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 Faux Originalism and "Constitution Day"
|
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Faux Originalism and "Constitution Day"
Sandy Levinson
Many originalists claim to feel bound not only by the text of the Constitution (which would make them only textualists, but also by the values, aims, and aspirations of the Founders). But surely one of the central values of the Founders is that no one like Sarah Palin would ever be a candidate for the presidency (and not only because she is a woman, a piece of bigotry that would also, of course, extend for other reasons to Barack Obama). Rather, she is basically uneducated, inexperienced, and incurious about the world at large. She is no Abligail Adams or Mercy Warren, let alone James Madison or John Adams.
Comments:
garth:
Many of the Founders were elitists who distrusted the People with whom they entrusted the vote. Jackson and Lincoln made it acceptable to elect a President from the People rather than only from the elites. Somehow our "disfunctional" Republic survived and prospered after electing common rabble like Jackson and Lincoln and I believe will likewise do just fine if it elects either Obama as President or Palin as VP. Sandy, if you want to live under a parliamentary system where the party bosses choose the candidates "qualified" for PM, I suggest you seek a position with Oxford. There is not a chance in hell the People of the United States would agree to be ruled under such a system.
Any people who would acquiesce in a government of fascist criminals such as Dirty Dick Cheney and Curious George Bush would clearly not be shy about accepting any form of government whatever.
Equally, malicious lying hypocrites like Bart De Palma aren't shy about describing fascist gangsters as "repubicans" who believe in "democracy". An old story.
Well, the virtuous leaders thing hasn't panned out, but we are free of the sort of factional, single-issue party politics that plagues parliamentary democracies, particularly those that use proportional representation. Of course, maybe that sort of politics is to be preferred to what we have now; I'm just saying that Madison did succeed in realizing some of his aims.
Charles:
Please tell me exactly why we in the GOP would not whole heartedly support the democratic election of our country's representatives? Unless you have been hiding under a rock for the past generation, democracy works pretty well for the GOP. You might as well prepare yourself now. Those silly People of the United States appear once again ready to cast a majority or at least a plurality of their ballots to democratically choose the GOP presidential ticket. Seriously, instead of attacking the Republic for your problems getting elected, maybe you folks on the left might want to reconsider the product you are trying unsuccessfully to sell. BTW, save the Nazi epithets for someone who cares.
Ok, I myself am curious: How did you determine that Palin is "incurious about the world at large."? Amazon leak her reading habits? Or maybe you just didn't like her college major?
To get back to the topic, sort of, there's one unfortunate consequence of American adulation for the Constitution that bears more thought. I suggest that it makes Americans generally unqualified to advise on constitutional reform in other countries where such advice is influential. Both Bosnia and Iraq have been left with unworkable constitutions. The Kosovo one is OK, but then Americans didn't write it. Reforming countries would be better off learning from democracies with more recent and less sacralized constitutions like France and Germany. Even the deeply conservative Swiss, who maintain the oldest successful republic in the world, respect their constitution as a well-designed piece of political machinery, not the symbol of national identity.
In some measure, the republicness of our governmental artifice may be attributable to the challenging sort of young adult education some founders enjoyed, at Boston Latin. I visited that storied public school's site knowing one attendee had been a second cousin to one of the US's early presidents. The school's webpage has a slideshow of dignitaries who were students, including Ben Franklin, Samuel Adams, and others. One supposes, as a teen it is best to study the books at the school one's parents have paid to teach you, be those Latin or Greek tomes, or galvanized political tracts. I had a sense that modern "conservatives" might launch into denial if a contemporary historian were to extoll the declamation of the likes of Samuel Adams, depicting him as an unpatriotic rablerousing sort, a misfit who botched his profession in collecting state revenues, and even struggled mightily with managing an inherited factory which produced beer. These modern "conservatives" I imagine decrying Samuel Adams' written work as egregiously outside of acceptable bounds of traditional original intent, lobbying, as he did, for binding the contentious first I-X admendments to the less disputed constitution proper as a "Bill of Rights". In sum, if questioned, certainly some modern "conservatives" would prefer we believe Samuel Adams and his milieu had not existed at all, in fact, the revisionist history deleting most of his work would be a worthwhile endeavor if more "conservatism" inspired administrations accede to the white house.
Then I realized, how difficult it is post ipso facto to obliterate or diminish a contribution of the proportions of Samuel Adams'. Much more difficult, in fact, than simply subcontracting to an offsite server the caretaking and oversight of executive branch emails, which somehow might be erased, or lost, or the backup tapes overwritten. In this reverie, Samuel Adams continues to exist, for now, and for the republic, if we take care to preserve it.
Well I think the clearest thing in all of this is that the people of this country are more confused than anything else, the "elites" included.
It just blows my mind, even though I've been aware of it since I was like 10.
Ok, I myself am curious: How did you determine that Palin is "incurious about the world at large."? Amazon leak her reading habits? Or maybe you just didn't like her college major?
I'm thinking he deduced it from her massive ignorance. If she read a non-local newspaper each morning, she'd have vastly better answers to Gibson's questions. For instance, she'd know that you're not going to make any real difference in the size of the federal budget by "finding efficiencies." Not to be sexist, but that whole exchange made her sound like a 50s home ec teacher. Or Suze Orman. Only really, really ignorant people think you can cut spending by any significant amount simply by rooting out the $640 toilet seats, useless bridges, studies of crab mating habits, and the like.
Please tell me exactly why we in the GOP would not whole heartedly support the democratic election of our country's representatives? Unless you have been hiding under a rock for the past generation, democracy works pretty well for the GOP.
As does being on shooting terms with Supreme court justices and making your state campaign chairman the person who oversees voting in that battleground state. You might as well prepare yourself now. Those silly People of the United States appear once again ready to cast a majority or at least a plurality of their ballots to democratically choose the GOP presidential ticket. Remind us how your 2006 congressional prediction turned out again. Seriously, instead of attacking the Republic for your problems getting elected, maybe you folks on the left might want to reconsider the product you are trying unsuccessfully to sell. Actually, the center right Democrats need to get better salesmanship to overcome the election skills of the right wing Republicans. Once they tie marketing in to products that are supported by the majority of the nation, it will be a long time before the Republicans or their successor parties get back in power, probably after they go back to (actual) small government libertarian values.
"In any event, there is something passing strange about (some) contemporary 'originalists' clutching the Founders to their bosom at the same time they celebrate John McCain's ostensible 'sagacity' in choosing the patently unqualified Sarah Palin because it might provide him an electoral boost. This is not to deny the accuracy of the analysis; it is only to say that no member of the Founding Generation would recognize such a motive (and character) as being the reason they gave for establishing a new Constitution dedicated to maintaining a 'Republican Form of Government.'"
As so frequently, it all depends on what we mean by "originalism." For a textualist variant, rather than one that emphasizes either the Founders' ultimate goals and purposes or how they would resolve particular controversies, see here.
"Bart" DePalma:
Please tell me exactly why we in the GOP would not whole heartedly support the democratic election of our country's representatives?.... Because then they lose? ... Unless you have been hiding under a rock for the past generation, democracy works pretty well for the GOP. Which explains Dubya v. Gore and the many other attempts by the Rethuglicans to deny people the right to vote. Here's the latest. But that's just part of the big picture; Rethuglicans are engaging in "caging", voter registration "challenges", harassment, intimidation, and whatever other dirty tricks they can think of ... because the stakes for the Rethuglicans are a matter of life and death ... or at the very least 10 to 20 with no time off for good behaviour. Cheers,
Now Arne (and Fraud Guy), let's not get too optimistic. Our economy's in pretty scary straits, and Obama's promising to fix it, along with healthcare, the rising seas, and everything else. What's the chance that all pans out? Should he get elected, I'd say there's about a 50/50 chance he's a one-term President and a 75/25 chance the party suffers serious setbacks in 2010.
Tray:
Now Arne (and Fraud Guy), let's not get too optimistic. Our economy's in pretty scary straits, and Obama's promising to fix it, along with healthcare, the rising seas, and everything else. What's the chance that all pans out? Should he get elected, I'd say there's about a 50/50 chance he's a one-term President and a 75/25 chance the party suffers serious setbacks in 2010. Well, I agree that whoever takes over has to deal with what economist Atrios refers to as the "Big Sh*tpile" left by the corporo-Republican rape of the country. And it won't be pretty. But what does that have to do with deciding on who will get this daunting task via democratic means? (I'd note, in keeping with Prof. Levinson's themes, that many of the anti-democratic Rethuglican anti-voting tactics are enabled by the peculiar methods that we choose to select the preznit; namely, that individual states as "winner-take-all" contests magnifies the effect of focused voter-suppression tactics; whereas a few thousand votes in 50 million is barely noise, it can well be quite significant when those thousand votes are concentrated in very close "battleground" states). Cheers,
But what does that have to do with deciding on who will get this daunting task via democratic means?
Nothing - I'm just saying, dreams of the permanent liberal majority are very premature. Though I do agree that the center of American public opinion is a lot farther to the left than it was 10-15 years ago.
tray,
I was arguing that the Democratic party is center-right, not left (liberal), by their actions. Although I do prefer a more liberal electorate (and government), I am not holding my breath at the moment. I am also a little less sanguine about the Democrats' chances, absent a more effective plan and sales job on their part, and I would guess there's about a 10% chance that Obama doesn't get a chance to finish his first term, with Biden possibly pulling a Johnson.
fraud guy said...
I was arguing that the Democratic party is center-right, not left (liberal), by their actions. Although I do prefer a more liberal electorate (and government), I am not holding my breath at the moment. A majority of the Dems are left, not center-right. However, the Dems cannot muster close to a left majority of the overall vote because this is indeed a center-right country. This fact of life is why the Dems only managed a nominal congressional majority through the election of center-right Blue Dogs and why Obama has been furiously tacking to the right during the general elections while running from the label of liberal like a scalded dog. This is also why I posted here last spring that predictions of a Reaganesque realignment election to the Dem left were pipe dreams. The only remaining question is whether Obama ala Cinton can convince voters that he is also center-right and pull a come from behind victory in a little over a month. His last real chances are the debates starting next week.
Baghdad, how do you explain why McSame is running away from rightwingnuts like you even faster than Obama is running away from the left?
If the Founders were so wise, all-knowing, and all-foreseeing, then how come they didn't write the Constitution in a way that would have prevented the Civil War?
I think our presidential system is screwed up. It is a winner-take-all system. Many politicians spend many months campaigning for a position that only one can attain. I much prefer the system in many foreign countries whereby the CEO (president, prime minister, premier, or whatever) is chosen by the legislature, can be removed at any time by a vote of no confidence, and can resign for personal reasons. I am tired of hearing how wonderful our Constitution is. Our system of government is so screwed up that it can be fixed only by another constitutional convention.
tray: I don't understand. What would "pulling a Johnson" consist of?
I think it requires putting on a mantle of some sort, whether or not it fits its wearer.
Bart:
A majority of the Dems are left, not center-right. Not the candidates according to this general mapping of positions. However, the Dems cannot muster close to a left majority of the overall vote because this is indeed a center-right country. I am looking for a more current version of this, or this, but I recall more recent polls showing the electorate a little more in favor of left leaning positions than you seem to imply. Until of course, someone honorable tries to scare the snot out of them for political gain.
I think it requires putting on a mantle of some sort, whether or not it fits its wearer.
Two things: why would Obama fail to finish his term? If you're talking Lyndon Johnson, I'd argue the mantle fit him better than it did his predecessor. Of course if you mean Andrew, that's another matter.
tray:
why would Obama fail to finish his term? Basic stats based on a small sample. We have had 44* presidents. Out of that number: 4 have been assassinated: Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, and Kennedy. 3 died of natural causes: Harrison, Taylor, Roosevelt. 1 resigned: Nixon. In addition, there were failed assassination attempts against 4 others: Jackson, Roosevelt, Ford, Reagan. 2 were arguably incapacitated or mentally incompetent by the end of their terms: Wilson, Reagan. 2 others were impeached, but their terms (if not their effectiveness) survived the attempt: Johnson, Clinton. So basically, 8 of the 44* didn't finish their terms. I doubt that Obama would have the actuarial issue that McCain does (which I consider separately, below), which eliminates 3 of the historical "chances" he won't finish his term. The impeachment/resignation issue is a political crapshoot, and is only 1 for 3, even when Congressional majorities and supermajorities oppose the President and his policies. This route is also unlikely to bring short his Presidency. Finally, we have the worst case. At a base, 9.3% of our prior Presidents left office via this route, with a 50% success rate when attempted, which you can compare to a coin flip. With the eliminationist rhetoric in the back pews of the opposition party (as opposed to the usual mudslinging), it might be more likely to be attempted, and I wouldn't want those odds of survival in such a situation. Back to McCain: Yes, only 3 of 44 died of natural causes, but consider the following: He starts with a 1 in 7 chance (via basic age/actuarial tables) of not surviving the next four years. Add in the wear and tear that all presidents go through (even George "time off" Bush). Add in his known health issues. Add in the reduced survival time of POWs. Stir and mix, and I would give him less than a 50% chance of surviving a theoretical first term. Actually, my best guess is that he will go the Stephen Douglas route after the election. Because of these (predictions? WAGs? hunches) on my part, I considered the VP selection a top issue this campaign, and one candidate won that issue hands down. On mantling, I was thinking the former, not the latter, but I've read differing analyses that made him seem unlikely to fulfill his predecessor's rhetoric on many items, even though he did (some for ill, too). (*43 if you count Cleveland once)
>>>>> 3 died of natural causes: Harrison, Taylor, Roosevelt. <<<<<<
You forgot about Harding. >>>>> 2 were arguably incapacitated or mentally incompetent by the end of their terms: Wilson, Reagan. <<<<< Wilson was seriously incapacitated. All I heard about Reagan was that he would sometimes doze off during meetings -- he wasn't diagnosed as having Alzheimer's disease until 1994, several years after he left office. Also, you should distinguish between the two Roosevelts, FDR and Teddy, the two Johnsons, LBJ and Andrew, and the two Harrisons, William Henry and Benjamin. One of the big problems with our presidential system is that too much depends on the president being able to perform his/her duties.
Larry Farfarman,
Sorry, forgot Harding, but that notionally makes the McCain possibility worse. Re: Reagan, I have heard arguments on both sides as to the time of onset for his symptoms, thus my "arguably" modifier. If I wanted to really argue mentally incompetent...but I won't go there today.
On assassinations, though, you'll notice that we've only had one President killed in the past 107 years and none in the past 45. The probability of getting shot's gone way down, what with vastly improved protection. And he isn't dying of natural causes. So I'd go with 2%.
Post a Comment
|
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 |