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 U.S. Move to Socialism Seen; Both Candidates Approve
|
Monday, September 08, 2008
U.S. Move to Socialism Seen; Both Candidates Approve
Stephen Griffin
No, that's not a headline you're likely to see, although I hope someone can explain to me how we didn't just socialize all the risk in the mortgage market. Anyway, I'm kidding! Rather than discuss the details of this extraordinary exercise of government power, I'd rather call attention to what it illustrates about the sort of constitutional regime we live in.
Comments:
When the government created this near monopoly on mortgage lending by two quasi public companies, it was also inevitable that the risk of a downturn would be socialized by us tax payers.
The alternative of allowing the Macs to fail would have tanked the financial markets and plunged the world (not just the US) into a financial meltdown. It was that large. I hope McCain is being truthful about breaking up the Macs and privatizing them so we can safely allow individual companies to fail in the future without causing a world wide financial meltdown. Now, what do we do about the failing near monopoly on pensions known as Social Security?
I'm not sure privatization is a panacea. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were effective precisely because they occupied that quasi-governmental position and had (mostly) transparent standards for approving loans. Given the large number of private lenders that have gone out of business (or "temporarily suspended" their lending departments), the standards set by Fannie Mae provided the sole bit of security in a very tumultuous real estate market.
Since intervention has proven necessary time and again (yes, perhaps not in a perfect free market, but those don't exist yet), the question is whether the government should--in the future-- use taxpayer money to bail out private banks or use it to prop up GSEs that provide underwriting standards and stability to the market as a whole. I think I prefer the second option to the first. I would like my tax money to go (at least nominally) where it benefits the country, rather than the country club.
The Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac bailout is but the latest example of the fallacy of deregulation in the interests of "small government".
When you have people in charge of other peoples' money, it is not 'light touch' regulation which is required but 'onerous' regulation, because the 'greed is good' syndrome will always prevail over commercial morality. Historically, banks and others lent by way of mortgage to creditworthy customers only - who were able to put up a reasonable deposit and demonstrate ability to repay. They then kept those debts on their own books and made sure there was a prudent ratio of long-term lending to short-term deposits. If they got the assessment of the credit worthiness of borrowers wrong - or the prudential ratio of lending to deposits wrong, then they failed. Along come the "get rich quick" kids. New formula: "Let's lend lots of money imprudently to non-credit-worthy borrowers. Then we package all those imprudent loans into new 'mortgage backed' securities which we can trade so as to spread the risk" - as if securitisation makes an imprudent loan prudent. And the "magic powder" which effected the transformation of an imprudent loan into a marketable security ? - The Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac guarantee. Result: a liability to the international financial system which is the equivalent of the entire US National Debt. These securities have been traded all over the world. In the UK housing prices have already fallen and it is estimated they will fall by up to 25%. New mortgage credit is almost impossible to find as lenders struggle to get their balance sheets back in order as they take the billions in write-downs on their US portfolios. Who will ultimately take the hit ? Mostly the members of pension funds which put part of their members' assets into 'safe' equity securities such as bank shares. And will the auditors, "the light touch" regulators", the treasury secretaries, the corporate whizz-kids do jail time for another repetition of the oldest fraud in the world - not likely. All institutions which take deposits need regulation of the FDIC banking kind - examiners who turn up without warning and go through the papers with a fine toothcomb. It's expensive - Yes. It creates a Federal bureacracy - Yes. It inhibits innovation - Yes - and a jolly good idea too. It makes the sort of people who give huge donations to the Republican Party to encourage "free markets" a lot poorer - Yes - and a jolly good idea too. From the South Sea Bubble to Enron to this, the rule has never changed - if a proposition sounds too good to be true, then it probably is. And it is the duty of government to regulate to prevent it. Otherwise only two consequences can follow: a great depression or a bail-out at taxpayer expense. Ain't it a bleeding shame? It's the rich that get the profits but the poor what gets the blame!
pms:
If by panacea you mean future lending institutions will not fail, then free markets certainly will not provide that panacea. Indeed, one of the necessary functions of a free market is the "creative destruction" of replacing the inefficient with the efficient and thus imposing risk discipline on the players in the market. We need to return to a situation where it is relatively safe for lending institutions to fail. Where the government comes into the picture is by enforcing anti-trust laws to keep these institutions from getting too big and to keep an eye in the loan instruments being offered. It is not to violate the precepts of the anti trust laws and the free market by creating its own lending monopolies.
Mourad -- Unless your goal is to have the government make certain people don't make foolish investments, I am not sure the necessity of what you propose. Under your scenario, there would be no securitization (or credit derivatives or other investments on mortgages and perhaps other investments). This would lead to significantly less people owning their homes, significantly less money being generated in the economy, a significant amount of tax revenue missed and a an even larger percentage of financial investment and innovation moving to London and Hong Kong.
Perhaps you are stating that only risky investments shouldn't be securitized. But who defines risky? If a certain risk theoretically exists but has never happened, should we stop that investment? If so, you stop many failures, including Long Term Capital Management. But you also have created a flight to Europe for capital and/or a huge decrease in the capital generated in our economy. If Congress thought certain investments (such as sub-prime mortgages) allowed too much risk for Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac (or investment banks), Congress should have intervened to slow the risky investments. In fact, had we approved the Basel II capital structure more quickly, some of these risks would have been abated for the investment banks. But Congress didn't act and the market acted as it normally does -- some people succeed and other people fail. The costs to the taxpayers is much higher because Congress didn't act in time. The rating agencies thought the securitized investments were good and the investors knew the risks they were taking. The economy thrived due to securitization; other than labor/costs in China, I believe securitization is the main driver that have kept interest rates so low for such a long period of time. Just because the market is not perfect and some people lose money does not mean we should eliminate the market. It just means people need to be more observant to the risks on the fringe.
I hope McCain is being truthful about breaking up the Macs and privatizing them so we can safely allow individual companies to fail in the future without causing a world wide financial meltdown.
Wow. A Republican worried about conglomeration and monopoly. That's a first. Arlo Guthrie had a good spoof of this attitude a while back when the Republicans/big-bidnessmen asked for a bailout. If you're little and you "fail", well 'eff you (or worse, we'll eliminate individual bankrupcy and force you nto indentured servitude). If you're big enough to hurt the fat cats when you fall, gub'mint will step in with a bailout of your "rsky schemes" and then you'll get your relief. "Bart" misstates the genesis of the Macs as well: "When the government created this near monopoly on mortgage lending by two quasi public companies...." Didn't quite happen that way. And they didn't get into trouble because of what the gub'mint did (ingoring externalities such as stoking a housing bubble while trashing the economy that would pay for it), but because of what they did after the gub'mint cut the reins. Cheers,
A further note:
... two quasi public companies ... Huh?!?!? Were the Macs more "public" than the raft of companies traded each and every day on the NYSE/NASDAQ? Cheers,
Bill, I think you misread Mourad (he can speak for himself, of course). As I understood his post, it was a call for regulation, not a call to require banks to keep the mortgages they write.
The issue is, though, that when banks don't keep the mortgages, there's a risk of externalities. I understand Mourad to be calling for regulation as a hedge against that.
Speaking for myself, but with a deferential hat-tip to Mark, I think there are a number of issues:-
1. I do not agree with the theory espoused by Bart de Palma that "small is beautiful", "regulation is bad" and "banks should be allowed to fail". Banks take deposits from a lot of people who cannot afford to lose the money but at least Mr & Mrs Small depositer are covered by FDIC. But what about Mr & Mrs small employer and their employees with a pension fund which has invested monies in a regulated bank thinking it was a safe investment. 2. I think the aim of regulators of deposit taking businesses should be that the audit and regulatory controls should mean that no bank or other deposit taking institution of any kind should be allowed to fail. Rescued - by forced take-over yes. 3. Nor should there be artificial restraints on banks growing and and expanding. The days of the single town or single state bank or even single country bank are over. This is an industry where there are increasing efficiencies of scale - where most retail and business banking will be conducted on-line. When is the last time anyone posting on this blog actually needed to visit their bank for any reason? Here, 90% of employers pay by direct transfer, social security payments likewise and 80% of bills are collected by direct debit. Cheques are rapidly becoming a thing of the past. Bills that are not paid by direct debit are paid by online transfer. I don't think I have written a cheque for anything household for 6 months. Bank branches are closing over here at a great rate - often re-opening as pubs under names like "the banker's draft". 4. Yes, Bill, I am unhappy about securitisation in the form it has taken. Not against the financial instrument per se, but against the duff credit risks being stuffed into the securitised packages. It reminds me of the legal definition of "a guarantee" - "a guarantee is when someone who can't pay gets someone else who can't pay to say that he will pay". A mortgage where the borrowers are required to put up 25% or 30% of the capital required to complete their purchase is one risk - a mortgage where the lending is 110% of the selling price of the property is quite another. Likewise as of late there has been little consideration of the ability to repay. People who should have been living with their parents or in rental property have been encouraged to get on the housing ladder before they were ready. Now the hoovervilles are beginning to develop under freeways and elsewhere and were I a democrat, I would be running ads about them in their full ghastliness. 5. Yes, Bill, I agree about Basel II. No, I disagree about overseas investors knowing or caring about the risk - they knew that the US government would have to stand behind Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, so the "greed is good mob" paid themselves excessive compensation knowing that the general body of tax payers would foot the bill. 6. If there was ever an argument that the costs of regulatory intervention should fall as a levy on the financial services industry rather than on the general body of taxpayers - this is it. That means the industry becomes genuinely self-regulating - because the good and prudent operators will encourage the regulators to close down the shady and imprudent sooner rather than later.
Now, what do we do about the failing near monopoly on pensions known as Social Security?
Considering huge numbers of people have private pension plans, 401(k)'s, IRA's, Keough plans, and other sorts of private retirement investments, it is not honest to call Social Security a near monopoly. Nor is it "failing"-- indeed, it is probably the single most successful US government program in history.
Social Security is the best government program in the country.
BUT, Willie Clinton was so kind as to have his boys come up with "core inflation" which excludes food and energy, I won't ask. This allows the government to keep the yearly raises in SS at a much lower figure. It has always surprised me that our media just goes along with this lie. Like the NYT reporter tell us that "core inflation" is the real figure. If I received in my Social Security payment the correct amount of inflation it would be doubled. And I worked 45 years paying into SS each week and it is not a government handout as is so often stated. Also if Congress and Johnson left their hands off of the money instead of using it for wars etc. it could pay what was promised to each and every worker that paid in. hal scranton
On the subject of "greed is good" the New York Times has a relevant footnote to our Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac discussion in an article Reduced Exit Packages Urged for Ousted Executives. The key information is this:-
"Under the terms of his employment contract, Mr. Mudd could receive a package worth up to $9.3 million if his dismissal is deemed to be “without cause,” according to an analysis by the consulting firm James F. Reda & Associates. That is on top of $12.4 million in salary, bonuses and profits after cashing in stock options he has taken home since becoming chief executive in 2004, according to Equilar research. Mr. Syron could receive an exit package of at least $14.1 million on top of the $17.1 million he has taken home in cash, bonuses and stock option profits since becoming chief executive in 2003. A big chunk of that exit package comes from an unusual clause that was left in his employment agreement when it was renegotiated in November. That provision, part of a contract extension negotiated by Freddie Mac’s board and approved by its regulator, allows Mr. Syron to give up a stock award that has plummeted in value for an $8.8 million cash payment. If that's what the so-called regulator thinks is an appropriate compensation package for guaranteeing worthless securities at the expense of the taxpayer, I wonder what would be the appropriate package in your "democracy" for simply taking taxpayer dollars on receipt and feeding them into a furnace. I'm all for "performance-related pay" provided it cuts both ways. It is apparent that the "performance" in this case was artificially boosted by accounts that significantly understated the proper provisions which ought to have been made in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles - and, presumably, the accuracy of those accounts was certified by the Board of Directors and the Chief Executive as well as being approved by the auditors. Of course, part of the problem may be the extent to which the regulators were also involved in the process of allowing duff accounts to pass muster.
Perhaps it will come as no surprise that the first shareholder suit seeking class action status has apparently been filed in SDNY Federal Court - Complaint
This may be only the beginning - I understand that a lot of sovereign wealth funds are involved - and they have very deep pockets and some take these things very personally.
dilan said...
BD: Now, what do we do about the failing near monopoly on pensions known as Social Security? Considering huge numbers of people have private pension plans, 401(k)'s, IRA's, Keough plans, and other sorts of private retirement investments, it is not honest to call Social Security a near monopoly. Nor is it "failing"-- indeed, it is probably the single most successful US government program in history. Unfortunately, only half or so of the nation invests for their retirement while everyone who pays SS taxes is supposed to receive social security. Even among those who invest, SS will probably be their primary source of pension. Thus, I would suggest that "near monopoly" is a good term for SS. SS is a ponzi scheme depending on working children to pay their parents way. As such, it can only work if the children outnumber their parents and their parents do not stay retired long before dying. In fact, the boomers declined to have many children to support them and are projected to live around two decades during retirement. Thus, the system is due to start going bankrupt before I begin to collect. SS is an exceedingly bad investment. Today's retirees might receive about a 2% return on investment for their SS contributions. My cohort at the ass end of the boomer locust swarm will almost certainly lose money. If you are middle aged now, you better be either planning on working past 70 and/or socking a large portion of your income away in investments making a serious ROI.
While the US social security system may be considered valuable by many, it is, of course far from perfect. But it was traditionally, and rightly, considered "the third rail" of American politics: touch it and die. That attitude should be instilled in every child from secondary school onwards. A civilised state has to provide some kind of safety net for all its citizens.
By European standards, the basic US system is fairly rudimentary. Any safety net must cover:- (i) a minimum income for those unable to work or retired; (ii) acceptable basic health care for all; (iii) an assurance that all families have access to decent affordable housing (iv) access to quality education. Nobody denies that the provision of such a safety net is very expensive. The myth that the benefits are financed out of the contributions paid into the system is just that - a myth. The contributions are nothing more than a form of payroll tax for employers and employees. Insofar as there is any separate accounting for social security systems what actually happens is that one generation's contributors subsidise the previous generation to some extent and the balance is made up out of taxation. There is a fundamental reason for this - a principal one being that costs in the healthcare and social care sectors are rising much faster than general inflation. Diseases which were incurable and resulted in early death are today treatable - expensively. But they often leave those treated unable to work. Nor is it true that the solution is for everyone to have private insurance cover. Insurance companies are in business to make money - and that means not taking on an unacceptable level of risks. In short, they will provide an umbrella as long as the sun is shining, but once it starts raining they will want their unbrella back PDQ. Therefore there has to be a state guaranteed minimum, funded from taxation with encouragement for those who are able to obtain private top-up provision. And if Bart is doing as well as he makes out then there is no good reason why he should not be taxed at a higher arate on his income over 300k. It's certainly more just than the scandalous levels of child poverty in the USA - see Child Poverty in America - Facts and Figures. And before Bart and those of his ilk start to come back with accusations that I am a bleeding heart liberal - consider this: those children are the future wealth of the country. The days of huge profits from 'making or growing things' are coming to an end and what is needed to remain competitive is a huge pool of well educated young graduates, not future sharecroppers or production line workers. So I do not advocate a safety-net on altruistic grounds - but because it makes economic sense.
And before Bart and those of his ilk start to come back with accusations that I am a bleeding heart liberal - consider this: those children are the future wealth of the country.
I hate to say it, Mourad, but many people would say that using the words "children are the future" in a row is high on the list of the diagnostic fieldmarks of the "bleeding heart liberal." :)
Unfortunately, only half or so of the nation invests for their retirement while everyone who pays SS taxes is supposed to receive social security.
Post a Comment
And why does only half of the nation save for retirement, and/or have to count on SS? If $38k is the cutoff for the bottom 40% of family incomes, I would like to see you save enough at that income level (even 5% of that would be a big hit to a family) after food, shelter, and utilities, not to mention transportation, to have a retirement fund that is credible. And if you have to pay for college, or major medical expenses (if you have viable insurance at a job paying in that range), or lose your job for an extended period of time, where is this magical ability to save to provide for yourself going to come from? I think that's why it's a safety net, to provide for those who couldn't otherwise provide for themselves.
|
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 |