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
In response to Brad DeLong, I'll try once more and then stop unless I feel really really provoked. THERE IS NO "FACT OF THE MATTER" on whether a constitutional argument is good or bad, as there is about the shape of the world. Constitutional arguments are good if there's enough political wind behind them to make them plausible/credible/winning among relevant audiences, bad if they don't pass the plausibility threshold among those audiences.
This is a point about "jurisprudence" and politics, not about whether the Section 4/Take Care argument is "good" or "bad," a matter on which I have for these purposes no view. That's why I started my comments with the observation that there was a structural similarity between the anti-ACA arguments and the Section 4/Take Care argument. We may be in the process of observing an argument moving along the continuum ranging from "really strange" to plausible to credible to ..., as we saw with the Article II argument in Bush v. Gore and with the anti-ACA argument.
Trying again: The arguments of tax protestors are (regarded by the relevant audiences as) bad ones because tax protestors have no substantial political support for their constitutional arguments. They would be regarded as plausible arguments were Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul, and Tim Johnson to start endorsing them in the Republican debates, credible were one of the three to be the Republican nominee, and (probably) winning were one of them to be elected President. But the world would still be round if one of them won the presidency.
I'm not interested in the merits of the Section 4/Take Care argument except to get it into the right shape. (As far as I know, but I could be wrong, I'm the first in the current discussions to insert the Take Care part of the argument, and I appreciate that fleshing out the argument would indeed require me to say something about the last-in-time and specificity arguments DeLong makes, but I'm not all that interested in doing so. The Democrats can hire lawyers to do it.)