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 have just discovered that the presentations given at a panel on "Preserving the Constitution," which was part of a conference at Princeton in May, sponsored by the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions, headed by Robert George, are available on C-Span, http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Preservingt. The first talk is by Amherst Professor Hadley Arkes, followed by myself, University of Virginia Professor of Government James Ceaser, and Georgetown Law Center Professor Louis Michael Seidman, with some comments by Harvard Professor Harvey Mansfield, Jr., the honoree of the conference. As you might gather, there was a genuine diversity of views represented on the panel (though I was the only person advocating a new constitutional convention).
UDATEe: I've been taken to task for referring to this panel, which did indeed consist entirely of white males (and middle-aged and even older to boot), as offering a "genuine diversity of views" with regard to the issue under discussion, i.e., the desirability of venerating/preserving the existing Constitution as against more-or-less ignoring it (Mike Seidman's argument in On Constitutional Disobedience) or having a new constitutional convention for the purpose of considering necessary amendments in order to make it less dangerously pathological. I don't want to argue that our panel was an absolutely perfect panel, nothing better than which could possibly be imagined, and I will readily agree that some topics of debate cry out for "diversity" as that term is often defined, often remarkably unhelpfully--see the opening essay in my book Wrestling With Diversity--in our contemporary public language (including, especially, the opinions of the United States Supreme Court, by whomever written). But I continue to believe that the panel put together by Robert George in fact provided conflict of ideas, courteously but strongly presented, relevant to the issue of constitutional preservation. I do not think there would have been anywhere near the relevant intellectual diversity had, for example, Justice Thomas replaced Mike Seidman or Sandra Day O'Connor spoken in my stead. With very mixed feelings, I have decided to allow comments, though, perhaps naively, I would far prefer that they actually address the various presentations available courtesy of C-Span instead of the higher metaphysics of "diversity," save for those people who actually take the trouble to track down and read my book! Posted
by Sandy Levinson [link]
I am increasingly in agreement with you that we are in a constitutional crisis, that crisis is an institutional one, and we need a constitutional convention to remedy the problems. However, I suspect our views of the problems and solutions would diverge significantly.
My concerns are to restore liberty and democracy, in that order.
The concept of a constitutionally limited government was sound, but the Founders did not consider the rise of the modern progressve and socialist state in their design.
A convention would not only have to restore the original structure of checks and balances, but also add new ones to address the bureaucracy, judiciary and welfare state.
Sandy, the panel is very interesting and absorbing as individual presentations. I just listened to the whole thing! However, it was even more frustrating than usual that the presentations and the presenters did not speak to each others points. You all had individual shticks and stuck to them. Except for the DiIulio intervention at the end there is no real conversation here.
I'm truly grateful to jkt for watching the whole program. I'm estopped to deny the validity of his comment. The problem, if such it is, is that presumably a lot of people in the audience, including C-Span, don't know our shticks, and I hope it was helpful to hear them spelled out. But I certainly agree that it would have been highly desirable to have much more back-and-forth. I'm glad you noted John Dilulio intervention. He gave an absolutely terrific presentation at the symposium (which was, alas, not covered by C-Span). He's a really impressive guy.
I actually have your WWD book (a true family affair that is recommended) but will leave others to comment on this presentation.
If I have the right one, Robert George has promoted the "conflict of ideas" discussion ... he wrote a supportive blurb on a book that argued against the position of his own book on the subject. (marriage)
To be specific, my reference was to Robert George's blurb to "What's Wrong with Homosexuality?" by John Corvino [supportive of same sex marriage] while being a co-author of a "defense" of "traditional" marriage himself.
John Corvino has done his own yeoman effort supporting debate with the other side. PSA: I find such debate deeply helpful, which makes it somewhat unfortunate that it is not always handled that well here. Again, I thank blogger Mr. W for playing an important role.