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
Over at Election Law Blog, I posted on a question at the intersection of elections and the politics of the Civil War. Since I thought readers (and contributors) of this blog might have the additional historical information I'm looking for, I thought I would cross-post here. The question is whether President Lincoln would have been politically paralyzed after 1863 but for fraud that enabled the Republican Party to retain effective control of the U.S. House. Posted
by Rick Pildes [link]
"The concluding line of this passage is obviously wrong: even had the Democrats controlled the House, they would not have had the power to cut off war funding without enacting legislation, which would have required the Senate and Lincoln to approve. "
The House originated appropriations bill would simply delete funding for the war. There is nothing the Senate or the President can do to compel funding.
Today's House GOP finally realized this when they removed Food Stamp funding from the Ag bill recently.
Thomas Fleming turns out to be wrong per the linked to article. And I'm not surprised that he can't get the Civil War correct.
Fleming turns out to be wrong in other conclusions he reaches in his books. He takes what is often reactionary positions that have long been discredited, whether discussing FDR or Andrew Jackson. Reading him is like reading in a time warp of Cold War propaganda.
Better for people to read David Potter, who has been dead since 1971, but had far more insight about the Antebellum period and the start of the Civil War. C. Vann Woodward has the rest covered as does Eric Foner.
Contrary to popular belief in which in terms of election bring about the Philippines, there isn't any like factor like a loss, for many prospects regarded them selves as winning trades Win elections online
Fleming turns out to be wrong in other conclusions he reaches in his books. He takes what is often reactionary positions that have long been discredited, whether discussing FDR or Andrew Jackson. Reading him is like reading in a time warp of Cold War propaganda. fifa coinselo boostcheap fut coinslol elo boosting