Be curious to see the difference in
attitudes about whether
a) a pledge that has been recited by
generations of school children is unconstitutional and
b) a pledge that has been recited since
the 1950s is unconstitutional (two generations by my count).
MAG
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/14/03
Life gets even more complicated.
As Burke, Magliococca (the best source, a recent article in Pittsburg) and I
("Federalists or Friends of Adams") have pointed out, there was nothing to
enforce until the Georgia court deliberately refused to obey the order in
Worcester. What would happen
This strikes me as being as close an
analogy to Tinker as I can think of, with Tinker being the harder case.
And I'll bet there is a lot of content discrimination going on. I'll
bet lots of people had t-shirts with some sort of political
message.
Mark A. Graber
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/30/03
Dear All:
With the
permission of our esteemed moderator, I would like to make the following request
of you. The University of Maryland apparently sends the most students to
law schools of any university in the country (I try, but there is obly so much I
can do). Students frequently come
. And to
return to the Alabama case, if a federal court orders Moore to remove
the monument, I don't think it matters what the Alabama supreme court
has said; the federal court is addressing him as a litigant and not
reversing any state court decision.
Quoting Mark Graber [EMAIL PROTECTED
Sorry about that. I have a very
slow learning curve with respect to email.
MAG
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/13/03 03:39PM
will do. Can you send me an address.
MAG
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/13/03 03:36PM
Mark, I'd welcome receiving copies. Thanks,
Bobby.Bobby LipkinWidener University School of
will do. Can you send me an address.
MAG
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/13/03 03:36PM
Mark, I'd welcome receiving copies. Thanks,
Bobby.Bobby LipkinWidener University School of
LawDelaware
For the record, my argument is that Dred Scott privileges no
constitutional theory, whether that theory be originalism,
aspirationalism, institutionalism, or the living constitution. My
belief, in print, is that plausible arguments in all constitutional
languages can be made for and against. So,
with political science departments is that they are filled with people
who have political science degrees and think they know something about
history. (However with deference to Mark Graber I will not make such a
point.)
There is a strong argument that the Framers' intent was precisely as
Taney saw
.
Professor Franck again:
I thank Mark Graber for the honor of political scientists in his
characteristically mild fashion, even though he left me out of his honor
roll!
Back to me
I hadn't meant to leave anyone out by omission. I disagree with certain
historical claims Professor Franck makes, some
I'm puzzled by the rules of this parlor game.
How about the following amendment. Graber gets to amend the
constitution anytime he wants to.
Or is it the case, as the Genie tells Alladin, can't wish for more
wishes (does all power to Graber violate this rule? Does a complete
design of Article I
First, much thanks to Sandy for the
free publicity.
Second, may I also recommend both to
Sandy and to others, the Congressional debate on the removal power (some of
which is excerpted in Graber and Perhac, MARBURY V. MADISON--a too expensive
collection on the background of Marbury). What is
Professor Lipkin
writes,. If the original
understanding of Art. III included the power of judicial review, why was is it
necessary to explicitly include judicial review in the Judiciary Act of
1789?
The answer is rather simple. The
relevant statute gives the Supreme Court appellate
Could this be clarifed a bit. One
might argue (indeed, every dissent in a constitutional case may have argued)
that any misinterpretation is a constitutional violation (good faith exceptions
for justices?). What behavior do you mean?
Mark A. Graber
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/28/03 04:53PM
I am
Professor Lipkin
writes: I don't think one can escape
from Plessy this easily. In both cases, laws burden members of a
disfavored class (disfavored at least with respect to a certain benefit or
entitlement)."
My thought. This would seem to be
true for any law. All laws burden some persons more
Sandy is right. I write too
fast. But the general point stands. Jeremiahs and calls for jihads
should be rationed, and Scalia is overdrawn.
MAG
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/27/03 02:23PM
Mark Graber writes:Scalia's seem a call for a jeremiad. Once a term
perhaps. But not two a week.Scalia's opinion
Another relevant question, raised by
Justice Thomas's dissent. What is a compelling interest for a state
government. Is that the same as a compelling interest for the federal
government. Consider the possibility that while the national government
has no compelling interest in providing legal
Shadow Constitution originated?
(I understand the metaphor of the shadow cabinet, and a Lexis-Nexis
search shows that Mark Graber (2002) and Jack Balkin (1997) have used
the phrase when criticizing the tendency on the part of some progressive
scholars to focus on elaborating and defending
18 matches
Mail list logo
