First, some shameless self-promotion:
Levinson: Why I Did Not Sign the Constitution
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20030923_levinson.html
This provoked the following from Prof. Tung Yin of the
University of Iowa Law School:
You note one of the structural deficiencies of the
I
think I agree with you, but as far as my own signing is concerned, I would
probably have been required to have a co-signer.
I
believe your comment that the recall process is "lunatic" is expecially
trenchant today, in that I note that Darrel Issa, the person who bankrolled the
signatrure
It strikes me as odd that, in popular culture at least, we have a
pantheon of constitutional heroes--George Washington, James Madison,
Alexander Hamilton, etc. These are the framers who (for strong
political reasons) gave us a constitution that protected the slave trade
until 1808, that provided
Michael's new article is of great interest, and I highly recommend
it--even without any disparagement of Washington, Madison Hamilton as
producing a Constitution that did not abolish slavery. (For all their
accomplishments, Bingham and Howard did not abolish legal discrimination
against women,
James Madison Chair in Constitutional Law
Drake University Law School
Des Moines, Iowa
DRAKE UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL seeks applicants for the endowed position as
James Madison Chair in Constitutional Law and Director of the Drake
Constitutional Law Center, commencing with the 2004-05 academic
It has long been common knowledge among modern U.S. historians that the
American memory and understanding of the Civil War and Reconstruction was
basically taken over and distorted for many years by Southern and
white-supremacist sympathizers. See, eg, David Blight's recent books on
Race, Memory,
It has long been common knowledge among modern U.S. historians that the
American memory and understanding of the Civil War and Reconstruction was
basically taken over and distorted for many years by Southern and
white-supremacist sympathizers.
As late as 1977, Raoul Berger (GOVERNMENT BY
It is perhaps unfair to say that Berger swallowed it whole. It's true he
did not seem greatly enlightened or informed by the insights of the
post-Dunning revisionists, and I think his views on incorporation and the
meaning of the 14th amendment were often doggedly obtuse. But despite
occasional
So, it's probably just me, but it seems as if the 9th Circuit produced a
particularly facile analysis of the balancing of the interests in the en
banc opinion. Could it be they are daring the Supremes to reverse them?
-Original Message-
From: Scarberry, Mark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Perhaps fascile wasn't the most appropriate word (I know I misspelled it -
that was a typing error). Perhaps disingenuous is more what I am thinking.
I have a hard time believing these judges would let economic interests
prevail over the right to vote, or that the burden of having to vote again
I have resisted commenting on the California recall litigation, but this is
really too much. I cannot let pass the assertion that the need for
finality and closure in electoral processes somehow should shield the
recall from legal challenges. I'm not sure what it looks like from Harvard
Yard,
What the heck is the rush? Bryan asks. The California Constitution
specifies that recall elections take place within 60-80 days after
certification. You may not like the constitutional provision, any more
than you like the requirement that Presidential elections be held on the
first Tuesday in
In response to John's first point, I would cite the Supremacy Clause. I
agree we should play by the rules, and the federal constitutional rules (as
construed in Bush v Gore, a decision I recall John favored) trump the state
constitutional rules (which actually don't invariably dictate that a
I am having a terrible time typing today. I apologize for the improper use
of it's in my last post.
-Original Message-
From: Gregg Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 6:15 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: CA9 takes case in banc
I don't mean to pick
To follow this thread, the focus of so much inquiry on the intent of the
original Framers obscures the fact that whatever their understanding was of
the original document, the document today is textually much different. So
originalist thinking helps block thinking about what the text today means.
Here is my read: Whether we agreed with the result in Bush v. Gore or
not, almost all of us were surprised the Court took the cases in the first
instance. Most of us, in our hearts even if it was not only justified but
necessary, nevertheless thought that the Court in making the decision to
stop
Indeed yes on both counts. The Kennedy essay Mark refers to is (I think)
Reconstruction and the Politics of Scholarship, 98 Yale LJ 521 (1989). (I
have boxes in arm's reach on my floor with what I suspect may be almost
every significant law review article touching on the incorporation issue
ever
17 matches
Mail list logo
