Balkinization   |
Balkinization
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 Individuals' Allegations of What Our Government Did to Them Are Not "Classified" Information
|
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Individuals' Allegations of What Our Government Did to Them Are Not "Classified" Information
Marty Lederman
Or they shouldn't be, anyway.
Comments:
What do you know, we agree on something.
There is no basis to classify mere allegations of FBI threats during a civilian criminal investigation. This is fundamentally different from classifying foreign intelligence gathering, where it is important the the enemy not be informed of the means and methods of the gathering, nor have the means and methods confirmed when the intelligence gathering is illegally disclosed in the press.
I think there is but one precedent for this: Orwell, George, 1984 (1948). If we must actually do serious legal analysis here, how about this analogy? Grand jury testimony may not be disclosed. However, that rule applies to everyone BUT the individual who testifies. Nothing prevents that person from sharing with the media what he/she was asked -- even if doing so would reveal the govt's case. If a grand jury witness or target can blab about what happened in the grand jury room, doesn't it stand to reason that a torture victim can speak out about what happened to him?
There is no basis to classify mere allegations of FBI threats during a civilian criminal investigation.
No legal basis, perhaps. Of course, if those mere allegations are actually true, the effect of releasing that information would be identical to releasing information about the "means and methods" of foreign "intelligence gathering." Thus, it might be in the administration's interest (if "not informing the enemy" is indeed an overpowering national security concern) to make sure that information stays out of the public record. I'm not sure if Fraud Guy is still out there to back me up, but this kind of preemptive reclassification strikes me as classic guilty behavior.
But even if the threat had been a lawful interrogation technique, since when can the government insist that you must keep secret what they do to you?
Try 2001, and the infamous and unconstitutional PATRIOT Act "National Security Letters." I'm sure the readers of this blog are familiar with these much-maligned tools of illegal search and seizure. Higazy's case is essentially the same theory applied to a different practice: Daddy Government knows what's best for you. Shut up and stop asking questions. Shouldn't you be shopping? You only have 46 days left until Christmas.
pms_chicago said...
BD: There is no basis to classify mere allegations of FBI threats during a civilian criminal investigation. No legal basis, perhaps. Of course, if those mere allegations are actually true, the effect of releasing that information would be identical to releasing information about the "means and methods" of foreign "intelligence gathering." How do you figure? The result of disclosing the means and methods of intelligence gathering to an enemy is that the enemy will know how to avoid the intelligence gathering. For example, when some moron in the government leaked to the press the last bin Laden video which was intercepted off of an al Qaeda website which we had been monitoring, the website closed down within days. In contrast, there are no intelligence gathering means and methods involved in the FBI allegedly threatening this suspect's family in exchange for a coerced confession to a crime.
The problem is that this Administration wants to torture while simultaneously, piously claiming that they do not.
The root of the problem is that they refuse to treat terrorism as a law enforcement problem. Herr Busch simply feels he is above the law. I don't understand why they just didn't waterboard the truth out him.
PMS_Chicago,
The reclassification syndrome would be a corollary to that classic method of explaining guilty behaviour. With the classic story telling of a guilty person, they will attempt to change their tale, or their reasoning for their actions, in order to find a rationale acceptable to their questioner (even if it is themself). This is one of the reasons that detectives will question suspects multiple times, to find changes in stories that may indicate false information. Reclassification like this is more of a preemptive version of the same, that I have seen working in compliance more than fraud. A marketing or sales person will repeatedly try out rationales to allow them to avoid a compliance effort that they feel may dampen their sales results (and bonus), for example: "If we call this x, instead of y, then we don't have to do what is required by y." My reply: "It's still y." "But if we don't call it y..." "It's still y." "What if we change it to almost x, then it's not y?" "It's still y." "I want to run this by legal" Legal: "It's y. Do what he said." "What happens if we don't do the y requirement--what's the risk of getting caught? What's the cost?" At which point I bring it to C-level to reign in the marketing crew (in a perfect world), but then I have to be very exact in my reasoning (and ROI) because I'm potentially cutting the bottom line. The problem here is that it's the compliance guys (FBI, Justice Department) who are engaging in the guilt-avoidance behavior, and the C-level appears to be encouraging it. Where's an engaged board of directors when you need them?
There is no basis to classify mere allegations of FBI threats during a civilian criminal investigation.
This is fundamentally different from classifying foreign intelligence gathering, where it is important the the enemy not be informed of the means and methods of the gathering, nor have the means and methods confirmed when the intelligence gathering is illegally disclosed in the press. Oh, how so? Don't both inevitably involve "means and methods" of investigations of arguable relevance to national security matters (I'd note that Higazy was being investigated as part of the 9/11 investigations). When the rationale of the "classification" is that the "enemy" will know our methods, don't both revelations do similar damage in terms of assisting any "enemies" as to what they might face (comparing the Higazy case to the maladministration's reticence in divulging their torture methods, supposedly on "national security" grounds). I'd note that the gummint doesn't agree with "Bart" here (and apparently "see" my point above); they insist that Higazy's allegations should be similarly kept under wraps. Cheers,
PMS_Chicago:
I'm not sure if Fraud Guy is still out there to back me up, but this kind of preemptive reclassification strikes me as classic guilty behavior. How dare you impugn the gummint's statements? We need to take their word at face value, as we know nothing of the actual circumstances and "overall" picture (until such time as it is propitious [if absurd and obviously false] for us to pretend we do when arguing in favour of the efficacy of a particular disputed procedure or method). Cheers,
The result of disclosing the means and methods of intelligence gathering to an enemy is that the enemy will know how to avoid the intelligence gathering.
And telling them that their relatives might be threatened with retaliation if they do not co-operate in interrogations lets them know to squirrel their relaitves away in safer places in advance.... C'mon, "Bart", show at least a smidgen of thought..... Cheers,
garth sullivan:
The problem is that this Administration wants to torture while simultaneously, piously claiming that they do not. Actually, no. The stated rationale for neither confirming or denying things is to leave it (at least "officially") up in the air, so as to leave uncertainty (and not "reveal our methods"). But as I've previously argued, one could make the claim that deliberate misinformation (telling them you don't, when you in fact do, or telling them that you use one method and then using another, or just tellng them that you will in fact be the "biggest and baddest a$$ on the block") may serve these purposes just as well. The reluctance to "divulge", I think, stems more from a desire to avoid legal consequences of an official admission, and that effect is purely within the realm of a courtroom; others (such as the "enemy") are free to draw their own conclusions as to what's happening, and do. The same goes for any admission of torture; the impact comes from the effect of this in courts, in international relations, and in public opinion. While marginaly related to "security" issues, the primary motive here is political (see, e.g., Reynolds). Cheers,
Well, Prof. Lederman has asked us many times to stay on topic, not respond to provocation, not feed trolls, etc, so I shouldn't be saying this at all but . . .
It is interesting that Bart constantly argues that terrorist are not criminals at all but "unlawful enemy combatants" who have none of the rights of criminal suspects. But once a 9-11 suspect is cleared of involvement, suddenly it all becomes a criminal matter after all.
enlightened layperson said...
It is interesting that Bart constantly argues that terrorist are not criminals at all but "unlawful enemy combatants" who have none of the rights of criminal suspects. But once a 9-11 suspect is cleared of involvement, suddenly it all becomes a criminal matter after all. Marty raised the issue of when it is and is not proper to classify government activities, not what constitutional rights if any Higazy enjoys. The FBI was in fact performing a criminal investigation and not intelligence gathering, so I see no grounds to classify their investigation. Whether or not the FBI should have treated this as civilian criminal investigation rather than intelligence gathering is a completely different subject.
"Bart" DePalma, schizophrenic "split personality":
The FBI was in fact performing a criminal investigation and not intelligence gathering, so I see no grounds to classify their investigation. What difference does that make as to whether the methods should be "classified" (under the rubric of "don't let the Satanic Islamofascist Enemy know your methods because then they'll know how to counter them")? And I'd note that your favourite case (when you have other 'rhetorical purposes' in mind), In re: Sealed Case, had a bit to say about this distinction you've suddenly discovered. What did they say, "Bart"? Cheers,
Indeed, whether the super scawy iswamofascists are even human and, thus, protected by our Constitution is an open question.
On a related topic, what about DoD commands that prevent military personnel from testifying at congressional hearing in their individual capacities? This apparently happened today (http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004667.php#more). Why isn't this a violation of the Military Whistleblower Protection Act? 10 U.S.C. S 1034(a)(1) ("No person may restrict a member of the armed forces in communicating with a Member of Congress or an Inspector General."). If we suspect that the FBI can't control the release of a suspect's personal experiences in the absence of a statute, then why can the military control the release of a servicemember's personal experience in a manner that's explicitly permitted by statute?
dm:
LTC Couch served as the military prosecutor in the war crimes case against Mohamedou Ould Slahi. Couch declined to prosecute the case because he believed that he could not prove the case without relying upon inadmissible evidence gained through alleged torture and blackmail. LTC Couch is currently serving as a military judge. The Pentagon ordered LTC Couch not to testify before Congress because the issues about which he will testify are currently before the military judicial system and Couch could be asked to rule on them in the future. This is similar to hauling a sitting judge to answer questions on issues which may come before him. If Congress wants to review the facts of the Slahi case, the Intelligence Committee should have the Recorder who gathered the evidence in the case testify in closed session. If Congress wants to review the law applying to the Slahi case, they should call witnesses who are not going to be asked to rule on the law in the future.
Bart,
I disagree with three elements of your analysis: 1. It looks to me like he was not going to mention an opinion on pending issues, rather he was just going to provide a factual account of his activities as a military prosecutor. Surely even an Art. III judge who was previously a prosecutor could do this. 2. The MWPA protects all communications that are sent from a servicemember to a member of congress and that are not "unlawful". What law prohibits a military judge from talking about matters upon which he might rule? 3. "No person who has acted as member, military judge, trial counsel, assistant trial counsel, defense counsel, assistant defense counsel, or investigating officer in any case may later act as a staff judge advocate or legal officer to any reviewing authority upon the same case." 10 U.S.C. S806(c). Although I'm no expert, the cases applying this statute suggest that Couch is precluded from acting as judge on a case that he once prosecuted. That seems to indicate that he'll never rule on the issues about which he would have testified.
There is an interesting question asked by the article, whether the threats to the prisoner were precedent setting. I think a lot of hard working, good people have occupations in the risky business of law enforcement, but excesses happen when checks and balances thin. This is the unseemly side of partial martial law, which, to me, is a substrate in the administration's diverse strategies to repel the asymmetrical opposition which international organized terrorism represents in its standoff with democracies. Probably we find far less information about terrorism in nations which have authoritarian governance because many exercises of a bill of rights are absent in those countries. I am glad to see Bashman receive well deserved credit for his open concept of a law blog. Evidently his host law dot com also decided his work is first rate in 2006 when they invited him to locate on their site.
dm said...
Bart, I disagree with three elements of your analysis: 1. It looks to me like he was not going to mention an opinion on pending issues, rather he was just going to provide a factual account of his activities as a military prosecutor. Surely even an Art. III judge who was previously a prosecutor could do this. The Dems are hardly going to focus themselves purely to the facts of the case or they would have simply avoided potential conflicts and brought in the Recorder who gathered the evidence. The subject matter is going to be policy with the ongoing purpose to find a dissenting official to embarrass the President. 2. The MWPA protects all communications that are sent from a servicemember to a member of congress and that are not "unlawful". What law prohibits a military judge from talking about matters upon which he might rule? It is a basic tenant of the judiciary that judges will not discuss how they will rule on future cases. We go through this with every judicial nominee. 3. "No person who has acted as member, military judge, trial counsel, assistant trial counsel, defense counsel, assistant defense counsel, or investigating officer in any case may later act as a staff judge advocate or legal officer to any reviewing authority upon the same case." 10 U.S.C. S806(c). Although I'm no expert, the cases applying this statute suggest that Couch is precluded from acting as judge on a case that he once prosecuted. That seems to indicate that he'll never rule on the issues about which he would have testified. We are talking about the same issues, not the same case.
"Bart" DePalma:
LTC Couch served as the military prosecutor in the war crimes case against Mohamedou Ould Slahi. Couch declined to prosecute the case because he believed that he could not prove the case without relying upon inadmissible evidence gained through alleged torture and blackmail. LTC Couch is currently serving as a military judge. The Pentagon ordered LTC Couch not to testify before Congress because the issues about which he will testify are currently before the military judicial system and Couch could be asked to rule on them in the future. This is similar to hauling a sitting judge to answer questions on issues which may come before him. Ummm, no. A judge may decide to refuse to answer certain questions, and may cite for that refusal his/her concern for perhaps prejudging a case, in particular one that is currently pending before him/her or making its way up on appeal. But there is no requirement that the judge do so, and they may decide that the questions asked are sufficiently off-topic or general so as to not give any appearance of prejudgement or lack of partiality. Should any such answers, even inadvertently, subsequently cast doubt on the judge's impartiality, they can (and perhaps are ethically required to) recuse themselves. But that's not at all like the maladministration ordering someone not to testify at all, much as "Bart" would like to pretend so, to protect his beloved maladministration. Cheers,
I'm now not sure the place you are getting your information, but good topic. I must spend a while finding out more or understanding more. Thank you for fantastic information I used to be searching for this info for my mission. Back Surgery Type
Hello, i am glad to read the whole content of this blog and am very excited and happy to say that the webmaster has done a very good job here to put all the information content and information at one place. back-surgery.info
Very awesome post , i am really impressed with it a lot فوائد الزنجبيل فوائد الرمان فوائد الحلبة فوائد البصل فوائد الزعتر فوائد زيت السمسم علاج البواسير فوائد اليانسون فوائد الكركم قصص جحا صور يوم الجمعه علامات الحمل تعريف الحب حياة البرزخ فوائد الزبيب
This web site is really a walk-through for all of the info you wanted about this and didn’t know who to ask. Glimpse here, and you’ll definitely discover it… Wedding Planning Guide
You should comment on the competition comparison of the blog. You can highlight it's mind boggling. Your blog exploration/tour will broaden your conversions. Nine Ball
After read a couple of the articles on your website these few days, and I truly like your style of blogging. I tag it to my favorites internet site list and will be checking back soon. Please check out my web site also and let me know what you think. Betting Predictions
I agree with you. This post is truly inspiring. I like your post and everything you share with us is current and very informative, I want to bookmark the page so I can return here from you that you have done a fantastic job. Travel to Italy
fangyanting20151030 oakley sunglasses louis vuitton outlet true religion outlet nike huarache kobe bryant shoes herve leger outlet michael kors factory outlet cheap uggs cheap ugg boots ugg boots nobis outlet ugg australia tory burch outlet coach outlet canada the north face clearance michael kors handbags chanel outlet ralph lauren uk pandora jewelry parajumpers coats ray ban sunglasses ugg outlet oakley sunglasses wholesale winter coats coach outlet christian louboutin cheap nfl jerseys lacoste polo shirts barbour coats cheap mlb jerseys
Obat Kencing Nanah
Obat Sipilis Obat Herbal Kutil Kelamin Obat Kencing Nanah Obat Kencing Nanah Ampuh Obat Kelamin Keluar Nanah Obat Sipilis Pada Pria Obat Kencing Nanah Di Apotik Obat Kencing Nanah Di Apotik Obat Kencing Nanah Di Apotik Obat Kencing Nanah Di Apotik Obat Kencing Nanah 3 Hari Sembuh Obat Kencing Nanah 3 Hari Sembuh Obat Kencing Nanah 3 Hari Sembuh Obat Kencing Nanah 3 Hari Sembuh Penyakit Kencing Nanah Penyakit Kencing Nanah Penyakit Kencing Nanah Penyakit Kencing Nanah Penyakit Kencing Nanah Pria Penyakit Kencing Nanah Pria Penyakit Kencing Nanah Pria Penyakit Kencing Nanah Pria
OZ chuyen thiet ke noi that và thi cong noi that là một trong những công ty trang tri noi that uy tín trên cả nước VN. Chúng tôi cung cấp dịch vụ về thi công, thiết kế, những sản phẩm nội thất cao cấp cho ngôi nha dep của bạn, với những mẫu nha dep 2016. thiet ke noi that chung cu - thiet ke noi that can ho - thiet ke noi that biet thu - thiet ke noi that van phong - thiet ke nha hang . Chúng tôi oz nỗ lực trở thành nhà tư vấn thiết kế, thi công nội thất hàng đầu VN. Tôn sùng tính thẩm mỹ, đạo đức, sự chuyên nghiệp và chân thành. với gần 10 năm kinh nghiệm trong lĩnh vực chúng tôi sẽ phấn đâu vì mục tiêu đề ra.
Post a Comment
cach nau gio heo gia cay - cach lam banh bong lan - vit nau chao - banh bao chien - cach lam ga ran
|
Books by Balkinization Bloggers ![]() 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). ![]() 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 |