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 Tendentious, mendacious or audacious? John Roberts rewrites the 10th Amendment
|
Sunday, June 30, 2013
Tendentious, mendacious or audacious? John Roberts rewrites the 10th Amendment
Sandy Levinson
Comments:
I think the argument would be that "specifically" is redundant in this context, rendered necessary only by the metastasizing concept of 'implied' powers. The whole point of dividing power into those delegated, and those not, is defeated if you're going to claim that powers not mentioned in the delegation are none the less somehow 'delegated'.
The principle, "Expressio unius est exclusio alterius" applies here: To list is to exclude that not listed. Granted, this is a principle not much liked by those who don't believe the federal government SHOULD be one of limited powers. That doesn't make it any less applicable. Anyway, I thought Shelby really relied on that "appropriate" in the 14th amendment, not on the 10th amendment. The 10th barely merited a mention in the opinion.
Brett
What do you think of the fact Professor Levinson points out though, that the Congress declined to adopt the word "expressly" which was used in the Articles? I would think that means something in interpreting the language...
"Then, shalt thou count to three. No more. No less. Three shalt be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out."
Note this is comedy. In any serious context, when you direct your gardener to mow the lawn and trim the shrubs, you don't have to add that you're not authorizing him to fell all the trees in the orchard. The 10th amendment was ratified to underline the principle that the federal government only got the powers given to it, not a general grant of power. But this is almost a sideshow, the 10th amendment was not central to Shelby, the 14th was, with it's "appropriate", which so many people would like to render meaningless. What do I think of McCulloch v Maryland? Entropy sets in early, that's what I think.
"The 10th amendment was ratified to underline the principle that the federal government only got the powers given to it, not a general grant of power."
Yes, but it was ratified purposely leaving out the term "expressly" which was in the Articles preceding it, so there seems to be a good reason that the "powers given to it" might not have been simply those "expressly" given.
It isn't just the change in language from the Articles. The historical evidence doesn't support Brett's reading at all:
1. Both Madison and Hamilton agreed that Brett's reading is wrong. Here's Hamilton in Federalist 33: “it may be affirmed with perfect confidence that the constitutional operation of the intended government would be precisely the same, if [the N&P clause] were entirely obliterated, as [it would be] if [it] were repeated in every article. [It is] only declaratory of a truth which would have resulted by necessary and unavoidable implication from the very act of constituting a federal government, and vesting it with certain specified powers.” And Madison in Federalist 44: “Had the Constitution been silent on this head, there can be no doubt that all the particular powers requisite as means of executing the general powers would have resulted to the government, by unavoidable implication. No axiom is more clearly established in law, or in reason, than that wherever the end is required, the means are authorized; wherever a general power to do a thing is given, every particular power necessary for doing it is included.” 2. Jefferson and a few others (not Madison) made this argument in opposition to the Bank, but the majority in both Houses of the First Congress disagreed. Then Washington disagreed when Jefferson made the same argument to him. Then the Supreme Court unanimously disagreed with Jefferson in McCulloch. 3. The Federalists had a majority in Congress and controlled many states when the BoR was passed and ratified. They never would have agreed to such an important reduction in the power granted to Congress, and there's zero evidence that they did. Look folks, John Roberts is a Lost Causer, a neo-Confederate. This has been clear since he used similar intellectual dishonesty to reframe the holding in Brown, and we probably should have known it long before that.
The "spirit" of the 10A at times seems not to quite match the words.
"Granted, this is a principle not much liked by those who don't believe the federal government SHOULD be one of limited powers. That doesn't make it any less applicable." I don't know who "those" people are though repeatedly they amount to those who think the Constitution (including what the text appears to say) provides the feds certain limited power that is not limited enough for Brett. Anyway, if a ratifier of the Constitution who fought in the Revolutionary War and served in three branches of government within a decade or so of its passage cannot be trusted, originalism does leave a lot to be desired. Since he followed the approach of Hamilton and the Washington Administration on the bank, "entropy" seems to have set around 1791 or so.
It's Federalists vs Anti-Federalists. The Constitution is a Federalist document. The Bill of Rights, including the 10th amendment? An ANTI-Federalist document. It was imposed on them by states that didn't fully trust the Federalists.
And I can't say I'm much impressed with the determination to see to it that the 10th amendment remains a dead letter. However, to repeat, what did the work in Shelby was the "appropriate legislation" language in the 14th, NOT the 10th amendment. Which is to say, it's those attacking Shelby who are trying to ignore part of an amendment, not the originalists.
Brett twice refers to the 14th Amendment and appropriate legislation. Actually, in Shelby, it is the 15th Amendment's enforcement clause that applied. Each of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments has enforcement clauses empowering Congress specifically. On an earlier related threat, I referenced Jack Balkin's "The Reconstruction Power," a draft article available at:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1558749 Brett is no linguist and he's not very cunning, but that doesn't stop him from speaking with forked tongue. Perhaps he thinks it not relevant that the Civil War Amendments were enacted long after the 10th Amendment and that these Amendments' enforcement clauses empowering Congress limited the 10th.
To enumerate and to specify are synonymous.
So long as we all acknowldege as did the Court in McCullogh that the federal government is one limited to enumerated powers, I do not see the problem with Roberts' choice of terms. Specify does the raise the issue of express and implied application of the enumerated powers.
Perhaps Justice Roberts was simply channeling Hamilton in Federalist 33 as quoted by Mark above:
“it may be affirmed with perfect confidence that the constitutional operation of the intended government would be precisely the same, if [the N&P clause] were entirely obliterated, as [it would be] if [it] were repeated in every article. [It is] only declaratory of a truth which would have resulted by necessary and unavoidable implication from the very act of constituting a federal government, and vesting it with certain specified powers.”
Of course McCulloch specifically raised the matter of "implied" powers as well as the specifically enumerated "necessary and proper" clause supporting the Court's holding on Congress' power to establish an unenumerated national bank. The enforcement clauses of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments specifically empower Congress. I suspect Roberts is channeling Rehnquist - recall the latter's memo as a Clerk on the continuing validity of Plessy when Brown v. Bd. of Educ. was being considered by the Court.
While no one directly challenges Brown any more, the direct challenges are to what Brown spawned. (By the way, would the Federalist Society exist but for Brown?)
I meant to post:
"Specify does NOT raise the issue of express and implied application of the enumerated powers.
Our SALADISTA's (FKA our yodeler) "correction" seems to not be in line with McCulloch which addressed - raised - both express and implied powers supporting Congress' actions.
If the key language was in fact the phrase "appropriate legislation" in Sec. 2 of the 15th A, then I have to wonder why Roberts chose to use such a loaded phrase as "equal state sovereignty" or even refer to the 10th A at all. That's pretty much hanging a Confederate flag on his argument.
It's also hard for me to see how interpretation of Sec. 2 supports Roberts' conclusion, since the whole point of that clause was to adopt Marshall's language from McCulloch. Any claim that Marshall intended a narrow interpretation is pretty hard to take seriously.
An ANTI-Federalist document. It was imposed on them by states that didn't fully trust the Federalists.
The Congress and states "expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added." including the "declaratory" 10A. Madison, a Federalist, didn't mind since it stated a principle already expressed in the Federalist Papers. Anti-Federalists were known to think it didn't go far enough. This might be why they sometimes added words to it ala John Roberts. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html The 10A still doesn't say "expressly" or even "enumerated." It says "delegated." And, those who disagree with Brett (who to be clear I'm using as a stand-in for a viewpoint) still don't support "unlimited" federal power. And I can't say I'm much impressed with the determination to see to it that the 10th amendment remains a dead letter. How? By applying delegated powers like the Commerce Clause or the 15A in ways you disagree with. "Dead letter" yet again means "not restrictive enough for me." However, to repeat, what did the work in Shelby was the "appropriate legislation" language in the 14th, NOT the 10th amendment. Ideas like equality of states and concern for their "dignity" did part of the work and this is part of the spirit of the 10A. Which is to say, it's those attacking Shelby who are trying to ignore part of an amendment, not the originalists. Not that "originalists" can be trusted anyway, since "entropy" set in c. 1791 and a leading ratifier of the Constitution, John Marshall, cannot be trusted. Yet again, please, no one is trying to "ignore" the amendment. They DISAGREE on what something fairly opaque means. Not agreeing with you doesn't mean we are "ignoring" anything.
Mark Field's latest reminds me of Gerard N. Magliocca's appeal for more respect for the history of the 14A. Like it or hate it, one charm of the majority opinion in McDonald v. Chicago is some (some) actual respect of the history. Then, the goals there and here were somewhat different.
Richard A. Posner's Slate comment on Shelby County begins:
"Shelby County v. Holder, decided Tuesday, struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act (the part requiring certain states with a history of racial discrimination in voting to obtain federal permission in advance to change their voting procedures—called “preclearance”) as violating the “fundamental principle of equal sovereignty” of the states. This is a principle of constitutional law of which I had never heard—for the excellent reason that, as Eric points out and I will elaborate upon briefly, there is no such principle." Perhaps our SALADISTA (FKA our yodeler) and Brett can find that principle that CJ Roberts focused on in Shelby with their extensive constitutional expertise. Joey Fishkin did a number on this in an earlier post on the dignity of states.
Shag:
Roberts is far too concerned with precedent rather than the text of the Constitution itself. Equal application of the law is a fundamental tenet of our Constitution. The command of Section 1 of the 15A covers all states and thus any laws Congress enacts to enforce that command should likewise apply to all states. Roberts could have easily made this textual argument, instead of relying solely on some scattered and not wholely on point prior precedent, and reversed Katzenbach's approval of Congress targeting a minority of states for enforcement of the 15A
"The command of Section 1 of the 15A covers all states and thus any laws Congress enacts to enforce that command should likewise apply to all states."
That seems like a pretty ahistorical reading, closing one's eyes to a ton of evidence that in enacting the 15th Congress was thinking of and facing a particularly regional problem.
Mr. W:
What matters is what Congress wrote. The 15A is not limited to the states of the Confederacy, and neither BTW was Section 4 of the VRA.
I'm not saying it is so limited. My point was that given that it was written in response to and with in mind of the oppression of black voters in a certain region it seems odd to read into its text "or by any State" a requirement that all enforcement in its subsequent sections must apply equally to all states and regions.
The best our SALADISTA (FKA our yodeler) can come up with is this:
"Equal application of the law is a fundamental tenet of our Constitution." Perhaps our SALADISTA can fill us in on how that tenet applide to African Americans (and women and Native Americans) before the Civil War Amendment, including the then provision in the Constitution supporting that tenet. Of course our SALADISTA knows that even AFTER the Civil War Amendment, the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment provided very little benefit to African Americans until 1954's Brown v. Bd. of Education, and even then those former confederate states fought both Brown and what it spawned (including the 1965 VRA) tooth and nail. So the application for hundreds of years was piss poor for African Americans. So perhaps our SALADISTA can be a little more specific on the provision(s) of the Constitution that supports CJ Roberts's “fundamental principle of equal sovereignty” of the states that Judge Posner says doesn't exist.
Shag:
What is your point? That the Court should allow Congress to enforce the 15A in asimarly "piss poor" unequal fashion today?
I assume "asimarly" was intended to mean ""a similarly," in which case I would ask exactly when did Section 3 of the VRA become "a similarly 'piss poor' unequal fashion" - when the VRA was enacted in 1966, on renewal dates, including the most recent in 2006 almost unanimously, or just the other day when CJ Roberts relied upon his “fundamental principle of equal sovereignty” of the states?
But the point is aimed at a textual reading of the Constitution to locate provisions that support Roberts' principle. Our SALADISTA (FKA our yodeler) perhaps cannot find the answer in the text and thus ducks and weaves. The changing demographics may be the foundation of Roberts' principle. Alas, look at the quick responses of Texas and some other old confederacy states to take advantage of the elimination of Section 3 by the Roberts five.
Shag:
Reread my conversation with Mr. W. I would add to that conversation that the command of Section 1 of the 15A not only applies to all states, but also the national government. Thus, any enforcement of that command ought to have the same reach.
To enumerate and to specify are synonymous
These poll numbers are great news for John McCain! MSNBC didn't televise the speech of a Hispanic or African American elected official or candidate at the RNC Expect Rice to resign within the week and accept all responsibility to protect the President The center right electorate still opposes Obama policy, which is why they will fire him on Tuesday The hits just keep on coming.
Here's the text of Sections 1 and 2 of the 15th Amendment:
"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. " Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." The VRA addresses the denial or abridgment "by any State..." pursuant to Congress' enforcement power in Section 2. Section 1's text does not suggest a need for uniformity of Section 2's enforcement power for all of the states, although the VRA does apply to all of the states broadly. Consider the "dignity" of the states carved out for special treatment. How did these states show their "dignity" for the 15th Amendment all those years since the adoption of the 15th Amendment up to 1966 with the VRA? How have these states shown their "dignity" for the 15th Amendment through the 2006 renewal almost unanimously by Congress of the VRA? And how have in particular the states of TX and NCar shown their "dignity" for the 15th Amendment within hours, days following CJ Roberts' principle in Shelby County?
Shag:
Under your reasoning, the Congress could decide to use the 14A to enforce the Bill of Rights against the states on behalf of white folks, but not black folks. I would think that you of all people would recognize that equal enforcement of the law is a fundamental tenet of our Constitution.
Our SALADISTA (FKA our yodeler) attempts a diversion with his reference to the 14th Amendment that did not address the problems the 15th Amendment.attempted to resolve. A separate thread would be required to address the impact of the 14th Amendment on the Bill of Rights (or at least the first 8 Amendments). The decision in the DOMA case applied the 14th Amendment to protect a group from discrimination, a group that includes people of various colors. And McDonald v. Chicago, by incorporating the Second Amendment via the 14th, recognized an individual right for people of all colors. Perhaps when the point is reached as a result of changing demographics, a case might be made for affirmative action for white folks. That may be a matter for the 22nd century.
But let's not divert from the current 15th Amendment issues. And just what textual provisions of the Constitution support CJ Roberts' principle? Likewise with respect to our SALADISTA's claim of a " ... fundamental tenet of our Constitution." Maybe a real textualist will provide some help to our SALADISTA.
Garry Trudeau’s post-Shelby County Doonesbury comic strip features “The Return of Jimmy Crow” demonstrating that progressives are not sitting idly by.
Bart
I see in the Constitution a provision prohibiting any state from denying persons equal protection of the law, but no such provision regarding States. Not being a judicial activist I would therefore have not struck down a duly enacted piece of legislation on such extra-textual grounds. Happy 4th to all!
Mr. W:
If you can show me how a law enforcing the 15A commandment applying to all states and the federal government can be textually applied to a minority of states, I am all ears. The Constitution does not have to use the magic term "equal protection" to apply the principle of equal application of the law.
Once again our SALADISTA (FKA our yodeler) with this:
" ,,, the principle of equal application of the law." fails to provide a supporting cite to the text of the Constitution. Perhaps our SALADISTA is a faux textualist.
Shag:
What part of "by the United States or by any State" in the 15A do you not understand? Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation Section 2 only gives Congress the power to enforce the article in Section 1 as written - against the federal government and all states. There is no grant of power to Congress to enforce Section 1 against some subset of governments out of political convenience any more than they may only protect some subset of the citizens of the United States.
Our SALADISTA repeats Sections 1 and 2 that I had earlier spelled out challenging the principle he asserts. Sections 1 and 2 do not set forth such a principle. In fact, Section 2 would seem by its words, in conjunction with Section 1, to authorize Congress to legislate against any state that violates Section 1. Yes, more than one state may violate Section 1. But Congress is not proscribed by Section 2 to address every state in the same manner. The VRA in fact addresses all states in varying ways, recognizing Jim Crow states, with the procedures set forth in Sections 3 and 4 of the VRA. Congress also provided for an "opt out" for the Jim Crow states and also for an "opt in" by any state, whether Jim Crow or not, based upon actions taken. [I note that despite the Court's VRA decision, action may be taken to "opt in" TX for certains actions it has taken.]
Textualism fails to establish our SALADISTA's claimed principle. Perhaps an originalist can use "construction" as opposed to "original meaning" to find such a principle since the text is not clear.
The 10th amendment was ratified to underline the principle that the federal government only got the powers given to it, not a general grant of power.fifa coins online
lol elo boost fifa 14 coins for sale But this is almost a sideshow, the 10th amendment was not central to Shelby, the 14th was, with it's "appropriate", which so many people would like to render meaningless. thanks so much i like very so much your post حلي الاوريو الفطر الهندي صور تورتة حلى قهوه طريقة عمل السينابون طريقة عمل بلح الشام بيتزا هت كيكة الزبادي حلا سهل صور كيك عجينة العشر دقائق طريقة عمل الدونات طريقة عمل البان كيك طريقة عمل الكنافة طريقة عمل البسبوسة طريقة عمل الكيك طريقة عمل عجينة البيتزا فوائد القرفه
Its an excellent pleasure reading your post.Its packed with data i'm longing for and that i like to post a comment that "The content of your post is awesome" nice work Sbobet
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 |