Balkinization   |
Balkinization
Balkinization Symposiums: A Continuing List                                                                E-mail: Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu David Luban david.luban at gmail.com Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu Compendium of posts on Hobby Lobby and related cases The Anti-Torture Memos: Balkinization Posts on Torture, Interrogation, Detention, War Powers, and OLC The Anti-Torture Memos (arranged by topic) Recent Posts Legitimacy and Activism: Take Two
|
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
Legitimacy and Activism: Take Two
Anonymous
What I’ve said so far is that there is an important distinction between the requirements of the Constitution and the rules that courts apply to determine whether those requirements have been violated. In the academic literature, recent articles have called the former “operative propositions” and the latter “decision rules.” Here I am calling them “constitutional meaning” and “doctrine” in the hopes that the terminology will be a little more familiar to readers. (Any suggestions for alternatives for the book would be welcome.) And I’ve suggested that keeping this distinction in mind helps us evaluate doctrine and also handle some theoretical problems. I’m going to start with the theory, because it helps develop the perspective I will bring to the doctrinal analysis. First up is the debate over popular constitutionalism. Popular constitutionalism, championed perhaps most notably in Larry Kramer’s recent book The People Themselves, suggests that the Supreme Court should not be the only interpreter of the Constitution, or even the most important one. The ultimate interpreter of a law, popular constitutionalism suggests, should be the lawgiving sovereign. Hence state courts have the last word on the meaning of state law, and federal courts do with respect to federal law. The Constitution, however, is not ordinary law created by the federal government; it is higher law created by the People, and the People should therefore be the ultimate authority. At the least, popular constitutionalism suggests, the Court should pay some attention to the interpretations of coordinate branches of government, which may tend to be more representative of the People. The current Supreme Court is notoriously hostile to the idea of popular constitutionalism, and the theme of constitutional interpretation as the Court’s jealously-guarded prerogative runs through a number of recent decisions. Most notably, in its cases dealing with Congress’s power to legislate to enforce the 14th Amendment, the Court has demanded that enforcement legislation track the Court’s practice. Section 5 of the 14th Amendment gives Congress the power to deter or remedy violations of the other sections, the Court says, but a state practice is a violation if and only if the Court would hold it unconstitutional. Congress cannot decide that some practice is unconstitutional and prohibit it on those grounds; it must follow the Court’s lead, because only the Court has the power to decide what the 14th Amendment forbids. Thus, for instance, Congress can legislate to deter or remedy discrimination against people with disabilities under Section 5 only if that discrimination is irrational, because it is only irrational discrimination that the Court will strike down as unconstitutional under Section 1. Here the dispute between popular constitutionalism and judicial exclusivity is clearly joined: the popular constitutionalists suggest that Congress should be allowed to legislate according to its own interpretation of the 14th Amendment, and the judicial exclusivists (including the I said last time that the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause was something like “The government may not treat people differently without adequate justification” and that the tiers of scrutiny that have developed as a matter of doctrine were driven by various considerations about when legislatures are superior decisionmakers. A slightly different way of putting this, one that the Supreme Court has used frequently, is that the Equal Protection Clause forbids invidious discrimination—discrimination motivated by hostility or a lack of concern for the welfare of its targets. Assume for the moment that this is what the Court thinks. The next question is what doctrinal rules the Court will adopt to implement the ban on invidious discrimination. In most circumstances, the Court applies rational basis review, which is essentially equivalent to leaving the matter with more representative government actors. In some cases, it applies heightened scrutiny, which reflects the judgment that there are reasons to suspect that the other government actors cannot be trusted. The model of the relationship between doctrine and meaning I develop suggests that rational basis review is doctrine that tends to underenforce constitutional meaning—it will fail to catch some acts of discrimination that are in fact invidious. Heightened scrutiny is doctrine that tends to overenforce constitutional meaning—it will strike down some acts of discrimination that are in fact not invidious. If this is the case, then Congress in legislating to enforce the Equal Protection clause should be allowed to deter or remedy discrimination against people with disabilities if that discrimination is invidious, not only if it is irrational. This would be so not because Congress has an independent power to interpret the Equal Protection Clause but because the tiers of scrutiny are rules that guide judicial decisionmaking and need not apply to Congressional determinations of invidiousness. That takes us a significant way towards the popular constitutionalist results, but it does so while maintaining judicial supremacy in constitutional interpretation, something that Larry Sager recognized in the article I mentioned last time. (It is, in fact, the approach the Supreme Court used to take, until it turned away in City of But here an objection might arise: why should the Court care what Congress thinks is invidious? Shouldn’t the question be what the drafters (or, more precisely, the ratifiers) of the 14th Amendment thought was invidious? This is a useful objection because it brings up the second theoretical topic: originalism vs. the living constitution. This is one of the standard debates of constitutional theory: should judges be able to change the meaning of the Constitution to adapt it to the changing needs of society, or should constitutional change be reserved to the article V amendment process and the Constitution enforced according to the original understanding of its terms? The debate is a standard, but I think it is quite overblown. As Jack Balkin has recently suggested on this blog, there’s a difference between the meaning of a constitutional provision and its range of application. (A comment on that post suggested that this is similar to Gottlob Frege’s distinction between sense and reference, which I think is actually quite a good way of putting it for those with a background in analytic philosophy.) That is, a constitutional provision saying that the President must have attained 35 years of age will make some people eligible in 1789 and other people eligible in 2000. A provision directing Senators to dress in “the latest fashions” (that one doesn’t exist) would direct one style of dress when ratified and another one now. Or more generally: if the application of a constitutional provision depends on current circumstances, the outcomes of cases under that provision will change as time passes without any sort of change in its meaning. With provisions like that, we can follow the original understanding while not reaching the same results that the ratifiers would have The big question, of course, is which constitutional provisions are of that sort. The one the Court has identified most explicitly is the 8th Amendment’s cruel and unusual punishment clause, which, it has said, reflects the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a civilized society. Originalists tend to think that we should be asking instead what was considered cruel and unusual in 1789. But anyone writing a constitution intended to endure for the ages would be unlikely to intend that approach. It will give you a set of prohibitions almost certain to lose fit with societal understandings. Either society will get more sensitive—no one would think of drawing and quartering anymore—and the 8th amendment will become irrelevant; or it will become less sensitive—we’ll come to see that drawing and quartering really isn’t so bad—and the amendment will start to seem an annoying and pointless restriction. Neither of these alternatives makes a lot of sense. And it’s worth noting that when the constitution writers did think that highly specific practices were so bad that they should not be allowed, they’ve been able to list them—no ex post facto laws, no bills of attainder, no quartering of troops in houses in peacetime. No slavery. No alcohol—that one didn’t really stand the test of time, but it’s certainly specific. Cruel and unusual punishment doesn’t sound like those. But that’s a relatively minor example. The Equal Protection Clause is a bigger one. As I’ve mentioned already, the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause is that states can’t discriminate invidiously. They can’t treat people differently without a legitimate reason. An originalist would say that in order to figure out what the equal protection clause prohibits, we need to ask what the drafters and ratifiers thought it prohibited. What did they think was invidious discrimination? What did they think was a legitimate reason for differential treatment? Let’s consider a couple of answers to these questions. The drafters almost certainly did not think that the equal protection clause prohibited segregated schools. The same congress that drafted the equal protection clause was running a segregated school system. They almost certainly did not think it prohibited bans on interracial marriage. And they almost certainly did not think it required states to allow women to practice law, or pursue most professions. The more interesting question is why they thought that these forms of discrimination were not invidious. For segregated schools, the answer probably has two components. One, they thought that blacks and whites were different enough that integrated schools were simply impossible. Two, relatedly, they thought that segregation was not stigmatizing or intended to promote notions of racial superiority—and if integration is just impossible, this is perhaps plausible. For marriage, they had available a substantial body of scientific literature telling them that interracial unions would produce monsters. And for excluding women from the practice of law, as Justice Bradley put it, concurring in a decision that allowed Illinois to do just that, they had the rationale that, “the natural timidity and delicacy of the female evidently unfits her for many of the occupations of civil life.” So what are women to do? Well, Bradley went on to explain that “[t]he paramount destiny and mission of woman are to fulfill the noble and benign offices of wife and mother. This is the law of the Creator.” None of the rationales I’ve just listed is something that’s within the mainstream of public opinion today. None of them looks legitimate. If someone tried to defend discrimination on these grounds, the response would be that he’s racist, or sexist, or just plain crazy. So what is the Supreme Court to do? Originalism seems to suggest that it should enforce these understandings anyway: it should say, sorry, this is what the Constitution means, and although these attitudes may seem reprehensible or factually wrong, fidelity to the Constitution requires us to continue to apply them. There is an opinion that takes much this approach, but it is not one that the Court relies on much nowadays. It is Dred Scott, where Taney invoked the supposed racism of the Framers to conclude that blacks could never be citizens entitled to invoke diversity jurisdiction. But the argument against this approach is not just guilt by association. If you think about what the ratifiers would have expected to happen to value-laden provisions like the Equal Protection Clause over the course of time, I think it’s much more likely that they would expect future understandings of invidiousness to govern. If the equal protection clause prohibits only what its drafters thought at the time was invidious, it will rapidly become either irrelevant or unduly constraining, like a time-bound 8th Amendment. It would be a more sensible constitutional provision if it let subsequent generations come to their own conclusions about what is invidious. This is, of course, a supposition that historical research might defeat, but I have never seen a defense of originalism that attempts to do so, and the scholarship I have seen, like Jeff Powell’s The Original Understanding of Original Intent, tends to support it. The distinction that I have relied on so far is basically the distinction between the meaning of a constitutional provision and the range of its application. Jack pointed out that we can adhere to the original meaning, or original understanding, while not retaining the same range of application. I add the suggestion that this interpretive approach might very well be what the ratifiers expected would happen. This is not quite the same thing as the distinction between meaning and doctrine. That distinction comes in at a later stage in the argument, in order to explain how doctrine can change—the level of scrutiny applied to sex discrimination can increase, for instance—without the meaning of the Constitution changing. Once it decides that sex discrimination tends to be invidious, that is, the Court can change its doctrine in response without altering constitutional meaning. The general point is the same: the outcome of cases can change, and the doctrinal rules the Court applies can change, without there being any change in the meaning of the Constitution. Thus, originalism and the living constitution are not in fact the mutually exclusive alternatives that people tend to suppose. That concludes the preview of the theory part of the book. If you’re still reading, thanks—I’m not doing a great job of keeping this short, and I have some worries about how accessible it is, though I think that this blog has a pretty technically sophisticated readership. Tomorrow I will put together the perspectives of this post and the previous one and take a look at some cases.
Comments:
A problem I see here, is that about the time the Court was starting to consider whether sex discrimination was invidious, a constutional amendment was drafted, and submitted to the states, to make exactly that determination.
It was rejected. So, in essence, what the Court has done, is to ratify an amendment that the states refused to ratify. That's not circumventing Article V, that's negating it.
Obat sipilis atau raja singa
Obat sipilis herbal Obat sipilis murah Obat sipilis manjur Obat sipilis antibiotik Obat sipilis adalah Obat sipilis generik Obat sipilis ampuh Obat sipilis atau raja singa Obat sipilis herbal Obat sipilis murah Obat sipilis jogja Obat sipilis Yang manjur obat sipilis denature indonesia Obat sipilis resep dokter Obat sipilis paling manjur Obat sipilis pada wanita Obat sipilis paling ampuh Obat sipilis manjur Obat sipilis ampuh Obat sipilis atau raja singa Obat sipilis herbal Obat sipilis murah Obat sipilis ampuh Obat sipilis atau raja singa Obat sipilis herbal Obat sipilis murah Obat sipilis jogja Obat sipilis apotik Obat sipilis apa ya Obat sipilis akut Obat sipilis amoxilin
ramuan obat herpes tradisional
resep obat herpes ramuan obat herpes obat herpes kulit ringan obat herpes selain acyclovir obat herpes salep acyclovir obat herpes secara alami obat herpes sembuh total obat herpes selangkangan Obat kutil kelamin/jengger ayam Obat kutil kelamin paling murah Obat kutil kelamin dari dalam Obat antibiotik kutil kelamin Obat kutil kelamin yang dijual di apotik Beli obat kutil kelamin di apotik Nama obat kutil kelamin di apotek Obat kutil kelamin yang tersedia di apotik Cuka apel obat kutil kelamin Obat ampuh menghilangkan kutil kelamin Obat alami menyembuhkan kutil kelamin Obat apotek untuk kutil kelamin Apa obat untuk kutil kelamin Obat alami untuk mengobati kutil kelamin Obat kutil kelamin yang ada di apotik Obat kutil kelamin bandung Beli obat kutil kelamin Dimana beli obat kutil kelamin
Obat tradisional buat kutil kelamin
Obat salep buat kutil kelamin Www.obat kutil kelamin.com Obat cina kutil kelamin Cuka obat kutil kelamin Obat cina untuk kutil kelamin obat herpes secara tradisional obat herpes soster obat herpes selain asiklovir obat herpes simplex untuk ibu hamil obat herpes simplex pada anak obat herpes simplex adalah obat sakit herpes kulit obat salep herpes zoster obat salep herpes kelamin obat herpes tradisional Obat kutil kelamin yang untuk wanita hamil obat kutil di sekitar kelamin obat sakit kutil kelamin obat kutil kelamin terbaik obat kutil kelamin salep obat kutil kelamin terbaru obat tradisional kutil kelamin obat tradisional untuk kutil kelamin obat herbal untuk kutil kelamin obat tradisional untuk menyembuhkan kutil kelamin obat kutil kelamin yang tersedia di apotek
Obat wasir alami yang ampuh
Obat wasir anoral Obat wasir ambeven Obat wasir ardium hd Obat wasir berdarah di apotik Obat wasir bentuk peluru Obat wasir bengkak Obat wasir boraginol Obat wasir bagus Obat wasir paling ampuh Obat wasir ardium Obat wasir di apotik Obat wasir luar Obat wasir ampuh di apotik Obat wasir alami dari tumbuhan Obat wasir untuk ibu menyusui Obat wasir parah Obat wasir venaron Obat wasir dalam Obat wasir alami bagus Obat wasir ampuh tanpa operasi Obat wasir ambeien Obat wasir ambeclear Obat wasir akut Obat wasir atau ambeien Obat wasir aman untuk ibu hamil Obat wasir ampuh bagus Obat wasir alami untuk ibu hamil Obat wasir anak Cuka apel obat kutil kelamin Obat ampuh menghilangkan kutil kelamin Obat alami menyembuhkan kutil kelamin Obat apotek untuk kutil kelamin Apa obat untuk kutil kelamin
Obat sipilis Obat kutil kelamin obat wasir
Obat sipilis raja singa paling ampuh obat sipilis amoxicillin obat sipilis adalah obat sipilis atau raja singa obat sipilis apa obat sipilis anjuran dokter obat sipilis apa ya obat sifilis akut obat sipilis apa namanya obat alami sipilis pada pria obat antibiotik sipilis di apotik obat sifilis ampuh apa obat sipilis obat sifilis apotek obat sifilis adalah obat sifilis atau raja singa Cara paling ampuh mengobati kutil kelamin pengobatan ampuh kutil kelamin pada wanita obat kutil kelamin yang ada di apotik obat kutil kelamin yg dijual di apotik obat kutil di kemaluan wanita pengobatan kutil kelamin pada pria pengobatan penyakit kutil kelamin pada pria obat penyakit kutil pada kelamin pria Pengobatan kutil kelamin aman dan tanpa operasi obat kutil pada alat kelamin pria pengobatan kutil kelamin Obat herpes zoster tradisional Obat herpes untuk ibu hamil Obat herpes ampuh Obat herpes untuk anak Obat herpes mulut Obat herpes tradisional yang ampuh
Obat herpes untuk balita
Post a Comment
Obat herpes selain acyclovir Obat herpes di wajah Obat herpes alami Obat herpes di leher Obat salep buat kutil kelamin Obat cina kutil kelamin Cuka obat kutil kelamin Obat cina untuk kutil kelamin Obat cina penghilang kutil kelamin Obat china untuk kutil kelamin Obat kutil di kelamin pria Obat tradisional kutil di kelamin Obat kutil di daerah kelamin Obat untuk menghilangkan kutil di kelamin Obat sipilis Obat sipilis Yang manjur obat sipilis denature indonesia Obat sipilis resep dokter Obat sipilis paling manjur Obat sipilis pada wanita Obat sipilis paling ampuh Obat sipilis manjur Obat sipilis ampuh Obat sipilis atau raja singa Obat sipilis herbal Obat sipilis murah Obat sipilis anjuran dokter Obat sipilis apa namanya Obat sipilis dijual di apotik Obat alami sipilis pada pria Obat sifilis ampuh Obat sipilis buat wanita Obat sipilis bagi wanita Obat buat sipilis
|
Books by Balkinization Bloggers Linda C. McClain and Aziza Ahmed, The Routledge Companion to Gender and COVID-19 (Routledge, 2024) David Pozen, The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford University Press, 2024) Jack M. Balkin, Memory and Authority: The Uses of History in Constitutional Interpretation (Yale University Press, 2024) Mark A. Graber, Punish Treason, Reward Loyalty: The Forgotten Goals of Constitutional Reform after the Civil War (University of Kansas Press, 2023) Jack M. Balkin, What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Most Controversial Decision - Revised Edition (NYU Press, 2023) Andrew Koppelman, Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed (St. Martin’s Press, 2022) Gerard N. Magliocca, Washington's Heir: The Life of Justice Bushrod Washington (Oxford University Press, 2022) Joseph Fishkin and William E. Forbath, The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution: Reconstructing the Economic Foundations of American Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2022) Mark Tushnet and Bojan Bugaric, Power to the People: Constitutionalism in the Age of Populism (Oxford University Press 2021). Mark Philip Bradley and Mary L. Dudziak, eds., Making the Forever War: Marilyn B. Young on the Culture and Politics of American Militarism Culture and Politics in the Cold War and Beyond (University of Massachusetts Press, 2021). Jack M. Balkin, What Obergefell v. Hodges Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Same-Sex Marriage Decision (Yale University Press, 2020) Frank Pasquale, New Laws of Robotics: Defending Human Expertise in the Age of AI (Belknap Press, 2020) Jack M. Balkin, The Cycles of Constitutional Time (Oxford University Press, 2020) Mark Tushnet, Taking Back the Constitution: Activist Judges and the Next Age of American Law (Yale University Press 2020). Andrew Koppelman, Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty?: The Unnecessary Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2020) Ezekiel J Emanuel and Abbe R. Gluck, The Trillion Dollar Revolution: How the Affordable Care Act Transformed Politics, Law, and Health Care in America (PublicAffairs, 2020) Linda C. McClain, Who's the Bigot?: Learning from Conflicts over Marriage and Civil Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 2020) Sanford Levinson and Jack M. Balkin, Democracy and Dysfunction (University of Chicago Press, 2019) Sanford Levinson, Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (Duke University Press 2018) Mark A. Graber, Sanford Levinson, and Mark Tushnet, eds., Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? (Oxford University Press 2018) Gerard Magliocca, The Heart of the Constitution: How the Bill of Rights became the Bill of Rights (Oxford University Press, 2018) Cynthia Levinson and Sanford Levinson, Fault Lines in the Constitution: The Framers, Their Fights, and the Flaws that Affect Us Today (Peachtree Publishers, 2017) Brian Z. Tamanaha, A Realistic Theory of Law (Cambridge University Press 2017) Sanford Levinson, Nullification and Secession in Modern Constitutional Thought (University Press of Kansas 2016) Sanford Levinson, An Argument Open to All: Reading The Federalist in the 21st Century (Yale University Press 2015) Stephen M. Griffin, Broken Trust: Dysfunctional Government and Constitutional Reform (University Press of Kansas, 2015) Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Harvard University Press, 2015) Bruce Ackerman, We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution (Harvard University Press, 2014) Balkinization Symposium on We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution Joseph Fishkin, Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity (Oxford University Press, 2014) Mark A. Graber, A New Introduction to American Constitutionalism (Oxford University Press, 2013) John Mikhail, Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment (Cambridge University Press, 2013) Gerard N. Magliocca, American Founding Son: John Bingham and the Invention of the Fourteenth Amendment (New York University Press, 2013) Stephen M. Griffin, Long Wars and the Constitution (Harvard University Press, 2013) Andrew Koppelman, The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2013) James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain, Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues (Harvard University Press, 2013) Balkinization Symposium on Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues Andrew Koppelman, Defending American Religious Neutrality (Harvard University Press, 2013) Brian Z. Tamanaha, Failing Law Schools (University of Chicago Press, 2012) Sanford Levinson, Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (Oxford University Press, 2012) Linda C. McClain and Joanna L. Grossman, Gender Equality: Dimensions of Women's Equal Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, 2012) Mary Dudziak, War Time: An Idea, Its History, Its Consequences (Oxford University Press, 2012) Jack M. Balkin, Living Originalism (Harvard University Press, 2011) Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law (Stanford University Press, 2011) Richard W. Garnett and Andrew Koppelman, First Amendment Stories, (Foundation Press 2011) Jack M. Balkin, Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World (Harvard University Press, 2011) Gerard Magliocca, The Tragedy of William Jennings Bryan: Constitutional Law and the Politics of Backlash (Yale University Press, 2011) Bernard Harcourt, The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order (Harvard University Press, 2010) Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic (Harvard University Press, 2010) Balkinization Symposium on The Decline and Fall of the American Republic Ian Ayres. Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (Bantam Books, 2010) Mark Tushnet, Why the Constitution Matters (Yale University Press 2010) Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff: Lifecycle Investing: A New, Safe, and Audacious Way to Improve the Performance of Your Retirement Portfolio (Basic Books, 2010) Jack M. Balkin, The Laws of Change: I Ching and the Philosophy of Life (2d Edition, Sybil Creek Press 2009) Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton University Press 2009) Andrew Koppelman and Tobias Barrington Wolff, A Right to Discriminate?: How the Case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Warped the Law of Free Association (Yale University Press 2009) Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, The Constitution in 2020 (Oxford University Press 2009) Heather K. Gerken, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It (Princeton University Press 2009) Mary Dudziak, Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's African Journey (Oxford University Press 2008) David Luban, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007) Ian Ayres, Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-By-Numbers is the New Way to be Smart (Bantam 2007) Jack M. Balkin, James Grimmelmann, Eddan Katz, Nimrod Kozlovski, Shlomit Wagman and Tal Zarsky, eds., Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment (N.Y.U. Press 2007) Jack M. Balkin and Beth Simone Noveck, The State of Play: Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds (N.Y.U. Press 2006) Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale University Press 2006) Brian Tamanaha, Law as a Means to an End (Cambridge University Press 2006) Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution (Oxford University Press 2006) Mark Graber, Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (Cambridge University Press 2006) Jack M. Balkin, ed., What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said (N.Y.U. Press 2005) Sanford Levinson, ed., Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press 2004) Balkin.com homepage Bibliography Conlaw.net Cultural Software Writings Opeds The Information Society Project BrownvBoard.com Useful Links Syllabi and Exams |