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
Law and Ideology in the National Security State -- Legal History panel roundtable
Mary L. Dudziak
At the American Society for Legal History annual meeting recently, I had the pleasure of chairing a panel on Law and Ideology in the National Security State. All of the panelists presented work that intersects with past discussions on this blog, so I've organized a roundtable to bring the panel to Balkinization.
Over the next few days, I will post contributions by Aziz Rana, Cornell Law School; Jeremy Kessler, Columbia Law School; Anne Kornhauser, Department of History, CUNY; and the panel commentator Chrisopher Capozzola, Department of History, MIT.
These scholars all see American constitutionalism as deeply affected by the United States role in the world. They differ in the ways they periodize global influence, and in the kinds of outside influences that matter. And though national security is the conceptual frame for the panel, these contributions -- explicitly or implicitly -- work with different ideas about what national security was thought to require, and even what it is that American constitutionalism was securing. Together, however, they make clear that scholars examining the path of American constitutional history must set the story in the context of the U.S. role in the world.
Mary, I am very much interested in this series of posts. At a comment by me on one of the posts, I referenced an article at TomGram that I thought tied into the subject. Here is another TomGram at:
with a relatively short introduction to Greg Grandin's "Kissinger, the Bombardier, How Diplomacy by Air Power Became an All-American Tradition" discussing the "state of eternal law" from Vietnam to Syria and the national security state. I think the narrative may fit well with this series of posts. Grandin's article starts with an "amusing" discussion between Kissinger and Samantha Power at a NY Yankees game, he being a Yankee fan and she a Red Sox fan. But then it quickly gets into events pushed by Kissinger early in the Nixon Administration with segues into wars that followed.
I apologize if this is an unwelcome intrusion but what happened and is still happening on the ground (via the air, to be more concise) might add narrative to the posts.
I just finished reading the 3rd post by Anne Kornhauser that focuses on German emigre intellectuals trained in law, primarily on Neumann and Friedrich. It was most interesting. However, comments are not permitted on that post. And I am not suggesting that comments be opened, as there are issues concerning relevancy of comments (to which I plead guilty at times). But I wish to note that Kissinger could be considered a German emigre intellectual although not trained in the law, and he seems to have departed from the views of Neumann and Friedrich. Perhaps Prof. Kornhauser has addressed Kissinger in her book to compare with Greg Grandin's article referenced in my earlier comment.
What is becoming more obvious to me is that the national security state seems to operate in secrecy without much congressional or judicial oversight, whereas the Administrative State was created by Congress and has been subjected to some review by the courts. There seems to be a political divide between conservatives and liberals on these states (although both groups have shared in the national security state beginning with WW II).
Nice post. I learn something more challenging on different blogs everyday. It will always be stimulating to read content from other writers and practice a little something from their store. I’d prefer to use some with the content on my blog whether you don’t mind. Natually I’ll give you a link on your web blog. Thanks for sharing. Best SourceBest SourceBest Source