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 Character v. structures
|
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Character v. structures
Sandy Levinson
I suppose I should apologize for harping on the point, but I was irritated by John McCain's reference, in his acceptance speech to the" me-first-country-second" crowd in Washington. I put to one side the snarky comments about McCain's being more than willing to serve the interests of his wealthy Arizona contributors or the obvious "me first" motivation behind the choice of the unfit Gov. Palin as the person one-heartbeat away from succeeding the 72-year-old McCain. (If I were a practicing, instead of amateur, psychologist, I'd talk about projection.) My point is far more fundamental.
Comments:
One of the worst features of our present politics, and I've said before (and will undoubtedly say again) is that it leads people of all political persuasions to focus on" character," "leadership," and "vision" and away from even the beginnings of a conversation about how structures generate these attributes.
I'd tend to blame that on the low intelligence of the electorate more than anything else. Look at Britain or Israel. Very different institutions, same debased political conversation. I can also guarantee you that any proposed reform of how we elect Congress would be shot down in two seconds as 'un-American'; look at what happened to Guinier.
The lack of attention to structure is likely due to the fact that structure can't be changed quickly or easily. This is true of any structure, because the people elected under that structure will very rarely have any interest at all in changing it.
The solution that worked in Britain was to add a new player, the House of Commons. I think the American equivalent to the "new player" mechanism was supposed to be the Constitutional Convention, but we never really picked up on that.
"but we never really picked up on that."
I suspect that, some time in the next couple decades, enough states will finally get around to calling for such a convention. And then we're going to have a REALLY big fuss when Congress either ignores the call, or decides that it's own members are the appropriate delegates for the convention.
I think that Tray is very astute in evoking the example of Lani Guinier. I still hold it against Bill Clinton not that he dumped her--he had every right to make a political calculation that she hurt him more than helped him--but that when he did it he in effect suggested that he had only then read anything she wrote and that she was in fact "unAmerican" in her suggestions for electoral reform. That killed any opportunity to address the inadequacies of our electoral system.
As for the UK and Israel, both countries feature a lot of discussion about constitutional fundamentals (including, e.g., in the UK the abolition of the House of Lords and devolution of power to Scotland, and in Israel different modes of electing the prime minister). I agree that there is a great deal of corruption in Israeli politics--I don't know if the same is true in the UK.
Not only that, when he came out with his memoir he wrote that he dropped her because he believed in - if memory serves correctly - "one person one vote, not one person many votes." Now, there are arguments to be made against PR, but that's just silly. As for Britain and Israel, all I meant was that their campaign seasons are also dominated by nebulous talk of change, character, vision, and the like.
I would suggest that any "reform" which reduces the direct link between a member of the House and a defined geographical constituency would be undesirable. Some European states run "party list" systems for their lower house in which voters essentially vote for a party rather than a candidate for all or a proportion of the seats and the seats are allocated according to the order in which candidates appear on the party list - this means that the candidates are not really answerable to anyone other than the party machine!
May I suggest that the key reforms for the house might be a lengthening of the term so that candidates are not in permanent electioneering mode and reforms to the drawing of district boundaries. The Senate, as is well-known is a much bigger problem because of the distortions in the size of electorate per senator. On ethics in politics, Professor Levinson might care to look at the work of the UK Committee on Standards in Public Life - Special and Annual Reports. They set out areas perceived as problematic and make proposals for reform and it is always interesting to see how different democracies are approaching common problems.
I would suggest that we need a balance between national, state and local views in the federal government, not just a national view. Wouldn't you know it, the Constitution provides just that with the President (national), Senate (states) and House (local).
At the risk of making Mourad backtrack on his positions again by agreeing with him, our British lawyer is essentially correct. The last thing we need is a party machine coming between the People and their representatives. I do not want to vote for the GOP. I want to choose a representative who is directly answerable to me and my neighbors.
Term limits were widely discussed not long ago, though Thornton put the kibosh on that, absent a constitutional amendment. A federal statute could acomplish anti-gerrymandering redistricting reform, though. Schwarzenegger's talked about that in California, too, at least.
"A federal statute could accomplish anti-gerrymandering redistricting reform, though."
A federal statute prohibits the most effective approach to anti-gerrymandering redistricting reform, proportional representation. The problem with election reforms of all sorts attained by legislation, is that genuine reform is scarcely ever in the interest of incumbents who were elected under the pre-reform system. When actually passed, you will almost invariably find that it has been warped into an incumbent protection measure. The failure to accept this truth is but one of the failings of campaign 'reform' advocates. I will say that our Constitution, especially post 17th amendment, suffers from a serious version of the "no man should be the judge in his own case" problem, by having so many issues of federal jurisdiction/power being resolved at... the federal level. I keep thinking that it ought to be possible to design a system where federal judges are all chosen at the state level, by states in different circuits. You'd never get it without a constitutional convention, of course.
"A federal statute prohibits the most effective approach to anti-gerrymandering redistricting reform, proportional representation." That's right for the most part. Of course, we could change it. FWIW, the statute discussed in Branch v. Smith in 2003 provides for at-large voting in certain circumstances, and it could have been implemented with proportional voting. (Ted Kennedy thought it was outrageous for a CA5 nominee even to suggest at-large voting in a state like Mississippi, but the proportional-voting possibility takes a lot of the sting out of that charge, I think.)
"The problem with election reforms of all sorts attained by legislation, is that genuine reform is scarcely ever in the interest of incumbents who were elected under the pre-reform system." That has some bite with campaign financing, but it's hard to imagine redistricting reform that would be less pro-incumbent than the system we have now, isn't it? "[O]ur Constitution, especially post 17th amendment, suffers from a serious version of the 'no man should be the judge in his own case' problem, by having so many issues of federal jurisdiction/power being resolved at... the federal level." One partial federal-statutory answer might be to abandon Rooker/Feldman, and let state courts themselves decide more federal questions, subject to review in the federal circuit courts.
As to the "unfit Gov. Pailn," (sic) for those who are unwilling to do their own research to watch and listen to Palin, here is the governor effortlessly fielding questions on a wide variety of issues on C-Span last year.
Here is Palin easily fielding questions on ANWR and other oil and natural gas reserves in Alaska with no problem saying that McCain is flat wrong on the issue. Palin had her Reagan "There you go again" moment in the 2006 gubernatorial debates when she chastised her two male rivals for bickering rather then addressing the issues. There is a short snippet of this moment starting at 6:54 on this video. If Biden misunderestimates the Governor the way the folks here seem to, Palin is going to slice and dice him in the upcoming debate.
"That has some bite with campaign financing, but it's hard to imagine redistricting reform that would be less pro-incumbent than the system we have now, isn't it?"
Incumbents seem to think otherwise, given their continual efforts at further gerrymandering. Challengers still occasionally win, (Albeit not at the rate they used to manage before "campaign reform" hit it's stride.) a real outrage as far as your average officeholder is concerned
As to the "unfit Gov. Pailn," (sic) for those who are unwilling to do their own research to watch and listen to Palin, here is the governor effortlessly fielding questions on a wide variety of issues on C-Span last year.
"Q: How old is the earth?" "SP: Well, it might be 6000 years old." "Q: When will the rapture come?" "SP: Any day now." "Q: Do you recommend Alaska real estate to avoid the horrors of Armageddon?" "SP: Absolutely" "Q: That jet you sold on E-bay., how much profit did you make on it? "SP: $600K." "Q: Is that positive or negative $600K?" "SP: What's the difference? I mean, no, really, what is the difference?" I'd point out that it is no surprise that "Bart" finds Palin intelligent. Einstein explained this all over a 100 years ago. Cheers,
There are (at least) three views on proportional representation expressed in this thread: (1) desirable, let's just do it; (2) desirable but we'll never get there from here so let's focus on much less important but more feasible reforms; and (3) undesirable. I sense that (2) is the plurality, if not majority, view.
Post a Comment
For those not in the third group, there's a way to get from (2) to (1). Start at the local level. This November, PR is on the ballot for city council elections in Cincinnati. Cambridge, Massachusetts has had it continuously since 1940. Davis, California voted for it in an advisory measure in 2006 and this November will vote on a home rule charter that would make adoption possible under state law. The quasi-proportional systems of cumulative voting and the limited vote are in use in more than 50 localities to settle voting rights suits. This is a long road to travel, but a necessary one. I think that folks who wouldn't otherwise get involved in changing the structure of local government have a compelling motive to help out on this issue.
|
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 |