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 Two types of constitutional crises
|
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Two types of constitutional crises
Sandy Levinson
As 738 days remain in the Bush presidency, I offer the following analysis of two distinct types of constitutional crises. The first might be described as actions that run counter to the Constitution, so that the "crisis" is defiance of presumptive constitutional imits. We have obviously had a lot of discussion of whether Bush's NSA policies and the like represent this kind of crisis. (One can obviously discuss a great deal of other presidential actions of more admired presidents in the same vein, the most prominent example obviously being Abrham Lincoln.)
Comments:
May I recommend Mark Brandon's FREE IN THE WORLD, a fascinating study of the way the constitution inflamed slavery debates, for those interested in exploring the different forms of constitutional crises and failures. The first chapter, in particular, has a nice typology of the different ways in which a constitution might be said to fail.
I agree this is a useful distinction, and would add that a whole lot of constitutional theory is motivated by a desire to deny the existence of Type 2 crises by transforming them into something else.
The last few months of the Nixon presidency might qualify as a Type 2 crisis as well. Luckily Nixon had the decency -- or perhaps merely the sanity -- not to drag things out for several more months after the party elders made the kind of visit to him that I can only wish GWB will get sometime in the near future.
Many thanks to Paul Campos for his support of the distinction. To what extent might party elders be putting off a visit to George W. Bush becasue the alternative is Dick Cheney. Convincing Bush to resign might be a "piece of cake" compared to doing the same with Chaney. And then, of course, there's the Pelosi problem. The "answer" is for Cheney to resign first, for the Congress to confirm a respectred successor ASAP, and then for Bush to resign. But the very suggestion simply underscores the barriers put by the Constitution to resolving a crisis of the type we're discussing. Thank goodness that Spiro Agnew's corruption was uncovered in time to get Gerry Ford confirmed. Just imagine how much worse things might have been had it been disclosed only in the last days of the Nixon Administration. Would Nixon have felt the same pressure from party elders to get the hell out had Carl Albert been the beneficiary?
I also agree with Mark Graber tha Mark Brandon's book offers a good discussion of the "type 2" problem, as does Mark Graber's book itself, of course.
I'm reading Sandy's new book now -- chalk up another sale to Balkinization -- and find his arguments on this general topic compelling. (For me, the Bush administration is having the same cognitive effect that Samuel Johnson ascribed to a noose).
But in the short run, we're stuck with this extremely dysfunctional and dangerous set of rules. What sort of legal "workaround" might be contrived? Assume that things in Iraq continue to deteriorate. By this summer, or certainly by the fall at the latest, the Republican party will be in a well-justified panic that they might suffer a epochal wipeout in the 2008 election. (I think the fact that the three main contenders for the Republican nomination continue to support Bush's Iraq policy represents a bad miscalculation on their parts. I understand that as of today it would be difficult to win the Republican nomination while dissenting on Iraq, because of the peculiar nature of primary elections, but if things continue to go downhill then no candidate that continues to support Bush on Iraq will have any chance in the general election. I wouldn't be surprised to see Brownback or someone else taking a similar position end up winning the nomination for that reason alone). Anyway, the safe bet with Iraq is that as bad as things look at any particular moment, they'll look a lot worse six months or a year from now. So, what to do? As Sandy points out Dick Cheney and Nancy Pelosi are unacceptable alternatives for different but equally powerful reasons. And I don't think it's completely unrealistic to expect that, in an act of self-preservation, the powers that be in the Republican party will let Cheney know that he needs to discover a "health" problem that requires his resignation. Could we end up with President Lugar before the end of the year? (Scarier thought: President Rice) I don't think it's out of the question. But all this just underscores Sandy's argument about what an absurd rigamarole the Constitution requires us to contemplate just to get rid of dead presidency. And this is the second time this has happened in little more than 30 years -- an eyeblink in historical terms.
Perhaps "Type 2" crisis are instances in which a dysfuntional text (e.g. extended transition) leads to a situation that is at odds with the underlying principles (e.g. democratic government).
Well the solution to this is simple enough: impeach both Bush and Cheney at the same.
And much as I share many of Sandy's problems with the Constitution, all we're really talking about is the difference between being able to get rid of the President my a simple majority "no-confidence" vote, and frankly, I'm not sure that's necessarily better. Our current setup presumes that you need more than a simple majority to make such a change, and frankly, I don't really see the present situation as a critical test case... The reality is that getting rid of these criminals should have 90% support or more right now, and the fact that it doesn't and these people are still in office isn't the fault of the system, it's the fault of our population. It doesn't really matter if the car is a new Mercedes or semi-truck or a dune buggy if the driver is a two-year-old who doesn't know how to drive. Cheney ain't the only one with a few loose screws.
I don't see any problem at all with Pelosi taking over, and I especially don't see any problem with her being commander in Chief. Being in Congress for 20+ years is way better preparation for that role than Clinton, Bush 2, or Reagan had... And being a mother of five is surely a better qualification than being a philanderer, a drunk, or a movie actor.
Is it possible that the Constitution's impeachment provisions are sufficient to cure this seeming defect, and the problem isn't a Type 1 crisis at all?
Perhaps the current problem is a Type 2 crisis, in that Congress's unwillingness to use the impeachment provision render it ineffective. A 'conviction' by the Senate in an impeachment proceeding is a purely political maneuver, perhaps tantamount to a vote of no confidence in parliamentary systems. The 2/3 requirement prevents whimsical (over)use of impeachment, preventing someone like Newt Gingrich in the 90s from hijacking the government. Can 'high crimes and misdemeanors' be satisfied by purely (and overwhelming) political missteps, rather than any criminal violation?
The recently canonized Gerald Ford once memorably declared, with regard to his move to impeach William O. Douglas, that an impeachable offense is whatever the House says it is (presuming the Senate goes along and convicts). As a matter of fact, the public didn't buy Ford's argument then, which seemed too cynical by half. Moreover, dedicated defenders of Bill Clinton reinforced the notion that impeachment requires a genuine high crime and misdemeanor. Perjury and disgracing the office didn't count. Thus it would ill behoove such Democrats to be more latitudinarian now.
Charles Gittings would argue, perhaps correctly, that Bush has committed such crimes. The problem is that this is in fact a controversial position, and Republican lawyers will argue, unfrivolously, that Bush is not a constitutional criminal. One of my objections to the present impeachment system is precisely that it invites legalalistic argument instead of an appeal to what the ordinary citizen can readily understand, that we are currently at the mercy of a dangously incompetent President. Frank Rich has a column in tomorrow's New York Times that ends with the notion/fantasy that Republican elders will pay a visit to Bush and tell him that its time to leave. However much they might be tempted to do so, I don't think this is realistic for reasons I have already suggested: No sane person would prefer Chaney to Bush, and no Republican can easily endorse a takeover by the Democratic Speaker. I rather like Paul's suggestion of President Lugar, but I can't see Bush acquiescing to it. Why should he, after all? Richard Nixon faced conviction by the Senate, which would presumably mean, among other things, the loss of pension rights, etc., not to mention the unique disgrace. By resigning, Nixon, like Saddam Hussein at his execution, preserved a measure of dignity. But what incentive does Bush have to accept similar humiliation? And what evidence is there that he would genuinely put the good of the country ahead of his own desire to redeem his pre-40 life by taking on the role of Winston Churchill standing firmly against all those who would appease America's enemies by an ignoble withdrawal from Iraq? (Of course, one can argue that the 20,000 troops represent not a serious plan for "victory," but, rather, an ignoble attempt to hang on long enough to hand off responsibility for withdrawl to Bush's successor.)
Professor Levinson:
To avoid recovering the same ground we have in the past, I would only make a couple observations: I do not see the analogy between the transition periods after the elections of Lincoln and FDR and before they took power with the current status of Mr. Bush nearly 2 years before the next presidential election. Time will tell whether Mr. Bush will be a political lame duck over the next two years, but there will not be another elected President in waiting for quite a long time. In any case, I do not see an all too common lame duck status as a crisis of any type. All lame duckery means is that the President has lowered influence with the Congress because he is not running for election again and does not have the popularity to leverage Congress. This tends to lead to gridlock, which from this libertarian's view is often a very good thing. If you view political ineffectiveness of a branch as a crisis, then your crisis is compounded because the voters in 2006 have left us with a virtually tied Senate and a razor thin Dem majority in the House which is itself fractured into ineffectiveness on many issues like the war by ideological divides. Finally, I would disagree that Mr. Bush's unpopularity in the public opinion polls somehow renders him unfit to be in office. Ms. Pelosi has nearly identical polling numbers as Mr. Bush. Should she be constitutionally removed? In fact, the citizenry is currently in a pissy mood with all politicians. This does not create a crisis. Rather, I think it can be healthy if it prevents the politicians from creating too much more trouble.
"Crisis" is a matter of context. I agree with Mr. DePalma that most of the time the ill-advised length of the transition period, or the existence of lame-duck Congresses, is not a crisis. But every now and then the press of external events makes what is only an unfortunate feature of our political system more accurately describable as a crisis. The easiest example is surely the Secession Winter. We'll never know if things would (or should, for that matter) have turned out differently if Abraham Lincoln had been able to take office on December 1, but no reasonable person could deny that it didn't help (except to increase the probability of war) that we had no effective government during that period. Theh winter of 1932-33 may not have been so freighted, but, again, so long as one defines the Depression (like the dissolution of the Union) as a genuine crisis, our constitutional system added to, rather than provided an effective means of confronting, that crisis.
I, of course, agree that the present situation is, if anything, worse than these two examples (which I offered only because I presumed that most readers would concede counted as a "crisis) because Bush has almost 2 years in office and, in addition, prospective successors, failing an elaborate minuet whereby, say, Richard Lugar becomes VP, are unacceptable for a variety of quite different reasons. (The fact that I would be relatively happy to have Nancy Pelosi as president doesn't make the change of party in the White House sans election truly legitimate, especially given the powers the US president possesses.) I agree that unpopularity alone is not enough. What I think is different about Bush and, say, Truman, who was equally, if not more, unpopular during the Korean War, is the genuine dread felt by many (most?) of Bush's opponents as to what this ignorant, obdurate, possibly messianic, man is capable of doing. Those who disagree with this last sentence, of course, discern no "crisis" and instead perceive "strong leadership." Perhaps that will be what historians 50 years from now will write. I won't be around to read it, but I'd bet a substantial part of my estate that it's not going to happen.
Professor Levinson: The fact that I would be relatively happy to have Nancy Pelosi as president doesn't make the change of party in the White House sans election truly legitimate.
Sir, is legitimacy gained only through election? That is a serious question. You often seem to push for pure democracy, as if the many well developed criticisms of such a method had been discredited once and for all. You have a keen eye for undemocratic elements in our system, and even make a case for some of them being unjust. But isn't it important to keep those criteria separate in one's mind? Aren't many of the undemocratic aspects of our system intended to avoid the injustices commonly anticipated in pure democracy? Shouldn't our objective, then, be less about increasing democracy than about increasing justice, liberty, &c? As for the specific matter at hand, yes, George W. Bush often seems the type to push the button on his way out of the office in a mixture of spite and belief, akin to that of the extremists who he claims to fight, that he is bringing Armageddon in service of the Lord. We live in scary times.
Sandy: I have communicated with you before privately, but this is perhaps my chance to make my positions more public.
Rather than agonizing about how to get rid of the President, thus assuming the validity of the present setup, we might instead use this crisis as an opportunity to start the process of draining the power the President asserts from him, and shifting it to the House of Representatives, where it should be. This could be done without any Constitutional change simply by having the House assert more power over the Cabinet officers, making them responsible to the House rather than to the President. The original cabinet offices were set up by the first Congress after the Constitution was ratified, and subsequent offices followed its example. The Treasury Department was in fact set up to be responsible primarily to the Congress, but this was eventually given up. The state and war departments were made responsible to the President, but these laws could simply be changed. Granted there have been court decisions upholding the power of the President to hire and fire cabinet officers, but this too could change. There is also a tradition that the court stays out of disputes between the executive and legislative branches, holding that these are political, not legal issues. Granted also that the House at present would not be capable of handling the responsibilities of governing the executive, but as it acquired power, I am confident it would reorganize. Such changes would not solve the immediate problem of Bush, but it would start a process that would prevent further Bushes. GYL
Mr. Larsen:
There is one small obstacle to the House attempting to run the executive branch by enacting a statute placing departments of the Executive under legislative control - Article II makes the President the sole executive in the government. Funny, I do not remember this outcry among Dems for a transfer of executive power to the Congress when the Speaker of the House was named Gingrich and the lame duck President was named Clinton. These impassioned arguments are precisely why the founders made the Constitution difficult to amend so transient political majorities could not do mischief to the checks and balances contained in the document.
Responding to Robert Link:
I am not a "pure majoritarian," but I do believe that elections play a special role in any system that purports to be democratic, as ours (with whatever degree of plausibility) does. So long as we retain a separately elected President (the merits of which I would like to see more openly discussed, especially because I don't where I stand on tis issue), then I think it is imperative that the party that wins the election not be displaceable without an intervening election. Note that I say "party" and not "winning candidate." But I take it that I've made more than clear my dismay at our inability to dislodge a dangerously dysfunctional incumbent. As I've posted elsewhere, this is a perfect time for Speaker Pelosi and President pro Tem Byrd to exhibit real statespersonship by moving to repeal our current Succession in Office Act and returning to the prior version by which succession went to the Cabinet. Or, in the alternative, as suggested to me by someone in the current Congress, succession could go to the highest ranking official in the House or Senate of the presdint's own party. The House is relatively serious with regard to whom it designates as Speaker. The Senate, of course, is absolutely frivolous with regard to the President pro Tem. Perhaps the answer is to remove that ceremonial official from the succession entirely and place it instead in the majority or minority leader, depending on party.
Professor Levinson: I am not a "pure majoritarian..."
I never really thought you were. ;) But sometimes you beat that drum pretty loud. Professor Levinson: ...but I do believe that elections play a special role in any system that purports to be democratic... A point with which I can only agree. Professor Levinson: I think it is imperative that the party that wins the election not be displaceable without an intervening election. On this I cannot agree so quickly. Is a party any less prone to incompetence than a President? Should we be saddled with, say, a Democratic party riddled bona fide "bloody revolution oriented Communists", or a Republican party owned by PNAC? It certainly seems like an open question to me.
"The problem, though, is that the Constitution itself makes such action extremely difficult, if not impossible..."
I think we can distinguish between, "Extremely difficult, if not impossible", and "requires achieving some sort of consensus".
As I have posted before, I think you are prone to a large degree of hyperbole in both your estimation of the current "crisis" and GWB's overall popularity.
Taking the popularity angle first, in the recent elections D's received a stunning . . . 52% of the congressional votes cast. The total D popular vote was 39.6M D, 34.7 R and 1.8 M other. This is despite the Foley debacle which I would bet was probably worth a point or two in the D's favor. If GWB is such a grossly incompetent and hated president, shouldn't the D's have reached at least the high 50's? Many of the disatisfaction with GWB on the R side is he is not republican enough; given the choice, I can assure you they would pick him over any D. By contrast in the presidential election, GWB got 62M popular votes to Kerry's 59. So essentially GWB when he last stood for election got 23 M more votes than the congrssional D's got this time. Is he in a bad spot with generally low ratings? You bet. Could things turn around? You bet. Bottom line your estimation of Bush's repudiation is way overblown. Give me six months and a general election for President between Pelosi and Bush and do you think Pelosi would win in a landslide? I sure don't and would give you at least even odds of Bush beating Pelosi. While I'm sure in the circles you run in there is a complete repudiation I don't thin you can make the case that there has been a similar surge in the public at large. General unhappiness for sure, but all presidents go through these rough spots, some more than others; these days the swings are more pronounced but that is another topic. . . As for the nature of the "crisis" again, you overstate things tremendously. At worst, we leave Iraq and leave them to their own devices and we lose the war, although win it in the sense of toppline Hussein. A hit to American prestige, sure, but less than the hit after Vietnam, probably about the same as the Iranian hostage crisis. At the least, we showed our military can quickly topple a regime, we just can't stay around when a bunch of people would rather kill each other. In the overall scheme of things, that is certainly not good, but comparable to the civil war, the depression, the unpreparedness for WWII? Give me a freaking break. So in short, time will tell where GWB ends up with his presidency, he is not as dreadfully unpopular as you assume with the country at large clamoring for his removal (although certainly a lot of leftists are) and the "crisis" of Iraq is not nearly as disasterous as you make it out to be in historical terms; certainly nowhere near the civil war, depression, failure of reconstruction, etc.
Taking the popularity angle first, in the recent elections D's received a stunning . . . 52% of the congressional votes cast. The total D popular vote was 39.6M D, 34.7 R and 1.8 M other. This is despite the Foley debacle which I would bet was probably worth a point or two in the D's favor. If GWB is such a grossly incompetent and hated president, shouldn't the D's have reached at least the high 50's? Many of the disatisfaction with GWB on the R side is he is not republican enough; given the choice, I can assure you they would pick him over any D. By contrast in the presidential election, GWB got 62M popular votes to Kerry's 59.
This argument is so weak it's hardly worth a response, but it IS a holiday.... There's little point in comparing Congressional vote totals in off-year elections to Presidential vote totals. Given the lower turnout, it's inevitable that a President will get more total votes than the combined Congressional candidates of either party in an off-year election. Moreover, you switched from percentages to raw numbers in order to make your point. Bush got less than 51% of the vote in 2004 (and far less in 2000). In contrast, Dem Congressional candidates got over 52% in 2006. Thus, your own numbers undercut your point. I'd go through the rest of the post, but it IS a holiday....
Cara paling manjur mengobati virus herpes kelamin
obat herpes tradisional yang ampuh obat herpes terbaik obat herpes tangan obat herpes tercepat obat herpes tipe 2 obat herpes tradisional untuk bayi obat herpes tenggorokan obat herpes terbaru obat herpes tablet obat herpes tomcat obat herpes tumbuhan 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 herbal kutil kelamin
Post a Comment
obat alami untuk menghilangkan kutil kelamin obat alami kutil kelamin Obat kencing nanah pria Obat kencing nanah dan darah Obat kencing nanah apotik Obat kencing nanah antibiotik Obat kencing nanah amoxicillin Obat kencing nanah apa Obat kencing nanah apa ya Obat kencing nanah atau gonore Obat kencing nanah akut Obat kencing nanah ada di apotik Obat kencing nanah di apotik umum Obat kencing nanah paling ampuh Obat kencing nanah yang ampuh Obat kencing nanah secara alami Obat kencing nanah bandung Obat kencing nanah buatan sendiri Obat kencing nanah yang bisa dibeli di apotik Obat herbal untuk mengobati kencing nanah Obat kencing nanah paling bagus Obat kencing nanah yang bisa dibeli di apotek Obat kencing nanah di apotik bebas Obat kencing nanah yang dijual bebas
|
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 |