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 Who Cares About John McCain-- George Washington Is Unconstitutional!
|
Saturday, March 01, 2008
Who Cares About John McCain-- George Washington Is Unconstitutional!
JB
Apparently everyone is up in arms over the fact that John McCain was born in the Panama Canal zone in 1936. Is he a "natural born citizen" eligible to be President under Article II, section 1, clause 4 of the Constitution? Q. The Constitution provides, as one of the criteria to be eligible to become president, that a person must be a "natural born Citizen" (or, alternatively, in a provision that long ago ceased to apply to any living persons, "a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution") How would you figure out what the phrase "natural born Citizen" means?
Comments:
Please incorporate by reference the several comments on "natural born" (started by me) to Steve Griffin's post of this past Monday "Three Strikes Against Originalism." I guess Jack as the head umpire of Balkinization doesn't consider Griffin's post worthy of a strikeout call.
I would ask Jack whether Congress (with the approval of an illegal President) has the power to define "natural born" for the purposes of eligibility to be President.
Larry Solum at his Legal Theory Blog has interesting comments on "natural born" and originalism. While he agrees (with me) that C-Sections and in vitro fertilization should not result in ineligibility, he does not address "cloning."
This issue is a good test for the merits of originalism, what with sex, geography, biology, etc, intertwined. In addition, there are elements of humor. Just imagine constitutional scholars and law students playing "what if" games regarding "natural born." Some may harken back to the Dred Scott decision on "citizen" as perhaps valid even with the Civil War Amendments. By the way, Solum made reference to "original ambiguity." Is this phrase original with him?
As we hear from the originalists on the issue of "natural born" I would suggest that they consider their constitutional analyses of the "original intent" and the "original variables" with these "what ifs":
What if it were Hillary Clinton and not John McCain who had been born outside the 50 states? What if it were Barack Obama and not John McCain or Hillary who had been born outside the 50 states, especially in a foreign country? Would the originalism arguments differ?
Ingenious. However, I find something like the opposite interpretation more colorable, viz., that one is eligible to the office of President if one is either (1) a natural born Citizen or (2) a Citizen of the United States. And since everyone is a Citizen somewhere, then by (1), everyone is eligible to the office of President (as long as he or she adopts the Constitution, of course).
Textualism is not limited to a hyper technical reading of the text. It is a basic technique of statutory interpretation that a court will not read absurdities into the text of a law.
The provision at issue reads: "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President." If you read this passage without the commas, common sense recommends that the Presidency was limited to natural born citizens OR citizens who were naturalized at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Interpreting the second comma to cause both initial clauses to be modified by the phrase "at the time of the adoption of this Constitution" needlessly creates an absurd impossibility. The fact that other commas were added and subtracted during successive drafts of the Constitution does not mean that the drafters of the Constitution intended this absurd result to arise from this particular comma. This exercise does appear to be an attempt to parody textualism into something it is not.
Removing commas originally in the text seems to be an originalist method to impose intent, meaning, understanding, etc, that may not have originally existed to support their positions, inducing comas with their rhetoric.
What we need is a Mel Brooks version of his 2000 year old man schtick with Mel playing a Founder and being asked about original intent, etc, on certain aspects of the Constitution. Who might we recommend as Mel's straight (or gay) man?
Addendum to my comment above: The restrictions the constitution sets on eligibility to the office of president are all limited in scope to "persons." Therefore, it would also appear that nonpersons are eligible to that office without restriction.
That means that persons born after 1789 aren't eligible to be President of the United States.
Accordingly, McCain is the only qualified candidate.
Bruce Springsteen may be revising his song for the fall campaign to:
"NATURAL BORN IN THE USA" in support of either Obama or Clinton.
"It is a basic technique of statutory interpretation that a court will not read absurdities into the text of a law."
But wait, isn't the Constitution a "contract," properly approached as one would approach "any other contract?" At least, that's what the Constitution was yesterday... ...today, it's a statute subject to the "techniques of statutory interpretation."
John McCain is an "anchor baby" because he was born in a US territory, the Canal Zone.
It is ridiculous to question McCain's citizenship while illegal aliens' children born in the USA are automatically granted US citizenship at birth. Here is another line of reasoning -- According to the Dred Scott decision, US blacks were not considered to be citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and hence were ineligible to be president according to the clause that only natural-born citizens or citizens when the Constitution was adopted were eligible to be president. This constitutional ineligibility to be president was not implicitly repealed by the 14th Amendment because the Supreme Court said in Posadas v. National City Bank of New York 296 U.S. 497, 503 (1936), The cardinal rule is that repeals by implication are not favored. Where there are two acts upon the same subject, effect should be given to both if possible. There are two well-settled categories of repeals by implication: (1) Where provisions in the two acts are in irreconcilable conflict, the later act to the extent of the conflict constitutes an implied repeal of the earlier one; and (2) if the later act covers the whole subject of the earlier one and is clearly intended as a substitute, it will operate similarly as a repeal of the earlier act. But, in either case, the intention of the legislature to repeal must be clear and manifest; otherwise, at least as a general thing, the later act is to be construed as a continuation of, and not a substitute for, the first act and will continue to speak, so far as the two acts are the same, from the time of the first enactment. So Obama is not eligible to be president.
What is the source for your "accepted grammatical rules/practice in 1787?
Simple Justice in its take on this has a comment However on March 26, 1790 the First Congress, including a number of the Framers, passed the first naturalization law: "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."However on March 26, 1790 the First Congress, including a number of the Framers, passed the first naturalization law: "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens." Anyone know if this is correct? Link: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2008/02/28/the-panamanian-president-john-mccain.aspx
The restrictions the constitution sets on eligibility to the office of president are all limited in scope to "persons." Therefore, it would also appear that nonpersons are eligible to that office without restriction.
Hence the genius of the Supreme Court in ruling that corporations are "persons". However on March 26, 1790 the First Congress, including a number of the Framers, passed the first naturalization law: "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens." This doesn't solve the problem, because, normally speaking, Congress can't modify a term in the Constitution. For example, Congress can't change the definition of "free speech". In this particular case, however, there's some originalist basis for thinking Congress DOES have such authority. The reasoning goes like this: What Blackstone says is that the common law rule was that only persons born within the King's "dominion" were citizens. This rule was then modified by statute to include those born overseas of natural born subjects. Thus, an originalist could argue that the Constitution froze in time both the common law meaning and its statutory amendment. But there's a more inclusive way to look at it as well. We might also reason that the Constitution in this particular case DID include the power of the legislature to modify the rule. The reasoning would be that if that power weren't part of the meaning, there'd be no reason to accept the statutory amendment to the common law rule. By this reasoning, Congress could make Arnold a citizen or Henry Kissinger or anyone else. Such a holding would be perfectly consistent with the rule of the Insular Cases (that Congress can define the boundaries of the United States).* *I'd love to hear from the originalists just why it is that the term "United States" is not frozen as of 1789, but the term "natural born citizen" is.
don said...
BD: "It is a basic technique of statutory interpretation that a court will not read absurdities into the text of a law." But wait, isn't the Constitution a "contract," properly approached as one would approach "any other contract?" The same rule applies to interpreting contracts.
Questions:
If McCain was not a US citizen at birth, then exactly when did he become a US citizen? Was McCain born stateless?
"We found out that, according to accepted grammatical rules as they existed in 1787, the use of commas "
As I understand the accepted grammatical rules on use of commas at that time, you essentially stuck one in wherever you thought somebody would pause to take a breath. They were pretty much devoid of meaning otherwise, which is why you'll see legal documents such as constitutional amendments printed here with these commas, there with other placement. Aside from the false premise, it was mildly amusing.
Bruce Ackerman's Letter to the Editor in today's NYTimes presents a non-originalist view that indeed John McCain is eligible to be President. He uses a holistic approach that ties in the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment with the eligibility clause, closing with:
"When choosing among plausible interpretive options, we should always choose the one that makes the most sense of the entire Constitution, regardless of the date at which particular provisions were enacted." Do pure originalists disagree with Ackerman's approach while agreeing with his conclusion?
James Monroe already has the capital city of another nation named after him. I think we'll have to rename DC "Adams." Perhaps we could cut the Washington Monument in half, and have one for John and one for John Quincy.
shag from brookline said...
Bruce Ackerman's Letter to the Editor in today's NYTimes presents a non-originalist view that indeed John McCain is eligible to be President. He uses a holistic approach that ties in the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment with the eligibility clause, closing with: "When choosing among plausible interpretive options, we should always choose the one that makes the most sense of the entire Constitution, regardless of the date at which particular provisions were enacted." Do pure originalists disagree with Ackerman's approach while agreeing with his conclusion? Do you have a link to the entire letter? Ackerman appears to touch upon a number of interpretive tools in that last paragraph. Based on what you have posted, though, Ackerman is engaging in far too many steps. There is a rule of construction where, if a provision of law can plausibly be read in two ways, then the way which exists in the most harmony with the other provisions of the law should be used. However, as I posted above, the Eligibility Clause's text is clear and one can pretty readily understand what is required. Thus, there is no need to consult the 14th Amendment unless Ackerman claims that it amended the Eligibility Clause.
Ackerman's letter is available at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/01/opinion/l01mccain.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin Or link to www.nytimes.com for today and click on "Opinion" and then on "Letters" and scroll. I guess clarity of constitutional text is in the eye of the beholder or the originalist who is clairvoyant.
Given that the Constitution clearly says "natural born" rather then "native born," I would say that that Prof. Balkin's, uh, novel interpretation is only slightly sillier than the whole flap.
If the reference had been to "native born" rather than "natural born" might that have included and perhaps been restricted to Indians?
There is nothing about the "missionary position" (or other "natural position") in the Constitution so I guess in vitro fertilization (even if the egg and sperm embryo is "foreign born" and implanted in a foreign country) and even cloning would retain Presidential eligibility if the deliverer-mother is a U.S. citizen, regardless of where the delivery takes place, even by C-section.
Presumably Ackerman’s letter is designed to exemplify the advantages of a non-originalist approach to constitutional interpretation. It strikes me that, at the least, he has chosen a poor example. How is it that reading the “natural born Citizen” provision to encompass persons born overseas reduces discrimination or invidious discrimination? Sure it treats one group (persons born as US citizens outside its territory) equally with another group (persons born in the US) but in doing so it now treats them better than a third group (naturalized citizens who were not born in the US). Isn’t that just as discriminatory?
Indeed, couldn’t it be argued (rather more plausibly than in ML’s clever parody of originalism) that Ackerman’s approach should logically favor the narrower reading of “natural born Citizen”? Discriminating against persons based on the location of their birth certainly sounds less invidious than discriminating based on the identity of their parents. It is also noteworthy that the 14th Amendment refers to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.” It has been suggested that this language is what has caused the confusion about the meaning of “natural born Citizen,” because the original meaning (ie, any person born as a citizen, regardless of location) is actually quite clear. http://volokh.com/posts/1204265246.shtml
Given that the Constitution clearly says "natural born" rather then "native born," I would say that that Prof. Balkin's, uh, novel interpretation is only slightly sillier than the whole flap.
The problem for originalists is that the common law rule equated "native born" and "natural born".
What if the parents have dual citizenship: U.S. and [fill in the country]? And the delivery takes place (a) in that other country or (b) in a third country? Is there a coin flip? What weight would be given to the fact that conception took place in (a) U.S., (b) that other country or (c) in a third country?
By the way, didn't Republicans make an effort to disquality FDR's eligibility to be President because of questions as to his place of birth? So once again I ask originalists in expounding their views to consider if this situation applied to Obama or to Clinton how would they come down constitutionally? We all have our little biases, don't we?
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President."
I think that Professor Balkin's comments seem to be an argument by reduction to absurdity against a certain form of originalism' However, taking the argument at its face value, if "at the time of the adoption of this Constitution" applies to both parts of, "a natural born Citizen or a Citizen of the United States", we are left to explain what "natural born Citizen" was not a "Citizen of the United States" at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. FOr example, were citzens of the CSA eligible?
BD: "It is a basic technique of statutory interpretation that a court will not read absurdities into the text of a law." But wait, isn't the Constitution a "contract," properly approached as one would approach "any other contract?" The same rule applies to interpreting contracts.
Of, course, while Bart is right on this narrow point, the real problem with his "contract" analogy is that subsequent conduct of the parties is considered THE MOST RELIABLE means of interpreting a contract. Thus, contracts are interpreted consistent in an analogous manner to the "living constitution" theory that Bart decries.
For me, the most interesting point in the McCain nativity controversy, if we may dignify it as such, is the parallel between the Canal Zone and Guantanamo. The Bush Administration asserted that the US has no sovereignty there, the better to excuse otherwise presumably unwarranted detention processes that are forbidden on American soil. But now comes John McCain claiming the privileges of one born on American soil. Is this not contradictory? Is it seemly for his partisans to disown sovereignty on Guantanamo while claiming it in the Canal Zone? This is mere Humpty Dumptyism.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,'it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.' 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.' 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
Larry Koenigsberg said,
>>>>>> and Guantanamo. The Bush Administration asserted that the US has no sovereignty there, the better to excuse otherwise presumably unwarranted detention processes that are forbidden on American soil. <<<<<< That is the first time I heard that one. The usual excuse for denying constitutional protections to Guantanamo detainees is that they are allegedly illegal foreign enemy combatants.
But now comes John McCain claiming the privileges of one born on American soil. Is this not contradictory? Is it seemly for his partisans to disown sovereignty on Guantanamo while claiming it in the Canal Zone? This is mere Humpty Dumptyism.
One difference is that the Canal Zone had special status and forms available to ensure the citizenship of people born there. That is, statutes exist that have defined the parameters of sovereignty and citizenship more clearly than has been done in Guantanamo Bay. As a person born in the Canal Zone, this issue is near and dear to me, and I wouldn't wish the adjudication process I had to undergo (because my parents failed to fill out a necessary form at the time of my birth) on my worst enemy. I say McCain is in the clear on this, although obviously I have my biases. :)
Barack Obama came close to being born in a US territory -- he was born in Hawaii only shortly after statehood began. Also, his father was probably not a US citizen when Barack was born.
It is high time to remove that silly requirement from the Constitution, anyway.
Larry Solum at his Legal Theory blog has several posts on this topic, including a link to a 1988 Yale Law Journal (Vol. 97, 881) article by Jill A. Pryor titled:
"The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty" that addresses fairly completely the issues involved, some of which were addressed in comments. Originalism and textualism ain't beanbag. Jill should be applauded for her efforts at a time when possible biases regarding a particular Presidential candidate seem not to have been in issue.
Hello, I enjoyed your look at the "original" intent. A short while back a friend put together a different case for outlining the ineligibility of George Washington, John Adams and many others.
Washington http://ballsnews.com/george-washington-was-ineligible-to-be-president.html Adams http://ballsnews.com/john-adams-ineligible-to-be-president.html Jefferson http://ballsnews.com/was-thomas-jefferson-eligible-for-president.html The conclusion is that Adams and Washington may not have been eligible due to the latter restrictions in the eligibility clause. Jefferson, however, appears to have been legit. thanks so much i like very so much your post حلي الاوريو الفطر الهندي صور تورتة حلى قهوه طريقة عمل السينابون طريقة عمل بلح الشام بيتزا هت كيكة الزبادي حلا سهل صور كيك عجينة العشر دقائق طريقة عمل الدونات طريقة عمل البان كيك طريقة عمل الكنافة طريقة عمل البسبوسة طريقة عمل الكيك طريقة عمل عجينة البيتزا فوائد القرفه
This was a fantastic article. Really loved reading your we blog post. The information was very informative and helpful...
Cara mengobati kanker dengan herbal, Cara mengobati kanker dengan tradisional, Cara mengobati kanker dengan alami, Cara mengobati kanker dengan cepat, Cara mengobati kanker stadium 3, Cara mengobati kanker stadium 4, Cara mengobati kanker stadium awal, Cara mengobati kanker stadium 2, Cara mengobati kanker stadium akhir, Cara mengobati kanker tanpa ke dokter, Gambar obat kanker yang ampuh, Gambar obat kanker yang ampuh, Obat kanker ampuh dengan singkong, Cara mengobati kanker stadium awal tanpa operasi, Obat kanker manjur dari tumbuhan, Cara mengobati kanker stadium 1 tanpa operasi, Obat kanker ampuh dengan daun sirsak, Cara mengobati kanker stadium 2 tanpa operasi, Obat kanker paling mujarab yang efektif, Cara mengobati kanker stadium 3 tanpa operasi, Cara mengobati kanker stadium 3, Cara mengobati kanker stadium 4 tanpa operasi, Obat kanker paling manjur 2016, Cara mengobati kanker stadium akhir tanpa operasi, Pengobatan kanker mujarab tanpa operasi, Cara pengobatan kanker yang manjur, Pengobatan kanker manjur dan aman, Cara pengobatan kanker yang mujarab, Cara pengobatan kanker tanpa operasi, Cara pengobatan kanker yang ampuh, Obat kanker mujarab tanpa operasi, Obat kanker manjur tanpa operasi, Obat De Nature
obat herbal mengobati kanker serviks stadium 3
obat alami untuk mencegah kanker serviks obat medis untuk kanker serviks wwwobat kanker serviks obat vaksin kanker serviks obat untuk mengatasi kanker serviks Tumbuhan untuk obat kanker serviks Obat untuk menyembuhkan kanker serviks obat untuk penderita kanker serviks obat tradisional untuk kanker serviks obat utk kanker serviks obat untuk kanker serviks obat tradisional utk kanker serviks sirsak obat kanker serviks obat sakit kanker serviks hello world obat untuk kanker rahim stadium 3 obat herbal kanker rahim stadium 4 obat kanker rahim stadium 1 1 Obat kanker rahim stadium 2 Obat penyakit herpes kelamin pria
Obat kanker serviks manujur di youtube
obat kanker serviks manjur facebook obat herpes genital manjur obat herpes genital manjur obat herpes genital manjur obat herpes genital manjur obat herpes genital manjur obat herpes genital manjur obat herpes genital manjur obat herpes genital manjur obat herpes genital manjur obat herpes genital manjur obat herpes genital manjur obat herpes genital manjur obat herpes genital manjur obat herpes genital manjur obat herpes genital manjur obat herpes genital manjur obat herpes genital manjur obat herpes genital manjur obat herpes genital manju Obat herpes genital manjur Obat herpes genital manujur di youtube Obat kanker dan herpes di twitter obat herpes genital manjur facebook
obat kanker serviks tradisional jawa
obat kanker serviks tradisional jawa sumatera Obat kanker serviks tradisional sumatera Obat kanker serviks tradisional kalimantan obat kanker serviks tradisional herbal jawa obat kanker serviks tradisional herbal jawa sumatera obat kanker serviks tradisional herbal sumatera obat kanker serviks tradisional herbal suku pedalaman obat kanker serviks tradisional herbal suku pedalaman sumatra Obat kanker serviks tradisional herbal suku jawa obat kanker serviks tradisional herbal s obat kanker serviks tradisional herbal suku minang obat kanker serviks tradisional herbal suku sunda Obat kanker serviks tradisional herbal suku irian obat kanker serviks tradisional herbal suku dayak obat kanker serviks tradisional herbal suku kubu obat tradisional kanker serviks suku obat kanker serviks tradisional herbal suku bugis obat herbal herpes genital dompo obat herbal herpes genital dompo simplex fangyanting20151030 true religion jeans north face jackets ray ban sunglasses gucci nike air force 1 moncler outlet cheap nba jerseys louis vuitton outlet oakley sunglasses louis vuitton outlet canada goose jackets christian louboutin uk tiffany and co jewelry oakley mulberry outlet the north face uk ralph lauren outlet louis vuitton handbags the north face air max 2015 roshe run nfl jerseys wholesale the north face outlet michael kors handbags clearance ugg boots coach outlet michael kors factory outlet michael kors outlet clearance coach outlet online ralph lauren uk
KAMI SEKELUARGA MENGUCAPKAN BANYAK TERIMA KASIH ATAS BANTUANNYA MBAH , NOMOR YANG MBAH BERIKAN/ 4D SGP& HK SAYA DAPAT (350) JUTA ALHAMDULILLAH TEMBUS, SELURUH HUTANG2 SAYA SUDAH SAYA LUNAS DAN KAMI BISAH USAHA LAGI. JIKA ANDA INGIN SEPERTI SAYA HUB MBAH_PURO _085_342_734_904_ terima kasih.الالله صلى الله عليه وسلموعليكوتهله صلى الل
Post a Comment
KAMI SEKELUARGA MENGUCAPKAN BANYAK TERIMA KASIH ATAS BANTUANNYA MBAH , NOMOR YANG MBAH BERIKAN/ 4D SGP& HK SAYA DAPAT (350) JUTA ALHAMDULILLAH TEMBUS, SELURUH HUTANG2 SAYA SUDAH SAYA LUNAS DAN KAMI BISAH USAHA LAGI. JIKA ANDA INGIN SEPERTI SAYA HUB MBAH_PURO _085_342_734_904_ terima kasih.الالله صلى الله عليه وسلموعليكوتهله صلى الل KAMI SEKELUARGA MENGUCAPKAN BANYAK TERIMA KASIH ATAS BANTUANNYA MBAH , NOMOR YANG MBAH BERIKAN/ 4D SGP& HK SAYA DAPAT (350) JUTA ALHAMDULILLAH TEMBUS, SELURUH HUTANG2 SAYA SUDAH SAYA LUNAS DAN KAMI BISAH USAHA LAGI. JIKA ANDA INGIN SEPERTI SAYA HUB MBAH_PURO _085_342_734_904_ terima kasih.الالله صلى الله عليه وسلموعليكوتهله صلى الل
|
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 |