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 Constitutional change in the UK?
|
Monday, May 03, 2010
Constitutional change in the UK?
Sandy Levinson
Simon Schama has an interesting leader in the current New Yorker about the upcoming election in the UK and the threat it poses to the current version of the parliamentary system dominated by two parties. If there is a "hung parliament," with neither Tories nor Labour getting a majority (and either would be able to get a majority of seats only because of the vagaries of the first-past-the-post single-member-district syndrome that allows parties to claim handsome "mandates" with distinctly less than a majority of the popular vote], then the price of coalition with the Liberal Democrats would be to dump that in favor of some version of proportional representation. Schama concludes as follows:
Comments:
If the price for Lib-Dem support is proportional representation, then you will have continual hung parliaments and very likely an ongoing Lib/Dem & Conservative alliance.
Given that the Lib/Dems are the closest to American libertarian conservatism while the Conservatives more closely resemble RINOs like Specter ever since the Iron Lady retired, the names of these Brit parties can be more than a little confusing to Yanks. The US would be better served with a runoff system rather than proportional representation and all of its minority party government hostage taking.
Reluctant as I am to contradict dear Bart, I fear that he has not read the Liberal Democrat Manifesto for the election which will take place this Thursday.
Were he to trouble to do so, I think he would find Lib-Dem principles and policies to be very different from what I understand him to mean by the expression American libertarian conservatism. Liberal Democrats are most certainly concerned to preserve and enhance our civil liberties, but Lib-Dem policies are the antithesis of conservative thinking - this is a party which is resolutely progressive. More so than either the Conservatives or Labour. As of today, 4th May 2010, the average of polls puts the Conservatives on 34%, the Lib-Dems on 29%, Labour on 28% and the others on 9%. On first past the post, that would notionally gives the Tories and Labour around 260 seats each with the Lib-Dems getting only around 90 seats but holding the balance of power. The Daily Telegraph reports a poll of marginal seats here which suggests that in Con-Lab marginals, the undecided are breaking for the Conservatives, but that the Lib-Dems are winning in the Con-Lib-Dem marginals. Interestingly the poll reports that 46% of people would prefer a hung parliament to a Tory win (44%). So we may at long last see electoral reform. But I think that Bart would be very much mistaken to think reform would lead to a succession of Conservative-Lib-Dem alliances.
The years since New Labour came to power in 1997 have seen changes to the British institutions of political power on an unprecedented scale. The reforms have been widespread, ranging from devolution of power in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, to the reform of the House of Lords and the changing role of the Monarchy. This book is the first to examine these changes collectively and in detail, placing each in its historical context, analysing problems, solutions and what the future holds for this ambitious period of reforms.
The book is comprehensive in coverage, and accessibly written. As such it should be the ideal resource for undergraduate students of British Politics seeking to make sense of this complex subject.Law
Just for amusement This local paper headline prompted the Conservative Guido Fawkes' Blog to comment that this wasn't exactly the headline Labour would want 45 hours before the polls open.
The thought of a "hung" Parliament calls for a comeback of Monty Python's Flying Circus. Perhaps Guido might prefer a "hanged" Parliament.
BD: Given that the Lib/Dems are the closest to American libertarian conservatism
Mourad: Reluctant as I am to contradict dear Bart, I fear that he has not read the Liberal Democrat Manifesto for the election which will take place this Thursday. Apart from the silliness about government subsidy for "green energy," the LD platform of tax cuts, budget cuts, written protections of individual liberties, local school power, and making MPs work in the open and under the same laws as the citizenry sounds like the various Tea Party manifestos around the the United States. Have you read the LD manifesto or are you simply ignorant about what the Tea Party libertarian conservative movement supports?
With regard to " ... the various Tea Party manifestos around the the United States," TomDispatch.com 5/3/10 features "History's Mad Hatters - The Strange Career of Tea Party Populism" by Steve Fraser and Joshua B. Freeman with a history lesson beginning with the original Boston Tea Party. [Note: "Hatters" is not a typo but with one less "t" it might serve as a better description.]
Have you read the LD manifesto or are you simply ignorant about what the Tea Party libertarian conservative movement supports?
# posted by Bart DePalma : 10:27 AM The tea-baggers don't appear to support anything. They're just angry that Obama is president.
Shag from Brookline said...
Perhaps Tea Party-baggers need to go decaf. Your metaphor would be better applied to the astroturf Coffee Party folks. Apparently, their 2008 Obama campaign operatives have had a falling out and are now fighting over who is in charge.
A: "Both kinds of power [economic and political] have been stripped from ordinary citizens, leaving us with a fragile society marked by inequality, environmental degradation and boombust economics. If government merely tinkers at the edges - the Republican and Democratic approach - America's problems will not be solved. We can change this only with radical action."
B: "We support a return to the free market principles on which this nation was founded and oppose government intervention into the operations of private business." C: "[Our agenda] emphasizes the strong economic growth, affordable health care for all Americans, retirement security, open, honest and accountable government, and securing our nation while protecting our civil rights and liberties." D: "Our ideals are those that unify America: Courage in the face of foreign foes. An optimistic patriotism, driven by a passion for freedom. Devotion to the inherent dignity and rights of every person. Faith in the virtues of self-reliance, civic commitment, and concern for one another. Distrust of government’s interference in people’s lives. Dedication to a rule of law that both protects and preserves liberty." E: "We will rebuild America's economy to secure the recovery and invest in future growth and jobs. We will renew our society to further strengthen the communities that bind our country together. And we will restore trust in politics with greater transparency and accountability in a system battered by scandal." F: "Only together can we can get rid of this government and, eventually, its debt. Only together can we get the economy moving. Only together can we protect Medicare. Improve our schools. Mend our broken society." Without resorting to Google (or any other search engine), can you tell me which party is responsible for each of the (slightly modified) statements above?
PMS:
Unless you know the speakers, which I do not, simply reading the rhetoric will not necessarily reveal the speaker's identity as folks will often tell audiences what they want to hear. With that caveat, I will take a stab at your name the speaker contest: a) This is green socialist rhetoric. b) Return to first principles is pure Tea Party. c) Dem focus group talking points. d) GOP focus grouped talking points. e) Sure sounds like Obama. f) You got me. I do not recognize this populist rhetoric.
I'm not going to take the bait as it is not clear that the statements are current and contemporaneous, that they may have been made over many campaigns, in another country, in which case all of the statements may be those of a single party. I'm listening for the drum roll when the results are to be announced.
I don't want to spoil the answers, but if the purpose was to make Bart look like a fool for trying to portray the Lib Dems as a conservative party (something he would never be trying to establish if they weren't doing well in the polls) then the mission was accomplished.
To be clear, there certainly are issues on which the Lib Dems are to the right of Labour - they're not some doctrinaire left-wing party - but Bart's attempt to cherry-pick a few handy provisions from the party platform is pretty pathetic.
A) Lib-Dem Party
B) Tea Party C) DNC D) RNC E) Labour Party F) Conservative Party Bart, I think you're spot on when you say "simply reading the rhetoric will not necessarily reveal the speaker's identity as folks will often tell audiences what they want to hear." That's the general point I wanted to make with the exercise, and you beat me to the punch, but still played along. Two thumbs up for sportsmanship!
I want to be clear that the previous post wasn't sarcasm--I am impressed that Bart went along gamely, even while stating reservations.
Congratulations to PMS_CC on his cleverly devised quiz. I have to say that the Tea Party Statement rather stood out as an example of the crafting of a statement which rings subconscious associations in the minds of readers but in fact is saying something novel. The founding fathers' concern was to limit government intrusion into the lives of private citizens rather than government intervention into the operations of private business. As I recall, the Bush Administration's speech writers were likewise particularly good at working in allusions to sources such as the hymns of Messrs Moody & Sankey.
I think there is no doubt that that in terms of policy it would be easier to craft a coalition agenda between Labour and Lib-Dems than between Conservatives and Lib-Dems. But we are living in "interesting times". Firstly, with one day's campaigning left until the polls open on Thursday, the aggregate of the 6 reputable polls reports Conservatives 35%, Labour 29%, Lib-Dem 27%, Other 9%. On a uniform swing that would give a result of Conservatives 270, Labour 272, Lib-Dems 79 and Others 29. No party would have 326 seats and that gives us a hung parliament. Of course, there will not be a uniform swing, what will actually matter are the outcomes in individual constituencies and in particular in the 150 marginal seats. We use paper ballots and they will be counted starting at 10.30 pm when the polls close and the results will come in overnight - by Friday morning we should have a fairly clear picture. Then:- a) Gordon Brown and the other ministers remain in office. If there is a single party which has 326 seats and it is not Labour, by convention, Brown must go to the Palace, advise the Queen to send for the leader of that party and resign his office. The Queen will then invite the leader of that party to form a government. b) But if there is no outright winner, Brown gets the first chance to see if he can either (i) form a coalition with an agreed programme for government; or (ii) obtain assurances of support for a minority government (which is technically known as "Queen's Speech and Supply"). c) It is only if Brown fails in either endeavour, that he becomes obliged to advise the Queen that he cannot form a government which will have the support of the House, and that she send for the leader of another party to attempt the task of forming a coalition or getting support for a minority government. He remains in office until that attempt succeeds. In practical terms, one then gets into issues of personalities, the dictates of party constitutions on leadership elections and pacts with other parties. For example, Brown could resign as party leader and allow an interim leader to take over to work out a pact with the Lib-Dems so as to keep the Tories out. My personal thought is that in such a situation there will be a sufficient number of centre-left individual MP's in Parliament who will want to find some way to prevent the Conservatives from embarking on the wrecking of what's left of our economy. We shall see - but it all depends on the contents of the ballot boxes on Thursday evening.
The world of the Atlantic may be a Bizarro one. Here in the Colonies (MA Bay) a few months ago a Brown (Scott) upset the Senate (and thus Congress and the Executive) political power structure with an upset victory. Now, across the Pond another Brown (Gordon) seeks to upset the Brits political power structure by remaining in power despite the rise of the Tories following Tony Blair's debacle of Labour that Brown (Gordon) succeeded to. Back to our side of the Pond, we have had the anti-Obama-on-everything Tea Party helping along our Brown's (Scott) upset. Perhaps, going along with the Bizarro World concept, the historical tea drinkers on the other side of the Pond will rely upon the Starbucks Party to assist Brown (Gordon)aided with the pouring by the Lib-Dems. So "Doing It Up Brown" may succeed on both shores.
10 pm UK - Polls have closed. Exit poll based on 18k sample predicts a hung parliament with the Conservatives as the largest party.
6am Friday - with 543 of 650 seats declared, Conservatives 268, Labour 210, Lib-Dems 40 - the prediction is still that there will be a hug parliament.
The Foreign Affairs website has just sent out Email that includes "Labour Pains" by Mark Blyth and Jonathan Hopkin. Perhaps a reading should be deferred until more results are in and actions are taken.
Mourad, while I had a lot of difficulty envisioning a "hung parliament," now I have even more with your suggestion of a "hug parliament." Here on our side of the Pond in 2000, we had a two-way with Bush v. Gore, whereas today on your side of the Pond you have a three-way, all because of the dem-libs who are to the left of Labour on most issues despite the efforts of our former backpacker to equate them with his "Hot Water" party (bring your own tea bags, please).
Shag: I'm sorry about the "hug" parliament - in fact knives in the back are more the parliamentary style than hugs. It was a slip of the keyboard - excusable, I hope, after an all night session before the idiot's latntern watching the elections results.
As of now, with 634 of 650 seats declared (and one will not be seen till later in the month because a candidate died between close of nominations and the election, we are definitively in a "hung parliament" - i.e., no one party has an absolute majority. The process of negotiations to see whether a sufficient common platform can be agreed between 2 or more parties is in progress. Since we have a parliamentary rather than a presidential system, the executive must have the confidence of the parliament to survive. Remember, it is not a simple Tory-Lab-Lib-Dem process, there are the smaller parties:- 1. There are 4 Sein Fein members from Northern Ireland. They will not take their seats - take away 4 from 650. 2. There are 3 SDLP members from Northern Ireland - they will take the Labour whip 3. There is one Alliance member from Northern Ireland - she will align with the Lib-Dems 4. There is 1 Northern Ireland Independent - she may align with the Conservatives 5. There are 6 Scot Nats and 3 Welsh Nationalists who will adopt a "what's in it for Scotland/Wales?" approach 6. There are 8 Democratic Unionists who might align with the Conservatives at a price. And yes, the bargaining will be hard because both Labour and Lib-Dems are opposed to the Conservative approach to the budget deficit which can be summarised as a "soak the poor" approach.
Mourad, a "hug" may position one to better thrust a knife in the back of another.
Thanks for the updates. I just read Burns et al in the NYTimes and noted that the lib-dems got 23% of the popular vote. I wonder how this compares to the lib-dems popular vote in the last election. A combination of the labour and lib-dems popular vote exceeds the tory popular vote. What significance might this have with the eventual governance or what obstacles the tories might face if they form the government?
Shag: the results are now complete (bar the one seat where voting has been postponed) .
The Tories have 306 seats with probably one extra to come from the postponed seat. So they cannot obtain a majority 326 by going it alone and nor can they do so with their only natural allies the Ulster DUP who have just 8 seats. They can do it in coalition with the Lib Dems who have 57 seats. Labour have 258 seats. Even with the Lib-Dems 57, they would still be 11 seats short. So they would need to have with them also the N Irish SDLP -3 seats, the NI Alliance - 1 seat and also the Scots and Welsh Nationalists - 9 seats. So there are now formal talks under way to see what coalition is possible. There are numerous elephants in the room:- 1. The economy is in such a mess that the party which has to bring in the tax increases and spending cuts to remedy that will probably become so unpopular that it will be out of power for a generation. 2. All parties except the Tories want electoral reform. But the Tories know that if electoral reform comes in they may also be out of power permanently. They only got 36% of the vote this time. Labour + Lib-Dem got 52% of the vote. 3. Each leader is constrained by what the party activists will go along with. Some of the Conservative right wing have something of a Gotterdammerung mentality and some Lib-Dems and Laborites would sooner opt for ideological purity than a responsible approach in the national interest. Still the prospect of power is a powerful aphrodisiac.
Mourad, thanks for the update. Take a look at Paul Krugman's Blog entry yesterday (5/7/10) headed "Hung Over in Britain" in which he states that all three parties - Tories, Labour and Lib-Dems - were losers. Krugman closes with:
"The big loser here, clearly, is the Queen, who may find herself actually forced to play a substantive role." So maybe the Monarchy is the constitutional change required in the UK. As Snow White might have said "Some day my Prince will come." I hope he doesn't dilly dally.
The LATimes' Doyle McManus has an interesting column today (5/9/10): "Forget change, voters want safety - Amid economic troubles, voters aren't looking for change as much as safe passage out of their fiscal problems" that looks at the recent British elections and what it might mean for Europe and the U.S. Doyle didn't use "It's the economy, stupid" but that's what it may be. He doesn't think the Tea Party is the answer in providing financial safety here in America.
E. J. Dionne's column in today's (5/10/10) WaPo "A way forward in Britain" lays out the dilemma for Clegg and the lib-dems if he and his party are to avoid being weakened. Will it be Camelot for Cameron? Or will Brown step down to keep Labor around for a couple of years until another election? Or might Clegg persist with coffee, tea or me in his bid for reform? There is no man-date. Rather, its a trans-gender-date with the lib-dems in the mix, a possible three-way - or the highway. Where's Monty Python's Flying Circus to make sense of this all? It's getting tight in the tight little island across the Pond. In response to the Brits' typical "Here, here," we on the other side of the Pond ask "Where, where?"
Postcript:-
Post a Comment
Just to note that the UK has its first coalition government since World War II. The change of Prime Minister took place in 45 minutes. HM The Queen did not need to get involved in any political issues. The composition of the government is being announced as I blog with David Cameron as Prime Minister, Nick Clegg as Deputy Prime Minister, 4 other cabinet positions going to Liberal Democrats, 20 other ministerial posts sub-cabinet level going to Liberal Democrats and a quite detailed agreed coalition programme which is an amalgam of the policies of both parties. So, for all its faults, our constitutional settlement still has the flexibility to meet our needs - and the new government is up and running as of now.
|
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 |