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
For the past year--but particularly since Thanksgiving--I have been working, at the instigation of Michael Tomasky, the editor of Democracy Journal (and the new editor as well of The New Republic), with an extraordinary group of people who were charged to be audacious in imagining what kind of constitution the United States needed in the 21st century. Our collective deliberations--and text--are now available at https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/61/the-democracy-constitution/. Any regular readers of Balkinization will recognize a number of the names of the delegates. Steve Griffin, for example, was the indispensable and indefatigable Chair of our own Committee of Detail that took charge of putting our debates into the form of the document now before you.
For obvious reasons, known to any of you who are actually familiar with my work, I hope this project gets wide attention because more than ever I view the Constitution as a clear and present danger to our national (and perhaps even the world's) survival. Not everyone even within what I called the Tomasky project agrees, especially another well known Balkiinization name, Mark Graber, who publishes his dissent to our project for radical constitutional reform. And in my own lengthy article of introduction, I conclude by acknowledging the debate between between Jack Balkin and myself over the respective weight of "constitutional rot" and "constitutional design." It is not that I disagree with Jack about our actual condition of constitutional rot. All one has to do is to read the daily newspapers to realize how truly terrible our constitutional culture is. But I continue to believe that our 1787 design, remarkably unchanged in too many respects since then, make their own contribution. One should not be forced to choose between them.
I suspect that Jack would be open to offering guest appearances to those who wish to offer extended responses, pro or con, to the overall project or to some of the particular ideas.