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
Here are three candidates for what constitutional historians will be most interested in about the year 2016 when they look back on it from some time in the future: the candidacy of Donald Trump, the succession struggle that followed the passing of Justice Scalia, and Hamilton: An American Musical. I've got an essay in The Atlantic that tries to show how they all fit together. In brief, I suggest that Hamilton and the Trump candidacy are both manifestations of the same developments in American political identity and that Hamilton has the capacity to change important intuitions about constitutional law in the world after Justice Scalia.
The essay is here: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/lin-manuel-miranda-and-the-future-of-originalism/485651/
The essay joins the conversation about the potential for the interpretive rubric of originalism to take on a more liberal valence in a world where the Supreme Court had a moderate-to-liberal median justice. Implicit but not developed in the essay is this attitude: I expect that if the Court developed a liberal originalist jurisprudence, many liberal scholars who have been critics of originalism will be tempted, consciously or otherwise, to mute their reservations about originalism as a decisionmaking method. To talk less and smile more. I hope that I won't be among them, at least not in my scholarly role. I think that role calls on its occupants to say what makes sense and what doesn't make sense about interpretive methods regardless of who is deploying those methods, which is to say that a decision whose outcome I like shouldn't get a pass for employing methods that I would describe as flawed when used to reach an outcome I didn't like. Posted
1:10 PM
by Richard Primus [link]