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
How the Argument Against the Mandate Moved from Off-the-Wall to On-the-Wall
JB
Quite apart from the ongoing debate over the merits, the argument over the constitutionality of the individual mandate is fascinating because it allows us to view in real time how social and political mobilizations influence constitutional change. Over at the Atlantic, I have an essay asking what factors moved the arguments of mandate opponents from "off the wall" to "on the wall" in only three short years.
I compare the example of the constitutional arguments against the mandate, which were originally considered "off the wall" by most legal academics, with the Bush campaigns' arguments in Bush v. Gore and arguments for gun rights and gay rights. I consider the influence of intellectuals, social movements, the party system, the media and the courts.
My conclusion is although all of these players and institutions are important in their own way,the party system is the most important. Once a major political party gets behind a constitutional argument, as the Republican Party got behind the attack on the mandate, it quickly moves into the realm of the plausible, because of the many different connections and resources that political parties have.