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 "Tyranny": "Our Generation’s Version of the Alien and Sedition Acts"
|
Thursday, September 28, 2006
"Tyranny": "Our Generation’s Version of the Alien and Sedition Acts"
Marty Lederman
I don't recall ever having seen a more strongly worded New York Times editorial (see below). "The Democratic leadership in the Senate seems to have misplaced its spine." "Americans of the future won’t remember the pragmatic arguments for caving in to the administration. They’ll know that in 2006, Congress passed a tyrannical law that will be ranked with the low points in American democracy, our generation’s version of the Alien and Sedition Acts."
Comments:
Professor,
Thank you for listing the seven sane Republicans who voted against this heinous legislation. This really should not be a partisan issue; as Professor Levinson pointed out Republicans as well as Democrats should fear and oppose giving this kind of unchecked power to the executive branch. No party should have this kind of power. And I am saddened that any American party should want it; no responsible party would.
Professor Lederman:
These are some of the bill’s biggest flaws: Enemy Combatants: A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted. 1) As discussed in the posts in response to previous similar assertions below, the President has no authority under this bill to treat lawful enemy combatants or noncombatant civilians as unlawful enemy combatants. 2) US citizens who are also unlawful enemy combatants have constitutional rights which trump this legislation. 3) This bill does not give the President any power to detain enemy combatants for the duration of a conflict. The President already has an Article II power as CiC to do this. The Geneva Conventions: The bill would repudiate a half-century of international precedent by allowing Mr. Bush to decide on his own what abusive interrogation methods he considered permissible. And his decision could stay secret — there’s no requirement that this list be published. This is 180 degrees wrong. In this bill, Congress establishes what constitutes rights under and breaches of the Geneva Convention and allows the President to add (not subtract) to the list of forbidden acts. Habeas Corpus: Detainees in U.S. military prisons would lose the basic right to challenge their imprisonment. These cases do not clog the courts, nor coddle terrorists. They simply give wrongly imprisoned people a chance to prove their innocence. Foreign unlawful enemy combatants have never had habeus corpus rights under the Constitution until the court arrogated this power during this conflict. In the past, foreign enemy combatants only had the right to appeal sentences handed down by military commissions. This proposed legislation merely reinstates the status quo ante. The question is whether the Court will again ignore a limiting jurisdictional statute of Congress as they did in the Hamdan case. Moreover, the constant litigation has stopped the military commission process in it tracks for years now. Judicial Review: The courts would have no power to review any aspect of this new system, except verdicts by military tribunals. See above. This bill simply restores the status quo ante. The bill would limit appeals and bar legal actions based on the Geneva Conventions, directly or indirectly. Not really. Rather, Congress takes back its constitutional power to set rules for Captures arrogated by the courts by defining what constitutes rights and breaches of the Geneva Conventions and then by forbidding the Courts taking this power unto themselves in the future. All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is to declare him an illegal combatant and not have a trial. The President under Article II already has the power to detain enemy combatants for the duration of the conflict. This has always been the case. Trials are only for the purpose of imposing additional sanctions for war crimes. This bill covers the procedures for such trials. Coerced Evidence...Secret Evidence These are not US citizens, they are foreign enemy combatants who have no constitutional rights. This bill gives foreign unlawful enemy combatants far more rights that they had in the past. Throughout our history before we voluntarily treated Viet Cong unlawful combatants as POWs, our practice was to summarily execute unlawful enemy combatants found to be fighting as civilians or in our uniforms. Offenses: The definition of torture is unacceptably narrow, a virtual reprise of the deeply cynical memos the administration produced after 9/11. Hardly. This legislation borrows the long standing US definition of torture from the the Torture Convention. The memos to which you refer are simply legal analysis of how to apply that long standing definition of torture. They’ll know that in 2006, Congress passed a tyrannical law that will be ranked with the low points in American democracy, our generation’s version of the Alien and Sedition Acts. Please. This bill restores the status quo ante in several areas and grants unlawful enemy combatants far more due process rights than they have had historically.
Bart,
Why should I consider your analysis over that of the man recently described as the best of the nation's conlaw attorneys? My cursory read of the bill certainly falls in line with Professor Lederman's; your statements seem, frankly, partisan, and certainly out of step with the Lincoln quote in the masthead of your blog. Short of armed struggle between nations there can be no legitimate grant of war powers to the excecutive; short of invasion or rebellion there can be no legitimate abridgement of the writ of habeas corpus---or perhaps you can refute these two simple declarative statements?
Are these tribunals going to be presided over by military judges? My experience is that military judges on the whole have a pretty fair conception of legal rights and due process. I may be a bit optimistic, but I think people are jumping the gun by assuming that these people will be unfair to defendants. These judges are the final arbiter of such much according to these new procedures, so a lot depends on them. It can be a fiar process if the judges make it so.
And I would note that Bart blithely ignores what constitutes a "conflict" for the purposes of determining the scope of the alleged CiC powers laid out in Article II. Without debating whether such powers do, in fact, emanate from penumbras of Article II, we still need to know when a conflict exists that will trigger those powers. Just as importantly, when does the conflict end, such that the CiC powers go back in the box? Bart, of course, can't answer that, the RNC hasn't sent the talking points over yet....
Robert Link:
Bart, Why should I consider your analysis over that of the man recently described as the best of the nation's conlaw attorneys? This is a simple matter of history and statutory interpretation. If you can prove my points to be mistaken, go ahead. Citation to credentials is not an rebuttal of the historical and legal points I made. As to constitutional interpretation, I have a great deal of respect for Professor Lederman, but in a prior discussion Professor Lederman has admitted that he is a proponent of a "living Constitution." I suspect, therefore, that he is placing what he wants in his personal living Constitution as to the alleged constitutional rights of foreign enemy combatants. Short of armed struggle between nations there can be no legitimate grant of war powers to the excecutive; short of invasion or rebellion there can be no legitimate abridgement of the writ of habeas corpus---or perhaps you can refute these two simple declarative statements? I would be pleased to. 1) Article II CiC powers grant the President general authority over the military. These are not war powers per se nor have they ever been limited to periods of declared or undeclared wars. Moreover, wars are not limited to conflicts with nation states. Our history is filled with undeclared wars with irregular groups from the Indian Wars, the Philippines, Haiti, Nicaragua, etc. Naturally, our military captured and held enemy prisoners during these conflicts. They did so under the President's Article II CiC powers. 2) Once again, I am not aware of the US granting habeus corpus to unlawful enemy combatants fighting in civilian clothing or our uniforms as does al Qaeda. Perhaps Professor Lederman can provide us with examples of when this occurred in the past, but I have not seen any offered by proponents of extending HC to unlawful enemy combatants.
Bart: Sen. Specter addressed this every time he rose to speak on behalf of his amendment to preserve habeas rights, yesterday and this morning. The Constitution explicitly states that the writ is not to be denied except in cases of rebellion or invasion, and the Supreme Court in Rasul explicitly ruled that this right extended to any individual detained by the United States.
This is from memory of the Senator's remarks; feel free to correct them by consulting the Congressional Record for yesterday.
Kennedy offered an amendment prohibiting waterboarding:
S.AMDT.5088 SA 5088. Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, and Mrs. CLINTON) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 3930, to authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: On page 83, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following: (2) PROTECTION OF UNITED STATES PERSONS.--The Secretary of State shall notify other parties to the Geneva Conventions that-- (A) the United States has historically interpreted the law of war and the Geneva Conventions, including in particular common Article 3, to prohibit a wide variety of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of members of the United States Armed Forces and United States citizens; (B) during and following previous armed conflicts, the United States Government has prosecuted persons for engaging in cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, including the use of waterboarding techniques, stress positions, including prolonged standing, the use of extreme temperatures, beatings, sleep deprivation, and other similar acts; (C) this Act and the amendments made by this Act preserve the capacity of the United States to prosecute nationals of enemy powers for engaging in acts against members of the United States Armed Forces and United States citizens that have been prosecuted by the United States as war crimes in the past; and (D) should any United States person to whom the Geneva Conventions apply be subjected to any of the following acts, the United States would consider such act to constitute a punishable offense under common Article 3 and would act accordingly. Such acts, each of which is prohibited by the Army Field Manual include forcing the person to be naked, perform sexual acts, or pose in a sexual manner; applying beatings, electric shocks, burns, or other forms of physical pain to the person; waterboarding the person; using dogs on the person; inducing hypothermia or heat injury in the person; conducting a mock execution of the person; and depriving the person of necessary food, water, or medical care.
Nell said...
the Supreme Court in Rasul explicitly ruled that this right extended to any individual detained by the United States. I noted this in my original post: Foreign unlawful enemy combatants have never had habeus corpus rights under the Constitution until the court arrogated this power during this conflict. I apologize if my latter post was unclear. For what it is worth, I strongly disagree with the Court's ruling in Rasul. Extending habeus corpus rights to foreign enemy combatants detained overseas, whether lawful or unlawful, was a radical overreach of judicial power at odds with the prior two centuries of deferring establishment of the rules for captures to the Executive and Congress. Congress shares my disagreement. This will be the second statute Congress has enacted under its Article I power to set the jurisdiction for federal courts attempting to stop this overreach. Bart: Sen. Specter addressed this every time he rose to speak on behalf of his amendment to preserve habeas rights, yesterday and this morning. The Constitution explicitly states that the writ is not to be denied except in cases of rebellion or invasion... The Rasul court extended habeus rights to enemy combatants held overseas pursuant to its interpretation of previously enacted congressional statutes establishing the jurisdiction of federal courts. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a), (c)(3). What Congress can grant by statute, Congress can take away. It is true that Article I, Section 9(2) states: "The privilege of the Writ Habeus Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." The provision indicates that the writ as envisioned by the Founders was limited to the boundaries of the United States because the wartime events which allowed the suspension of the writ are both domestic - rebellion or invasion. These prisoners were captured and held overseas. To the extent this provision can be held as applying to overseas enemy combatants, al Qaeda has repeatedly invaded or attempted to invade the United States. Therefore, Congress can suspend the writ for this enemy. Finally, Article III allows Congress to establish inferior courts to consider Writs of Habeas Corpus. Congress has designated military commissions to conduct combatant status hearings which are the equivalent of consideration of a domestic writ of habeas corpus.
Bart says "US citizens who are also unlawful enemy combatants have constitutional rights which trump this legislation."
There is great irony here. In trying to defend this bill and the President, Bart instead outlined grounds for impeachment. The President isn't supposed to sign unconstitutional bills, Bart.
Bart,
Apologies for the veiled ad hominem; that's the not level of discourse I aspire to, and I appreciate your gracious response. Bart: ...They did so under the President's Article II CiC powers. That would seem to obviate the need for passage of the AUMF, as well as the AUMF's direct reference to the war powers act. The better reading would seem to be that Congress fallaciously and unconstitutionally gave legislative embodiment to the rhetoric of war and granted war powers to the executive in the passage of AUMF. Bart:I am not aware of the US granting habeus corpus to unlawful enemy combatants fighting in civilian clothing or our uniforms as does al Qaeda. You seem to contradict this in another comment, but I think you mean that such protections are not derived from the Constitution but rather from acts of Congress. Still, taken at face value the quoted statement ignores the dangers in this bill's definition of "unlawful enemy combatant," a definition which, by its letter, could be used against the seven Republicans who voted against it, requiring only that their vote is "determined by or under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense...to have supported hostilities in aid of such a force or organization so engaged." This does not appear to concern you, but frightens many of us mightily. It is true that I only noted the term "unlawful enemy combatant" once separate from the modifier "alien", but that does nothing to allay my fears.
Tonal Crow said...
Bart DePalma wrote: ------ It is true that Article I, Section 9(2) states: "The privilege of the Writ Habeus Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." The provision indicates that the writ as envisioned by the Founders was limited to the boundaries of the United States because the wartime events which allowed the suspension of the writ are both domestic - rebellion or invasion. ------ This is an unjustified inference. The President's powers arise entirely from the Constitution, as do the powers of congress and of the federal judiciary. All of these powers are contrived to act as checks on the other. It breaks the symmetry of this set of checks to conclude that the President has power to act beyond our borders but that the other branches do not. Similarly it breaks this symmetry to conclude that our rights under the Constitution are territorially limited. And both breaks in symmetry are unsupported by the Constitution's text. In the area of making rules for captures, the Supreme Court in Hamdan recognized that the President has the first word as CiC and Congress has the final word under Article I. The Court is not here to check either branch. They are a referee applying (not rewriting) the rules created by the other two branches. Nothing in the bill on the senate floor confines its application to prisoners captured overseas. This is true. However, this bill does limit the military commissions to aliens and all those set to be tried are aliens captured and held overseas. You do raise an interesting question of what rules apply to alien enemy combatants caught inside the US. They have traditionally been tried in civilian courts or under the rules of courts martial by a military court. Bart: To the extent this provision can be held as applying to overseas enemy combatants, al Qaeda has repeatedly invaded or attempted to invade the United States. Therefore, Congress can suspend the writ for this enemy. You say, "for this enemy," but the suspension is far broader, and encompasses anyone that the President or SoD, in their sole discretion, consider to be an "unlawful enemy combatant." As I stated above, I do not believe that any habeas rights under the Constitution extend to foreign enemy combatants. The Court in Rasul was interpreting a statute about to be changed, not the Constitution. So there should be no problem in the first instance. However, your argument really goes to my next point... Bart: Finally, Article III allows Congress to establish inferior courts to consider Writs of Habeas Corpus. Congress has designated military commissions to conduct combatant status hearings which are the equivalent of consideration of a domestic writ of habeas corpus. Only if they include all the rights ordinarily attaching to the writ. Otherwise they operate as a suspension and must obey the Suspension Clause. Not if any constitutional (rather than statutory) right to Habeas Corpus is limited to United States territory.
JoshR said...
Enemy Combatants: A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted. Bart: As discussed in the posts in response to previous similar assertions below, the President has no authority under this bill to treat lawful enemy combatants or noncombatant civilians as unlawful enemy combatants. What prevents the President from interpreting the statute in the way Marty claims it can be interpreted? The letter of this law. We can play what ifs all day, but right now all we have is the law. 2) US citizens who are also unlawful enemy combatants have constitutional rights which trump this legislation. In your opinion, does this legislation violate the constitutional rights of US citizens? By the terms of this new law, only aliens are subject to military commissions and the limits on habeas corpus. I don't see where this legislation authorizes the Executive to violate a citizen's constitutional rights. The limitation of military commissions and their more limited procedural rights to aliens means by default that citizen unlawful combatants must be tried under UCMJ or civilian rules.
It seems some of these comments are stuck on arguing whether this law specifically targets citizens. The real argument is that over the past 5 years or so, we're being led faster and faster into a reality where the United States Constitution means absolutely nothing.
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
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
Cara ampuh mengobati kutil kelamin tanpa operasi
obat kutil kelamin untuk ibu hamil obat kutil kelamin tanpa operasi obat kutil kelamin kaskus obat kutil kelamin dokter obat kutil kelamin mujarab obat kutil kelamin di jakarta obat kutil kelamin untuk wanita obat kutil kelamin/jengger ayam obat kutil kelamin surabaya obat kutil kelamin yang ada di apotik obat kutil kelamin bandung Kapur sirih untuk obat kutil kelamin Obat kutil kelamin medis Obat menghilangkan kutil kelamin Obat menyembuhkan kutil kelamin Obat tradisional menyembuhkan kutil kelamin Obat minum untuk kutil kelamin Obat medis untuk kutil kelamin Merek obat kutil kelamin Obat kutil kelamin de nature Nama obat kutil kelamin Obat tradisional buat sipilis Obat herbal buat sipilis Obat dokter buat sipilis Obat generik buat sipilis Obat sipilis dengan bayam duri Obat sipilis yang bagus Obat china sipilis Cara obat sipilis di apotik
Cara obat sipilis pada pria
Cari obat sipilis Contoh obat sipilis http://agusus1.blogspot.com/ http://agusyafii.blogspot.com/ http://amateursexxxx.blogspot.co.id/ Obat jengger ayam obat jengger ayam pada wanita obat jengger ayam pada anus obat jengger ayam di anus obat jengger ayam hitam obat sakit jengger ayam obat penyakit jengger ayam pada pria obat penghilang jengger ayam harga obat jengger ayam obat apotik jengger ayam obat dokter jengger ayam obat herbal untuk jengger ayam obat penyakit kulit jengger ayam Cara mengobati jengger ayam ampuh Cara paling ampuh mengobati gonore atau kencing nanah nama obat gonore di apotek obat oral gonore obat gonore propolis obat gonore pdf obat penyakit gonore obat paten gonore obat penderita gonore resep obat penyakit gonore obat cina penyakit gonore obat dari penyakit gonore
Cara ampuh mengobati kutil kelamin tanpa operasi
Post a Comment
obat kutil kelamin untuk ibu hamil obat kutil kelamin tanpa operasi obat kutil kelamin kaskus obat kutil kelamin dokter obat kutil kelamin mujarab obat kutil kelamin di jakarta obat kutil kelamin untuk wanita obat kutil kelamin/jengger ayam obat kutil kelamin surabaya obat kutil kelamin yang ada di apotik obat kutil kelamin bandung Kapur sirih untuk obat kutil kelamin Obat kutil kelamin medis Obat menghilangkan kutil kelamin Obat menyembuhkan kutil kelamin Obat tradisional menyembuhkan kutil kelamin Obat minum untuk kutil kelamin Obat medis untuk kutil kelamin Merek obat kutil kelamin Obat kutil kelamin de nature Nama obat kutil kelamin Obat tradisional buat sipilis Obat herbal buat sipilis Obat dokter buat sipilis Obat generik buat sipilis Obat sipilis dengan bayam duri Obat sipilis yang bagus Obat china sipilis Cara obat sipilis di apotik
|
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 |