jackbalkin at yahoo.com
bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
ian.ayres at yale.edu
corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
sgriffin at tulane.edu
jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
jkessler at law.columbia.edu
akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
slevinson at law.utexas.edu
david.luban at gmail.com
gmaglioc at iupui.edu
mazzonej at illinois.edu
lmcclain at bu.edu
mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
pasquale.frank at gmail.com
npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen
michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
dpearlst at yu.edu
rick.pildes at nyu.edu
dpozen at law.columbia.edu
raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
alice.ristroph at shu.edu
siegel at law.duke.edu
david.super at law.georgetown.edu
btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
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)
Will the U.S. Survive the 2016 Election III
Thursday, July 21, 2016
Will the U.S. Survive the 2016 Election III
Can anyone who has looked at any of the hatefest of the past three days--which has been comparable, depending on your taste in metaphors, to the Salem Witch Trials or a lynch mob (led by the ostensible "prosecutor" Chris Christie--believe that the Republican Party as an institution is read to make peace with President Hillary Clinton? It would be bad enough were we a parliamentary system, with an opposition party that not only opposes, but regularly refers to their desire to jail or execute the lawfully elected prime minister. But, of course, we're not blessed with such a system. Instead, we have one, courtesy of the Framers of 1787, in which the opposition party has all too much ability to torpedo any programs of the purported "party in power," as captured in the Republican use of the filibuster. As I have written many times before, Mitch McConnell is not a raving ideologue; he was simply behaving "rationally" in his desire to deprive Barack Obama of a second term and believing that the most effective way to do it was to deprive him of any accomplishments. He learned that Ted Kennedy had disastrously miscalculated by enabling George W. Bush to claim victory on two key aspects of his own domestic policy, i.e., No Child Left Behind and the prescription drug bill, and McConnell was not going to make the same mistake. As it turned out, thanks to Mitt Romney's inept campaign (and Sheldon Adelson's providential financing of Newt Gingrich's campaign for at least a month longer than any rational analysis would have predicted), it didn't work. But that doesn't mean that McConnell was irrational. To be sure, he wasn't very Publican; he preferred factional Party interest to any notion of the "public interest," but of course, the Publican vision, even if you think it attractive, ultimately makes very little sense empirically, as illustrated by the rise of the two-party system by the mid-1790s.
I would assume that the Republican Party "represented" by the delegates to the Cleveland Convention will increasingly take to the streets, brandishing their 2nd Amendment-protected firearms.
We don't seem that enthusiastic in this country and though some stray people might protest with open carry, not thinking it will be any sort of critical mass. The conventions are not exactly a good representation of the country. After all, Trump won a plurality of the minority of passionate voters who took part in primaries/caucuses.
And, if Trump wins, many will be horrified, but it would be a "legitimate" win to a supermajority of the country. A minority will consider Clinton somehow "illegitimate" but even Brett (who thinks she is a dangerous felon) said he thought the election would be "legitimate." So, your usage of "completely illegitimate" to me is wrongheaded. But, that isn't necessary for trouble to arise.
I think a likely possibility is "B" but some sort of legislation will be passed to deal with the basics of government. Ryan very well not quite take the "I hate Hillary as much as you do" approach. He very well can try to show he is a sane conservative legislator and support some things, not just be totally obstructionist. After about a decade, e.g., he might finally accept the PPACA, or at least basic parts of it that are widely popular.
Control of the Senate would allow Clinton to run the executive department with people she wants. And, the Republicans might lose some ground in the House, resulting in various splits in the caucus. The future there is unclear.
So one of the reasons you should have heeded my advice to avoid hyperbole is that you got nothing left to describe someone like Trump, who really deserves it. Be that as it may, I don't think that Republicans in Congress would be rolling over for President Trump as their respective parties did for Obama and Bush. This is particularly true if no evidence emerges that Trump can reward or punish other Republicans in primaries, which it has not so far.
Seriously, have you missed the past eight years on sabbatical on an island with no communication to the outside world?
1) The Democrat Congress enacted into law every single major policy Obama proposed except for Cap & Tax, which Obama is now imposing by bureaucratic decree. Despite the voters firing over 1,000 Democrats in the largest repudiation of a political party and their policies since Hoover's GOP was given their pink slips, we are still living in Obama World. The newly hired GOP Congress has not reversed to any degree any policy imposed by the fired Democrat Congress or the Obama bureaucracy. So much for your hated checks and balances.
2) The GOP is the majority party, not the opposition. The only part of government in which the Democrats still hold a majority is the presidency. If the US had your preferred parliamentary system, the GOP would have been running everything starting back in 2010, BO would be in forced retirement starring with his family on a reality show entitled "Keeping Up With The Obamas," and Hillary Clinton would the opposition leader.
3) The fall election will likely only decide who will occupy the White House after Obama. The current Democrat-leaning registered voter polling shows no sign at all that the GOP will lose its majority in the Congress or in state government and is hardly inspiring confidence that the Democrats will even retain the White House. Our shared nightmare of a Trump presidency is very possible.
4) The FBI possessed evidence beyond any reasonable doubt that the opposition presidential candidate was guilty of felony provision of classified materials to uncleared persons, felony obstruction of justice, felony perjury before Congress and misdemeanor storage of classified materials in unsecured locations. The current opposition president, with a long history of prosecuting military members and bureaucratic leakers for far less, refuses to prosecute his preferred successor. Why wouldn't the majority party be outraged? Why aren't you outraged???
5) If you agree that trust is necessary for any viable political order, why on Earth are you planning to cast a ballot to elect a demonstrated serial liar for president?
In case you need a reminder, here is your dowager queen in waiting lying repeatedly on video:
Hillary Clinton is justifiably the most distrusted candidate for president in modern and perhaps all of American history:
This is not to say that Trump is much more trustworthy. The Donald has dumped three decades of progressive positions and adopted a completely new set of conservative and nativist policies in his effort to get elected.
6) What ought to scare the hell out of people is both the Donald and the Hillary are undisguised authoritarians who will be inheriting Obama's precedent of ruing by decree.
God save what is left of our Republic.
I agree with Joe that option B seems most likely, though I don't share his optimism about Paul Ryan. And while I don't expect any form of "revolution", I do expect we'll see a continuation of the rhetorical extremism which has been a constant from the Rs since at least 1994.
A Trump win would be a complete disaster, so it doesn't really matter how legitimate it is.
I'll just wait and see but Mark Field's more pessimistic take isn't exactly unreasonable. The "five person" thing is intriguing. A few stray legislators are already not supporting Trump. If the majority is that thin (which to me is somewhat optimistic; I'm not going even going to bet my nonexistent farm on winning the Senate), Paul Ryan or others might act interestingly.
BB is correct bottom line so it's probably best not to use "completely illegitimate" language and not just so mls doesn't have a "I told you so" moment. And, it confuses the problem.
"but I would assume that the Republican Party "represented" by the delegates to the Cleveland Convention will increasingly take to the streets, brandishing their 2nd Amendment-protected firearms,"
I'm a bit puzzled why taking to the streets isn't part of your first scenario, given that liberals have already perpetrated more than one violent riot in response to peaceful Trump rallies, among other occasions.
I don't see armed Republicans taking to the streets in response to Hillary's mere election. (Unless it was accomplished by way of massive fraud.) But I could easily see Democrats, crazed by finally regaining the levers of power, perpetrating outrages that would prompt mass demonstrations. They wouldn't be violent demonstrations unless liberals started the violence.
Sandy's post closes with this question that perhaps might be rhetorical:
"Can anyone possibly be optimistic that we as a society possess whatever minimal level of trust in our political leaders is required to function effectively?"
I'm not prepared, at least right now, to respond to this question (assuming it's not rhetorical). But the form of the question suggests to me that such a person, in Sandy's mind, would be wrong. When a new President begins his term, he/she will have to learn much in the form of on the job training, regardless of how well the transition team does its job in preparing the new President. Hopefully there are mechanisms in place than can lessen chaos. Perhaps historians and political scientists have studied what new Presidents have faced and how they have responded to potentially dangerous scenarios they have had to address. (Bay of Pigs? Secession?) I would hope that the structures of the Executive branch with career personnel would provide protection and security. While Donald J. Trump may be a "turkey," America is not a Turkey.
I didn't get much sleep last night because Gov. Pence went overtime as a result of which the Late Show was delayed, keeping a geezer such as myself up too long. But I took a nap this afternoon and look forward to the Late Show tonight to put all this in perspective. So I won't be focusing on Chicken Little scenarios that might play out in this thread - until tomorrow.
Meantime I'm working on a Brexit poem that might incorporate The Donald and the new PM Theresa May and her "Brexit means Brexit" stance even though she was a Remainer. I have as a tentative title:
"MAKE BRITAIN GREAT ... AGAIN?"
inspired by The Donald.
Watch Donald Trump's acceptance speech then watch Adolph Hitler's 1932 campaign speeches on Youtube with English subtitles. The themes of a corrupt government working with scapegoats (the Jews for Hitler and foreigners for Trump) to bring disorder and economic disaster to the forgotten common man and woman, followed by promises that the Leader will restore order and greatness to the nation are the same and are damned effective in both cases. What makes Trump's fascist propaganda even more effective is that most of his indictments of our government and his opponent are in fact true and pluralities to heavy majorities of voters share Trump's outrage.
You Democrats are seriously underestimating Trump.
Trump is appealing directly to Bernie Sanders' Millennial supporters and your working class minority constituencies, by portraying Democrats as the whores of wealthy special interests, and indicting Democrat misgovernance for the poverty and crime they are suffering.
In the debates, Clinton is going to offer a collection of focus group approved zingers and Trump is going to respond by verbally punching her in the mouth with indictments of her lies, crimes and corruption. In fact, Clinton is the perfect establishment foil for Trump.
People, Trump can very well become our next President.
I am not making any predictions concerning the 2016 election because I have never seen anything like Trump's fascist campaign in the history of major party American politics.
I am saying you need to take Trump very seriously.
I choose to take Mr. DePalma's comment at face value, including his willingness to compare the convention in essence with a Nuremburg rally scripted by Josef Goebbels. I refuse to believe that enough Americans are susceptible to the basically Schmittian politics he and Giuliani are pushing. I truly look forward to seeing what traction Johnson and Weld develop. I certainly hope they get to participate in the debates, which will be healthy for the country.
People, Trump can very well become our next President.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 11:32 PM
These poll numbers are GREAT news for John McCain!!!
Sandy: I refuse to believe that enough Americans are susceptible to the basically Schmittian politics he and Giuliani are pushing.
Trump spent that speech systematically pushing the buttons of one group after another.
If you Democrats do not start to understand the depth of the anger at and fear of the status quo out there and offer a compelling alternative change, Trump could very well win this election.
An unknown Barrack Obama pulled this off in 2008. I cannot see how an all too well known Hillary Clinton can pull this off in 2016.
Blogger Bart DePalma said...
I cannot see how an all too well known Hillary Clinton can pull this off in 2016.
These poll numbers are GREAT news for John McCain!!!
Blankshot, it's great that you're terrified of Trump winning. Too bad that won't stop you from doing everything you can to help him.
مكافحة النمل الابيض
شركة مكافحة النمل الابيض بالرياض
مكافحة الارضة بالرياض
شركة تنظيف مجالس بالبخار بالرياض
افضل شركة تنظيف مساجد بالرياض
شركة نقل عفش بالرياض
مستودعات تخزين اثاث بالرياض
افضل شركة تسليك مجارى بالرياض
شركة تنظيف بالرياض عماله فلبينية
شركة تنظيف واجهات زجاج بالرياض
افضل شركة تنظيف كنب بالرياض
تنظيف مساجد بالرياض
شركة كشف تسربات المياه بالدمام
شركة كشف تسربات بالرياض
The Donald Duck Die-Nasty obviously has been channeling Richard M. Nixon's "Law and Order" motif but un-channeled Ronald Reagan with the Donald Duck Die-Nasty acceptance speech theme: "MOURNING IN AMERICA!"
Sandy's taking SPAM I AM! at "face value" suggests that Sandy's closing question in this post was at least semi-rhetorical. But in truth is SPAM I AM! a beard for Sandy? (Yes, this is a rhetorical question.)
While I take SPAM I AM! at facial hair value regarding his Chicken Finger Lickin' fears for Democrats, the Cruz Canadacy Cruzaders, of whom SPAM I AM! was a leading (but dim) light, have even more to fear and SPAM I AM! with his thousands of J'accuses of The Donald as a fascist may be #2 [pun intended] on The Donald's "Nixon" list.
After last night, I'm still sure the US will survive the election. I'm less sure it would survive a Trump presidency.
Regarding Sandy Levinson's comment, I do trust the American public will not vote for Trump, though will not just rest on that -- think Clinton can appeal to her record, a more positive message and the campaigning chops that helped her win each campaign minus a close one vs. Obama. As to the debates, would welcome that though figure Clinton would not and it might require a change of the rules. To me, Johnson/Weld is the sane Republican Party-in-exile.
Sandy's comment confirms that he and SPAM I AM! are hyperbolic peas but in separate non-organic pods. I doubt that the shelling by either of them will sell.
To me, Johnson/Weld is the sane Republican Party-in-exile.
To a certain extent, yes. I mean, it's missing the racism and insanity of the Trump voters, who've been reliably R for the last 35 years or so, and their platform includes quite a few nutcase ideas, but they're both thankfully free of affective personality disorders.
Professor Levinson makes some fascinating points, but I think he underestimates the sheer overwhelming force of inertia. The vast majority of Americans will just shake their heads sadly and get on with their lives. After all, thirty to forty percent of them probably won't even bother showing up to vote.
Perhaps the scarier question is how much real grass-roots opposition would rise up in response to President Trump craziness. I'm not too optimistic on that score either. Easier to just share a meme on facebook and call it a day.
You didn't present the option if "a sociopathic Hillary Clinton" wins the election. And since Donald Trump doesn't have characteristics of "sociopath," allow me to present articles from across the world from people and organizations who do believe and make supportive arguments that Hillary Clinton IS-
Perhaps "enlightened" liberals would be of more value to society if you actually cared about.
"An unknown Barrack Obama pulled this off in 2008. I cannot see how an all too well known Hillary Clinton can pull this off in 2016."
Much as I dislike Bartbuster, that statement really is deserving of mockery. She can pull it off by having practically the entire media working for her as an unpaid PR firm, while social media outlets like FB do their best to suppress anti-Hillary memes and amplify pro-Hillary ones. I would have thought that was obvious.
You never know how Trump is going to do, he's not playing the same game previous GOP nominees were, but it's obvious what Hillary is counting on. The media are in her corner.
"The media are in her [Clinton's] corner."
may be referring to post-Roger -"the-Lodger"-Ailes. But what about the close to $2 Billion in media freebies that The Donald got up to the time he was the lone GOP Clown standing, more that all the others spent? Maybe Ailes should have gone international as did Brett rather than play the rooster in Fox's henhouse. As Bugs Bunny would say, "What's up Murdoch?"
By the Bybee [expletives deleted], it is rumored that Ailes may soon be overtly on The Donald's payroll.
In any scenario without actual large scale & obvious fraud, the public will more or less go along with it (with some grumbling from the losers). Every four years I hear GOPers who swear they'll go gun if the Dems win, but only loonies would ever do anything so deranged. Even the obvious problems with Bush v Gore didn't lead to a Dem revolt- mostly they (wisely imo) saw that they could only harm the legitimacy of the system by taking things further.
In scenario A or C, there will be vocal opposition. Not many Dems would call Trump illegitimate without some factual basis (ie without election irregularities). A few more GOPers would say this about Clinton, but in the wake of a Trump loss I suspect the majority of the elected officials would get back to business as usual (ie partisan political gridlock, but emphatically disavow the idea of armed opposition).
But I think your analysis sidesteps the real question- in any scenario the GOP is going to be undergoing rapid changes: either in victory as Trumpism becomes the leading ideology (such as it is), or much more likely in defeat.
So I don't see the status quo extending into the future. My likeliest scenario is B, with Ryan tacking with the changing GOP winds with a weather eye on 2020. I suspect (or maybe it's just hope) that the GOP finds itself needing to court nonwhite voters and younger voters by embracing a positive vision for the future rather than a retreat into the past. I neither agree with or like Reagan, but he had a positive vision for America that went beyond clinging to the past or encouraging hate and divisiveness. The GOP needs to find that again before they'll get a good chance at the white house.
I should add: if Clinton wins then Trump will fight to prevent being labeled a loser, and by far the easiest way to fight that would be to blame the 'defectors' on the right. So win or lose, a struggle for the soul of the right is inevitable.
Trump probably already has lined up reasons A to Z not to be branded as a loser. I had commented many months ago that Trump could say that he accomplished his goal by demonstrating that the Republican Party needed to be exposed as a loser AND he accomplished this by readily defeating the Republican sweet 16, the best and brightest (low bar) that the Republican Party had to offer, that The Donald is a winner in losing by exposing the Republican Party as a loser. Someone had to do it. And it took a TV reality show star to do it. At the same time, Trump was able to more firmly entrench his brand, providing in losing a win for his personal profits. Imagine Trump hotels marketing their "UNPRESIDENTIAL SUITES."
شركة كشف تسربات المياة بالقطيف
شركة كشف تسربات المياة بالجبيل
شركة كشف تسربات المياة بتبوك
شركة كشف تسربات المياة بالخبر
شركة مكافحة النمل الابيض بالخبر
شركة تسليك مجاري بالجبيل
شركة تسليك مجاري بالدمام
شركة تنظيف خزانات بالقطيف
شركة تسليك مجاري بالقطيف
شركة تسليك مجاري بالخبر
شركة تنظيف منازل بتبوك
شركة رش مبيدات بتبوك
شركة تسليك مجاري بتبوك
شركة تسليك مجاري بالباحة
شركة تنظيف بالدمام
Books by Balkinization Bloggers
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)
The Information Society Project
Syllabi and Exams