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
I want to flag a common mistake in some of the Section Three analysis. The mistake is treating Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment very differently from Section One. Here are three examples:
1. "Only an event as bad as the Civil War can be a Section Three insurrection." George Will makes this error in his column today. Why is this an error? In part, because Section One is not read this way.
Suppose in the affirmative action last year a lawyer for UNC made the following argument: "My client's use of racial preferences for admissions is not as bad as the Black Codes of 1865-1866. Thus, the UNC policy is unconstitutional." I think we would all agree that this logic would be laughed out of court. The meaning of any given provision is not confined to the mischief that prompted its proposal and ratification.
2. "Section Three is too ambiguous to apply."
Suppose a lawyer got up and said "Section One is too ambiguous to apply." That line of thought would cut down scores of decisions incorporating the Bill of Rights, striking down laws prohibiting interracial and same-sex marriage, and so on To be fair, Charles Fairman did famously argue (in the 1940s) that Section One was too ambiguous to support incorporation. But the Court and most scholars eventually rejected that view. "Equal protection" and "due process of law" are no more ambiguous than "engaged in insurrection."
3. "Section Three requires an Act of Congress to apply."
I've spilled a lot of ink on this one before, but Section One contains no such requirement.