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
This is the final post in a series about what I am calling "constitutional liability rules." The idea is that in certain situations the best design involves allowing government institutions to retain their right to act but imposing a penalty on them if they do. We see that with the Spending Clause and other textual provisions (e.g., the Direct Tax Clause), and we see that in the historical examples that my prior posts described. The obvious question is whether there is any room for this concept to expand. (I should add that there are portions of the text where the Framers anticipated and rejected this option, most notably in the provisions barring Congress from reducing the salaries of judges or the President.)
One thought is that the Article Five process could be streamlined (for those who think that ratifying amendments in the states is too difficult) by adopting a practice whereby Congress would declare after passing an amendment by the requisite two-thirds that states will suffer an appropriations penalty of some sort if they refuse to sign up. This would be a reasonable workaround because the states would retain their right to veto a textual amendment but only if they felt that the expression of national will in Congress was totally misplaced. There may be others, but I'm not sure. That is why this is a work-in-progress. Posted
11:46 AM
by Gerard N. Magliocca [link]