. Though Henry attended public school for a short time, he was largely taught by his father, who had a good education. From 1751 to 1760 Henry was a storekeeper and farmer. When his business and farming ventures failed, he turned to the study of law, and received his license to practice in 1760. Within three years Henry had become a prominent attorney, owing in great measure to his oratorical skills. He was drawn to politics, and was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses in 1765. In this colonial legislature, Henry became an outspoken criti c of British policies toward the 13 colonies. He introduced Patrick Henry 1736–1799 ❖ ❖ 1736 Born, Hanover County, Va. 1799 Elected to Va. legislature; died, Red Hill, Va. 1760 Admitted to Virginia bar 1774 Became member of the Virginia Provincial Convention when House of Burgesses dissolved 1765 Elected to Va. House of Burgesses; led effort to repeal Stamp Act 1766 Stamp Act repealed 1788 Attended Va. convention for the ratification of U.S. Constitution; advocated addition of the Bill of Rights 1775–83 American Revolution ▼▼ ▼▼ 17751775 18001800 17251725 17501750 1751–60 Worked as storekeeper and farmer ◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆ ◆ 1773 Joined Jefferson and Lee to form the Committee of Correspondence 1774–75 Attended First and Second Continental Congresses 1794 Retired to Red Hill, Va. 1776–79 and 1784–86 Served as governor of Virginia Patrick Henry. AP/WORLD WIDE PHOTOS GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION HENRY, PATRICK 265 seven resolutions against the STAMP ACT, which levied a tax by requiring that stamps be affixed to documents and other papers. In one speech opposing the act, he stated, “If this be TREASON, make the most of it.” Henry’s efforts led the Virginia House of Burgesses to pass five of the seven resolutions he introduced. All seven resolutions were reprinted in newspapers as the Virginia Resolves. Colonial businesspeople, in support of the resolves, agreed not to import British goods until the Stamp Act was repealed. Trade diminished, and business owners refused to use the stamps on business documents. Faced with organized resistance in the colonies, and the displeasure of British businesses that had lost trade, the British Parliament repealed the Stamp Act on March 4, 1766. Henry grew more radical after the repeal of the act, arguing that the colonies should break away from Great Britain. In 1773 he joined with THOMAS JEFFERSON and Richard Henry Lee to form the Committe e of Correspondence to transmit messages throughout the colonies. When the House of Burgesses was dissolved in 1774 he became a member of the Virginia Provincial Convention, which advocated revo- lution. Before this convention, he made his most famous remarks, words that became the clarion call that led the colonies into revolution: “I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death.” During 1774 and 1775 Henry attended the First CONTINEN TAL CONGRESS as a member of the Virgin ia delegation, advocating military mobilization. When the Second Continental Congress convened in 1775, he helped draft the legislation that organized the Contine ntal Army. In 1776 he also helped draft the Virginia Constitution. In 1776 Henry was elected governor of the newly independent commonwealth of Virginia. A tireless administrator, Henry worked vigor- ously to meet the demands of the Revolutionary War. As commander in chief, he recruited the state’s quota of 6,000 men for the Continental Army, plus the state militia’s allotment of five thousand soldiers. After the war, Henry continued as governor, eventually serving five terms. During his second term, Henry provided supplies to George Rogers Clark for his expedition to the Northwest Territory. Clark rid the territory of British control. In 1788 Henry attended the Virginia convention for the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. Henry opposed ratification, fear- ing that it imperiled the rights of states and individuals, but Virginia ratified it. Henry successfully advocated the addition of the BILL OF RIGHTS to the document. This first ten amendments to the Constitution protec t the rights of states and individuals, allowing Henry to support the Constitution. Following ratification, Henry was offered many government posts, but was forced to resume his Virginia law practice to rescue himself from personal debt. He quickly became a wealthy man , because his fame attracted many clients. In 1794 he retired to his estate at Red Hill, near Appomattox, Virginia. Despite his new wealth, Henry refused pleas to resume public service, turning down President George Washington’s request to serve as chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Washington finally persuaded Henry to seek election to the Virginia legislature. Henry won election in 1799. He died June 6, 1799, before he could take office. FURTHER READINGS Mayer, Henry. 2001. A Son of Thunder: Patrick Henry and the American Republic. New York: Grove. Rivkin, Victoria. 1998. “Patrick Henry.” New York Law Journal 220 (August 24): 4. Wirt, William. 2009. Sketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry. Carlisle, MA: Applewood. HEREAFTER In the future. The term hereafter is always used to indicate a future time—to the exclusion of both the past and present—in legal documents, statutes, and other similar papers. HEREDITAMENT Anything that can be passed by an individual to heirs. There are two types of hereditaments: cor- poreal and incorporeal. A corporeal heredi tament is a permanent tangible object that can be seen and handled and is confined to the land. Materials, such as coal, timber, stone, or a house are common examples of this type of hereditament. THE BATTLE, SIR, IS NOT TO THE STRONG ALONE ; IT IS TO THE VIGILANT , THE ACTIVE , THE BRAVE. —PATRICK HENRY GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 266 HEREAFTER An incorporeal hereditament is an intangible right, which is not visible but is derived from real or PERSONAL PROPERTY. An easement is a classic example of this type of hereditament, since it is the right of one individual to use another’s property and can be inherited. HERITAGE FOUNDATION The HERITAGE FOUNDATION is a research and educational institute, popularly kno wn as a “think tank,” whose mission is to formu late and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited govern- ment, individual freedom, traditional values, and a strong national defense. Founded in 1973, the Heritage Foundation has proven to be effective, gaining nation al influence during the administrations of Presidents RONALD REAGAN and GEORGE H.W. BUSH. This influence grew in the 1990s, as conservative Republicans gained control of Congress in 1994. Speaker of the House NEWT GINGRICH of Georgia declared just after the 1994 election, “Heritage is, without question, the most far-reaching conservative organization in the country in the war of ideas, and one which has had a tremendous impact not just in Washington, but literally across the planet.” The Heritage Foundation is a nonpartisan, tax-exempt institution and is governed by an independent board of trustees. It relies on the private financial support of individuals, founda- tions, and corporations for its income and accepts no government funds and performs no contract work. Currently it receives support from more than 200,000 contributors. Its headquarters are in Washington, D.C. The staff of the Heritage Foundation includes policy and research analysts who examine issues in a wide variety of fields, including the legislative and executive branches of government, domestic policy, education, corporations, foreign policy, the UNITED NATIONS, Asian studies, and other areas of public concern. Once the researchers have made their findings, the foundation markets the results to its primary audiences: members of Congress, key congressional staff members, policy makers in the EXECUTIVE BRANCH,the news media, and the academic and policy communities. The Heritage Foundation publicizes its work through weekly, monthly, and quarterly periodicals, including Policy Review. It also provides public speakers to promote its posi- tions and convenes conferences and meetings on policy issues. The Heritage Foundation has playe d an important role in advancing conservative ideas, especially after the election of Republican majorities in the U.S. House of Representatives and S enate in 1994. The Republican “Contract with America” agenda sought major changes in the size and power of the federal government. Heritage Foundation staff played a key role behind the scenes in helping to craft and refine legislative proposals. The overhaul of the system of agricultural subsidies and the first comprehensive rewriting of the telecommuni- cations law embraced free-market approaches advocated by the foundation. Its research and proposals also shaped the 1996 welfare reform bill. This was followed by a period of intensive fund-raising and recruitment of members in such initiatives as the Leadership for America campaign. This activity led to the Heritage Foundation e xceeding its two-year goal of $85 million in donations. In 2001 the H eritage Foundation actively supported a program of sweeping federal tax reforms that were eventu- ally signed into law by President GEORGE W. BUSH. FURTHER READINGS Berkowitz, Bill. 2008. “The Heritage Foundation at 35.” (March 3). The Heritage Foundation. Available online at http://www. heritage.org (accessed July 29, 2009). “The Think Tank Index.” 2009. Foreign Policy. CROSS REFERENCE Lobbying. HIERARCHY A group of people who form an ascending chain of power or authority. Officers in a government, for example, form an escalating series of ranks or degrees of power, with each rank subject to the authority of the one on the next level above. In a majority of hierarchical arrangements, there are a larger number of people at the bottom than at the top. Originally, the term was used to mean government by a body of priests. Currently, a hierarchy is used to denote any body of individuals arranged or classified according to capacity, authority, position, or rank. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION HIERARCHY 267 . at University of Tübingen 1807 The Phenomenology of the Mind published 1818 Appointed professor at University of Berlin 1831 Died, Berlin, Germany ▼▼ ▼▼ 17 751 7 75 18 251 8 25 1 850 1 850 18001800 17 75 83 American. 1133–1189 ▼▼ ▼▼ 11 251 1 25 12001200 11 751 1 75 1 150 1 150 1133 Born, LeMans, France 1 150 Became Duke of Normandy 1 152 Became Duke of Aquitaine after marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine 1 153 Invaded England. convention for the ratification of U.S. Constitution; advocated addition of the Bill of Rights 17 75 83 American Revolution ▼▼ ▼▼ 17 751 7 75 18001800 17 251 7 25 1 750 1 750 1 751 –60 Worked as storekeeper and