Balkinization |
Balkinization
Balkinization Symposiums: A Continuing List 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 Rahman sabeel.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 An Argument Open to All: An Interview with Sanford Levinson
|
Wednesday, January 20, 2016
An Argument Open to All: An Interview with Sanford Levinson
JB I recently spoke with Sanford Levinson about his new book, An Argument Open to All: Reading The Federalist in the Twenty First Century.
JB: Your last two books were on constitutional structure.
Why did you decide to a series of commentaries on the essays in The Federalist?
SL: Framed spent
quite a few pages on specific Federalist essays
with regard to their justifications for the institutional structures I was
discussing. A central question in my
book was whether we in the 21st century agreed or disagreed with the
arguments put forth by Publius (though in that book I referred to the “real”
author of the essay in question, unlike my strategy in An Argument Open to All). In
any event, I realized two things: I
really hadn’t carefully read The
Federalist in years, probably since I was in graduate school, save for some
chestnuts like Federalist 10 and 78,
and, more importantly, that the essays as a whole were a lot more interesting
than I had thought they were. So I was
interested to see if that was in fact true of each and every one of the 85
essays. And the answer, at least to my
satisfaction, is that each one does have
something of genuine interest to a 21st century reader, independent
of the question of agreement or disagreement.
JB: You've been outspoken in calling for a new
constitutional convention, or at the very least, a series of new constitutional
amendments. But you've written a book on the most famous advertisement for our
present constitution. Do you think that The
Federalist supports your views on the need for constitutional reform?
SL: Sure! The two
most important essays in this regard are Nos. 1 and 14. The very first essay sets out what I consider
to be the most important question of our time:
Do we really believe that our fellow citizens are capable of sufficient
“reflection and choice” about essential matters of governance that we should
trust their decisions? Publius says
yes. Whether or not the actual author,
Hamilton, believed this is irrelevant to me.
And in Federalist 14, Publius emphasizes the importance of learning from
experience and rejecting “tradition” and “names” (i.e., arguments from
authority, including the authority, presumably, of “The Framers”) in favor of
thinking for ourselves. Again, if we
believe this, we should be more receptive to the idea of holding a convention
that would in fact subject the Constitution to rational scrutiny. The central problem, I am convinced, is that
most Americans—and I’m tempted to say especially those who consider themselves
“liberals,” “progressives,” of “leftists”—are scared to death of their fellow
citizens and most certainly do not believe they have the capacity to engage in
intelligent discussion of our constitutional order. That may be true, of course, but if it is,
democracy—and not merely the prospects for a new convention—is doomed.
JB: What most surprised you about The Federalist in writing your commentary?
SL: How much there is to disturb both contemporary
conservatives and liberals. The Federalist, especially No. 10,
surely the most widely-read of the 85, is an unrelenting attack on local
government and autonomy. The smaller the
governmental unit, the more likely the capure by factions. The opponents of the Constitution who accused
its supporters of advocating a “consolidated government” were, by and large,
absolutely right. The Federalist Society
should explain that the Madison they use as their logo is the Madison of 1798
and most certainly not the co-author of The
Federalist. On the other hand,
contemporary liberals concerned about what you and I have called the “national
security” and “national surveillance” states should realize that Publius was
obsessed with threats to America’s survival and, especially in Nos. 40 and 41,
but in other essays as well, basically endorsed unlimited national power to do
whatever necessary to meet such threats.
Of course, one can say, as I assume both of us would, that Republicans
greatly over-emphasize the nature of the threats posed to American security by
the international system today, but that is, in some way, to beg the
question. I.e., to what extent are we
willing to accept the proposition that in times of existential threat, the law
really should be silent?
JB: Why did you treat Publius as one person rather than
as three people? Did you come away from
your book with a different sense of any of the three authors behind the
pseudonym?
SL: I really am concerned only with whether or not these essays from long ago do (or should)
engage us today when we grapple with issues of constitutional design or the
overall project of constitutional government.
(Note, incidentally, that I don’t say “constitutional interpretation.” As a matter of fact, I think there is
astonishingly little in the 85 essays that is really useful to practicing
lawyers trying to figure out the meaning of debated clauses.) Why does it matter who wrote the essays? And, inevitably, if I had referred to the
actual authors, I would have had to address the “sincerity” question, since
it’s crystal clear that some of the specific arguments are in tension with what
Hamilton and Madison had said in Philadelphia or would go on to say when the
new government got up and running.
I suppose my principal “different sense” is that with
regard to the issues raised in my last answer, there is remarkably little
difference between Hamilton and Madison on the subordination of legal niceties
to the “exigencies” of the situation.
JB: Most law students read only a few of the essays in The Federalist. What parts of The Federalist are most relevant today
that people don't pay enough attention to? What parts do you think are least
relevant today?
SL: I have discovered, while teaching these materials at
Harvard and giving a lecture at Chicago, that very few law students have read
many of the essays. I take this as
evidence that almost no history or political science courses, even at the elite
schools from which Harvard and Chicago draw their students, bother any longer
to assign more than a very few of the essays.
If any are assigned, they are likely to be ##10, 47, 51, and 78. I think this is a shame. For starters, I would certainly assign ##1, 2,
6, 14, 15, 17, 23, 37, 40, 41, 46, 49, and almost all of the essays on
executive power, including the veto and the pardoning power. All are relevant in quite different
ways. I’ve already mentioned Federalist 1. Federalist 2, built around a preposterous
notion that there was a singular homogeneous American people in 1787, offers a
vital entry-point into the debates today about immigration, multiculturalism,
and diversity. Nos. 40-41, as already
mentioned, offer real challenges to anyone inclined to read Publius as an unabashed
admirer of “the rule of law” in times of emergency. Even some truly esoteric essays on ancient
and medieval confederations (##18-20) are altogether relevant to thinking about
the tensions facing Europe today, inasmuch as the EU is, at bottom, a mere
“confederation” and not a US-style consolidated government. Those essays are full of shrewd points on why
no “confederation,” including the US under the Articles of Confederation, can
really be effective. And I have become
especially fond, in a way, of Federalist
11 inasmuch as it explains why countries like China and Iran are altogether
rational in trying to build a strong military to defend themselves against
would-be hegemons that are certainly unfriendly to their desires to play a
stronger role in the international political-military order.
The fact is that Hamilton, Madison, and Jay were
unusually able political thinkers and masters of the rhetorical arts, and each
of their essays, if read carefully, can easily generate productive discussions
even today.
JB: Americans like to emphasize the greatness of The Federalist as a work of political
and constitutional theory, and recommend it to people in other countries. For
some time now you've been teaching courses on comparative constitutional
design. Do you think other countries have something to learn from The Federalist? If so, what parts?
SL: I think they do have something to learn, but, as I’ve
already suggested, it might not always be what the State Department intends
when it sends copies abroad. I think
that Publius writes from what we might regard as a basically Hobbesian-Machiavellian
perspective, even though, interestingly enough, neither of these great
political thinkers is ever mentioned.
But I think one message is that in the absence of a strong world
government or the kind of “natural protection” that it was thought, at the
time, was provided by the Atlantic Ocean, any country has to mobilize and even,
in some sense, adopt a militaristic culture.
One of the most fascinating essays is No. 8, in which Publius inveighs
against such cultures, which he sees as inevitable should the thirteen states
not united behind the new Constitution and instead establish two or three
separate countries that would constantly be fighting one another.
JB: Lawyers and judges love to cite The Federalist, and as Frank Cross notes, the number of citations
to The Federalist in the Supreme
Court started to explode during the Warren Court era. How important is The Federalist to contemporary
constitutional interpretation?
SL: I think it would be interesting to look at precisely which of the Federalists are cited. Anthony Kennedy loves to cite one or another
of the very few sentences that offer any real succor to federalism fans like
himself. To my knowledge, he’s never
acknowledged the arguments in Federalist 10
about states being dens of factional iniquity.
And, of course, there’s also citation by fans of executive power of the
ostensible advantages set out in Federalist
70 and elsewhere about the energetic lone executive. I’m not sure, though, whether you’re asking
an empirical or a normative question. That
is, I think that The Federalist is,
descriptively, more important than it should be to Supreme Court judges who
like to mine it for support for their own pre-ordained positions. They give wildly undue importance to the
essays, which is, I suppose, not surprising inasmuch as none of them is at all
a trained historian with an appreciation for the genuine range of views that
were contending with one another at the time.
And they pay no attention to the fact, for example, that the first
Congress rejected Publius’s assurances that Congress would play an important
role in the removal of cabinet
officials or, something that I find especially interesting, that John Marshall
in McCulloch swept aside the argument
in Federalist 33 that the inevitable
tensions that would arise vis-à-vis concurrent taxing authority would be
handled politically rather than treated as issues to be decided by judges.
So it should be clear that my hope that more attention
will be paid to The Federalist (and,
by the way, to my book) has nothing to do with their instrumental usefulness in
constitutional interpretation as that subject is defined in the contemporary
legal academy.
Posted 8:30 AM by JB [link]
|
Books by Balkinization Bloggers ![]() Linda C. McClain and Aziza Ahmed, The Routledge Companion to Gender and COVID-19 (Routledge, 2024) ![]() David Pozen, The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford University Press, 2024) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, Memory and Authority: The Uses of History in Constitutional Interpretation (Yale University Press, 2024) ![]() Mark A. Graber, Punish Treason, Reward Loyalty: The Forgotten Goals of Constitutional Reform after the Civil War (University of Kansas Press, 2023) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Most Controversial Decision - Revised Edition (NYU Press, 2023) ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed (St. Martin’s Press, 2022) ![]() 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). ![]() Mark Philip Bradley and Mary L. Dudziak, eds., Making the Forever War: Marilyn B. Young on the Culture and Politics of American Militarism Culture and Politics in the Cold War and Beyond (University of Massachusetts 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 |