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 The Deep Tension between Divine and Popular Sovereignty in American Constitutionalism
|
Friday, September 18, 2020
The Deep Tension between Divine and Popular Sovereignty in American Constitutionalism
Sandy Levinson
I have just published on the Canopy Forum on Law and Religion, at the. Emory Law School, an essay "Divine Sovereignty, Popular Sovereignty, and the Dilemma of American Constitutionalism." It is especially appropriate to bring this up on the eve of Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, which emphasizes not only the general theme of divine sovereignty, but also, more specifically, the presumptive "duty" of Abraham to obey the absolutely indefensible command that he sacrifice his son Isaac, after earlier, Abraham had, also indefensibly, banished his concubine Hagar and her son, Ishmael, because his wife Sarah was jealous. The central point of the essay is that contemporary American constitutionalism is riven by the problem of "dual sovereignty," not between the national government and states, a faux issue, theoretically, because it can be handled by reference to "popular sovereignty," but, rather, the tension between vox populi and claims to be able to hear the divine voice and be guided accordingly. I see no way out of this dilemma other than what Levitsky and Ziblatt call "forbearance," and I see precious little of that right now in our society, as the contending sides wish to stand on their respective legal "rights" or "powers." This is obviously linked, in its own way, to Andy Koppelman's valiant attempt to seek peace with regard to wedding cakes and much else. [UPDATE: Two of the discussants bring up important notions. From Judaism, there is the maxim "DINA DE-MALKHUTA DINA" "...... the halakhic rule that the law of the country is binding, and, in certain cases, is to be preferred to Jewish law. The problem of dina de-malkhuta dina is similar to – but not identical with – the problem of *conflict of laws in other legal systems." And Christianity, of course, includes the similar maxim about rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, though, in addition, Christianity also includes Romans 13:1 that suggests that Caesar is in effect sent by God to rule, a notion wholly alien to the Jewish tradition with regard to Christian rulers. In any event, it is obvious that in the modern world both maxims fail to capture the extent to which certain members of both the Orthodox Jewish and Christian communities are quite unwilling to accept "the law of the country [as] binding." Israel, in particular, has a significant community of "haredi" (those who "quake before God"), who view the commands of the Torah and Talmud as taking precedence over the commands of the State of Israel; indeed, some of the ultra-Orthodox refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the State, because only the Messiah can refound a genuinely "Jewish state." Moreover, there are Orthodox Jews in New York who, like the Amish, refuse to comply with New York's laws regarding educating the young, much to the detriment of youngsters who are the victims of what outsiders would describe simply as totalitarian brainwashing. See, e.g., the HBO series "Unorthodox" or, even better, the Israeli series "Shtissel," on Netflix. One could obviously go on and on with regard to Christians who refuse to view Caesar as having genuine political legitimacy and who proclaim, like John Ashcroft, their devotion to "King Jesus" And recall that the likely Trumpista nominee to the US Supreme Court, Amy Comey Barrett, told her students at Notre Dame several years ago that they should always recognize that a "legal career is but a means to and an end... and that end is building the Kingdom of God." Perhaps, like Justice Brennan, she is prepared to testify under oath that there is never any conflict between fidelity to the Constitution and fidelity to God, but I think that most of us believe that this is, to put it mildly, a questionable position. At the very least, it deserves careful examination by the Judiciary Committee, but most senators are incapable of serious inquiry on the matter, and Barrett's partisans will immediately charge anyone who asks what she meant of being anti-Catholic. More sign of "constitutional rot," as far as I'm concerned. I'm afraid that I don't know enough about Islam or other religions know exactly how its central thinkers have approached this dilemma of being faithful to the belief system in a state that is decidedly not committed to the religion. Any knowledgeable postings would be much appreciated. As always, incidentally, the only comments I'm really interested in reading are from people who have actually read my linked essay on Canopy.]
Comments:
Nice related article. Unfortunately, the author has ignored (or is unaware at first place) the most important one in Judaism in this regard of "Dual sovereignty" and it is the principle of:
"DINA DE-MALKHUTA DINA" Which means, I quote ( from "Jewish virtual library"): "...... the halakhic rule that the law of the country is binding, and, in certain cases, is to be preferred to Jewish law. The problem of dina de-malkhuta dina is similar to – but not identical with – the problem of *conflict of laws in other legal systems." Here: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/dina-de-malkhuta-dina Thanks
I have just learned that Justice Ginsburg, died on Friday. Great loss. Here:
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/416004-supreme-court-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-dies
I'm sorry to hear of her death, though it comes as no shock. I do hope she repented before the end, but I fear she likely didn't.
I thought she should have retired a year or two ago, just on the basis that she was no longer actually up to doing the job. But I guess there was nothing she liked more than being a Supreme court justice to the end.
Brett, when are you planning to “repent”? Because cancer is almost certainly coming for you, and unlike Ginsburg, you’re a racist fucking scumbag. Repenting is going to be pretty important for you. Are you planning to wait to the end?
I have little doubt that Ginsburg repented of whatever sins she had committed - which likely are not those Brett would like to accuse her of - well before her death.
To be fair to Brett, my understanding is that he has become (or again become)a devout Catholic. As such he presumably confesses such sins as he acknowledges on a regular basis, and seeks absolution. I am not being sarcastic.
Being a devout catholic means absolutely nothing. Literally thousands of children were abused by devout catholics.
Moscow Mitch in 2016
"The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president," McConnell said. The American people may well elect a President who decides to nominate Judge Garland for Senate consideration. The next president may also nominate someone very different. Either way, our view is this: Give the people a voice in the filling of this vacancy," McConnell said in a Senate floor speech March 16, 2016. A few days later on Fox News Sunday, McConnell said that Senate Republicans are "following a longstanding tradition of not filling vacancies on the Supreme Court in the middle of a presidential election year."
Being a devout catholic means absolutely nothing. Literally thousands of children were abused by devout catholics.
Yes, and those are far from from the only sins the Church is guilty of. But those are not Brett's sins, I think. Of course, it is useful to point out to him that it is not for him, or the church, to judge what Ginsburg should have repented of. He should concern himself with his own soul, not Ginsburg's.
I don't know what signs there were that RBG was not "up to the job" a year or two ago. She seemed "up to the job" this year, while she fought cancer, including asking tough questions from her hospital bed. As to repenting, she is from the Jewish tradition, and she died as the Jewish New Year began. It is partially a time to repent and it would not surprise if she chose to do that. Let her memory be a blessing.
Hello everyone..........I thought the physicians said there is no pills or another way for PENIS ENLARGEMENT !!! I am telling you today that Dr Olu has the product for PENIS ENLARGEMENT and it worked perfectly for me from 3:0 to 8:95 and still counting. Contact Dr Olu for help to Enlarge your penis via Email Address: Drolusolutionhome@gmail.com and alo reach him on WhatsApp with mobile number: +2348140654426 Be your brothers keeper by sharing this vital information to other fellow men around the global
Hello everyone..........I thought the physicians said there is no pills or another way for PENIS ENLARGEMENT !!! I am telling you today that Dr Olu has the product for PENIS ENLARGEMENT and it worked perfectly for me from 3:0 to 8:95 and still counting. Contact Dr Olu for help to Enlarge your penis via Email Address: Drolusolutionhome@gmail.com and alo reach him on WhatsApp with mobile number: +2348140654426 Be your brothers keeper by sharing this vital information to other fellow men around the global
Hello everyone..........I thought the physicians said there is no pills or another way for PENIS ENLARGEMENT !!! I am telling you today that Dr Olu has the product for PENIS ENLARGEMENT and it worked perfectly for me from 3:0 to 8:95 and still counting. Contact Dr Olu for help to Enlarge your penis via Email Address: Drolusolutionhome@gmail.com and alo reach him on WhatsApp with mobile number: +2348140654426 Be your brothers keeper by sharing this vital information to other fellow men around the global
Yes, and those are far from from the only sins the Church is guilty of. But those are not Brett's sins, I think.
# posted by Blogger byomtov : 9:58 PM My point is that it doesn't matter if he's a catholic. He's a racist fucking piece of shit. The sooner he dies, the better.
Hello everyone..........I thought the physicians said there is no pills or another way for PENIS ENLARGEMENT !!! I am telling you today that Dr Olu has the product for PENIS ENLARGEMENT and it worked perfectly for me from 3:0 to 8:95 and still counting. Contact Dr Olu for help to Enlarge your penis via Email Address: Drolusolutionhome@gmail.com and alo reach him on WhatsApp with mobile number: +2348140654426 Be your brothers keeper by sharing this vital information to other fellow men around the global
Hello everyone..........I thought the physicians said there is no pills or another way for PENIS ENLARGEMENT !!! I am telling you today that Dr Olu has the product for PENIS ENLARGEMENT and it worked perfectly for me from 3:0 to 8:95 and still counting. Contact Dr Olu for help to Enlarge your penis via Email Address: Drolusolutionhome@gmail.com and alo reach him on WhatsApp with mobile number: +2348140654426 Be your brothers keeper by sharing this vital information to other fellow men around the global
"My point is that it doesn't matter if he's a catholic. He's a racist fucking piece of shit. The sooner he dies, the better."
I miss the days when I couldn't understand how the left could keep building gulags when they got into power. Or how people could embrace Marxism knowing its track record.
It seems odd for Mark Tushnet to end his post with a series of questions and then close comments. Well, maybe not so odd -- penile enhancement seems an unlikely answer to them.
I miss the days when I couldn't understand how the left could keep building gulags when they got into power. Or how people could embrace Marxism knowing its track record.
# posted by Blogger Brett : 8:17 AM I miss the days when I didn’t know that there were racist morons who thought that equal rights was “Marxism”.
Clearly, the questions were rhetorical, Mark. Why would they not be?
[Comments to this comment closed.]
Heh.
Bartbuster, for conservatives equal rights have always been Marxist. The whole conservative ideology has always been that some people *deserve* to rule over the rest.
I miss the days when I couldn't understand how the left could keep building gulags when they got into power. Or how people could embrace Marxism knowing its track record.
How many gulags did Obama build? How many are there in the Western European social democracies? You're deranged. My point is that it doesn't matter if he's a catholic. He's a racist fucking piece of shit. The sooner he dies, the better. My point was not that being Catholic was some sort of excuse for his odious comment. Rather, it was that that's one more reason he has no business talking about whether Ginsburg should repent, or what she should repent of. Of course that doesn't stop him. I mean, this is a guy who thinks he's entitled to decide who is and who is not a "real Jew."
Lindsey Graham, 2016: "I want you to use my words against me. If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination."
Ted Cruz, 2016: "It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don't do this in an election year." Republican after Republican dishonoring themselves. It's what supporting Trump does to a person.
I'll actually defend Bircher Brett (somewhat) on this point. He's an ostensible Christian of the Catholic persuasion, and penance/contrition is a sacrament in that faith tradition, so what he says can be fairly interpreted as 'I hope the person went to heaven (which they can do only following the mandates of my faith tradition).' It's obtuse as heck (not surprising there) but on it's face at least well meaning.
I urge everyone to give Levinson's linked essay a read, it's quite brief and I think makes a very interesting point. To a large degree (though how large I'd like to comment on in a minute) our 'culture wars' can be ascribed to the idea that a US citizen feels beholden to follow the mandates of 1. their religion and 2. their State(s) or the law they live under. History affords examples of this conflict reaching heightened results (A Man For All Seasons, for example). Here Quakers might feel compelled by their religion to defy immigration law, Baptists may feel compelled to defy anti-discrimination law. I like that Levinson stresses an aspect of 'forbearance' that I don't hear about much, that is we often talk of the importance of legal forbearance in the form of religious exemptions, but there might also be some duty (to the law or State) on religious people (or not) to forbear in insisting on the full extent of their legal rights in every occasion. As an example, my children's principal often ends his official communications to parents in the name of the school with 'God Bless You.' My wife, an agnostic, has complained to me that she finds this violates the separation of church and state, a 1st Amendment right, and perhaps she should formally write the school board to that effect. I've told her not to on the grounds of, is it worth the strife and conflict (you can bet your bippy that were he to end with 'Allah be praised' or 'Satan Bless you' there'd be so many complaints it would make your head spin, sadly majorities [perceived or otherwise] are full of obtuse privilege]).
In the past it seems to me that one way to avoid this on the side of the state was to say 'your beliefs and defining religious exercises are protected, but your general actions only require that the restrictions not be aimed at your faith.' That's been undercut by the argument, not obviously incorrect to those of us religious (or non-religious but guided by an important ethical ethos), that religious mandates permeate every aspect of our life. The downshot here is there may be no area of forbearance at all. This heightens the culture wars. I submit that one key to this conundrum is the total abdication, again for not obviously incorrect reasons, for courts to enter the fray about whether any given restriction 'substantially' burdens a plaintiff's religion. Another way to avoid this, at least from the tradition I'm part of, is the Scriptural commands to 'render unto Caesar,' be 'in the world but not of it,' and 'obey your civil leaders.' On the religious side, at least the Christian part, it might be important for believers to talk about how these argue for more 'forbearance.'
I recently read Jack Rakove's new book on the history behind the Free Exercise Clause and what I found particularly interesting was his early discussion on how merely recognizing a basic concept of individual free exercise was a major step.
Post a Comment
(Jack Rakove years back won a Pultizer for his book on the original meanings of the U.S. Constitution, viewing things as a historian. He notes in this recent book, part of a series of small books on constitutional topics, that history of course can not by definition tell us how to apply the Constitutions. It can be useful.) He briefly nears the end touches upon current conflicts, noting basically that many of them basically were not in the minds of the likes of Madison and Jefferson. The felt need to opt out of a birth control requirement or the like is a product of the modern state. Something like not saying "under God" is more traditional, a test oath. Anyway, the article cited is interesting, including the realistic need of not pressing the envelope all the time. In practice, realistically, that can not be done evenhandedly. It results in religious favoritism really. I think on that front the RFRA is a too blunt instrument, at least as currently applied. When it comes to actions, especially in public locations such as public accommodations, some balance needs to occur. On the front, I respect the need to accommodate some. But, and not really consistently at that, the conservatives on the Supreme Court now do so in too blunt of a way. The birth control mandate cases underline this, especially when it results in burdens, including of people's moral choices, such as for employees with non-conservative views on the matter.
|
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 |