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
In two newpapers, David Schwartz and I attempt to show that the original public meaning of the Constitution’s enumeration of powers is fundamentally indeterminate. Many members of the ratifying public understood that enumeration as exhaustive, but many did not. Our analysis suggests, though it does not prove, that the same is true of most contested constitutional questions. If we are correct, historically rigorous originalism has almost no practical resolving power, even on its own terms.
In another new solo paper, I argue that Dobbs v. Jackson Health Organization was an ordinary example of a conservative Supreme Court reaching conservative results. That decision was wrong, gratuitously cruel, and poorly reasoned in many respects. But it was not illegitimate or lawless. In controversial cases like Dobbs, the justices cannot avoid moral judgment, except through unattractive–and ultimately unavailing–formalism like the quasi-originalism of the Dobbs majority.
On the surface, the subject matter of these projects is quite disparate. But they rest on the same age-old wisdom: There is no silver bullet that can remove moral judgment from difficult constitutional cases. The doctrine of stare decisis could not do it in Dobbs. And original meaning cannot do it in debates over federal power.
In “Interpreting Ratification,” Schwartz and I conclude: “The founders could not settle their own interpretive controversies. We cannot, and should not, expect them to settle ours.” The same goes for long-standing but intensely contested precedents like Roe v. Wade. For better or worse, there is no escaping the burdens of judgment.
This is hardly news, but the allure of escape is protean and apparently evergreen. Consider this post a friendly reminder.