Showing posts with label Constitutional studies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Constitutional studies. Show all posts

Levinson to Lead ICH Summer Workshop

0 comments
Our friends at the Institute for Constitutional History have announced an Interdisciplinary Summer Workshop for Junior Faculty, to be held July 8-14, 2012, at Stanford, California, entitled “Assessing the US Constitution: Twenty-first-Century Responses to Eighteenth-Century Assumptions.”  The workshop will be led by Sanford Levinson, the W. St. John Garwood Jr. Centennial Chair in Law, University of Texas Law School, and Professor of Government, University of Texas at Austin.  It is jointly sponsored by the Institute for Constitutional History and the Stanford Constitutional Law Center.  For further information, please contact Maeva Marcus, the Director of the Institute for Constitutional History, at (202) 994-6562 or MMarcus@nyhistory.org

Professor Levinson explains:
It is an obvious truth that the drafters of the 1787 Constitution had a number of basic assumptions about the workings of what they called a “Republican Form of Government” and that the institutions established in Philadelphia reflected these assumptions.  To be sure, some of them, such as equal voting power in the Senate or the basis of representation in the House (i.e., the 3/5 rule), were the result of compromises, in which the losers (like James Madison with regard to the Senate) viewed the result as a “lesser evil” (to the greater evil of no Constitution at all) rather than a positive good.  Still, almost all of the institutions were defended by proponents of the Constitution, the most prominent, of course, being the collective Publius.  To a remarkable degree, America in 2012 continues to be governed through the structures established in 1787. 

The purpose of the seminar is quite simple:  To look at the justifications offered, particularly at the Philadelphia Convention and ensuing ratification debates (including, of course, The Federalist) and to assess the degree to which we find them persuasive over two centuries later.  The seminar is not about “constitutional interpretation” as that topic is usually defined.  That is, we will not be looking at the parts of the Constitution that have been significantly litigated and, therefore, “interpreted,” over the years, such as the assignment of powers to Congress in Article One, Section Eight.  Rather, we will be looking at examples of what in my forthcoming book I call “the Constitution of Settlement” (in contrast to the endlessly-litigated “Constitution of Conversation”)—bicameralism, the particular organization of power in the Senate, the presidential veto ,and  the process of constitutional amendment, among others.  
Readings will be taken from Professor Levinson’s book, Framed: America’s 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (Oxford University Press, 2012); The Federalist; The Founders’ Constitution; Akhil Reed Amar, America’s Constitution:  A Biography; and John Dinan, The American State Constitutional Tradition.

Workshop Leader
Sanford Levinson is the W. St. John Garwood Jr. Centennial Chair in Law, University of Texas Law School, and Professor of Government, University of Texas at Austin.  Among other books, he has written: Constitutional Faith (Princeton U. Press, 1988, 2nd ed. 2011), and Our Undemocratic Constitution:  Where the Constitution Goes Wrong (and How We the People Can Correct It) (Oxford U. Press, 2006, pb. ed. 2008).  He is also the co-editor of a widely used casebook, Processes of Constitutional Decision Making (5th ed. 2006).  He has written over 350 articles in law reviews as well as more general venues.  He was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2001.

Stipends and Support:  Participants will receive accommodation at the Munger Graduate Residence on the campus of Stanford Law School and a modest stipend for meals.  Participants will also receive a travel reimbursement up to $250.  Workshop participants are expected to attend all sessions and engage in all program activities. 

Eligibility and Application Procedure: The summer workshop is designed for university instructors who now teach or plan to teach courses in constitutional studies, including constitutional history, constitutional law, and related subjects.  Instructors who would like to devote a unit of a survey course to constitutional history are also welcome to apply.  All university-level instructors are encouraged to apply, including adjuncts and part-time faculty members, and post-doctoral fellows from any academic discipline associated with constitutional studies (history, political science, law, anthropology, sociology, literary criticism, etc.).

To apply, please submit the following materials: a detailed résumé or curriculum vitae with contact information; syllabi from any undergraduate course(s) in constitutional studies you currently teach; a 500- word statement describing your interest in both constitutional studies and this workshop; and a letter of recommendation from your department chair or other professional reference (sent separately by e-mail or post). The application statement should address your professional background, any special perspectives or experiences you might bring to the workshop, and how the workshop will enhance your teaching in constitutional studies.

The deadline for applications is May 1, 2012.  Applications should be sent via electronic mail to MMarcus@nyhistory.org. Successful applicants will be notified soon thereafter.
Read More >>

Legal History in the News: The Importance of Wickard

0 comments
Today's New York Times has a great piece about the importance of Wickard v. Filburn (1942) for current legal challenges to the Obama administration's health care reform legislation. Here's a taste:
If the Obama administration persuades the Supreme Court to uphold its health care overhaul law, it will be in large part thanks to a 70-year-old precedent involving an Ohio farmer named Roscoe C. Filburn.

Mr. Filburn sued to overturn a 1938 federal law that told him how much wheat he could grow on his family farm and made him pay a penalty for every extra bushel.

The 1942 decision against him, Wickard v. Filburn, is the basis for the Supreme Court’s modern understanding of the scope of federal power. It is the contested ground on which the health care case has been fought in the lower courts and in the parties’ briefs. And it is likely to be crucial to the votes of Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Antonin Scalia, who are widely seen as open to persuasion by either side.

“Wickard has become so foundational for generations of lawyers that any plausible understanding of the commerce power must come to terms with it,” said Bradley W. Joondeph, a law professor at Santa Clara University.

Both supporters and opponents of the health care law say the decision helps their side, and for three days starting next Monday, it will be at the center of the arguments before the Supreme Court about the law’s constitutionality.
Read on here.
Read More >>

Snyder and Barrett on Rehnquist's Lost Letter

0 comments
Brad Snyder, University of Wisconsin Law School, and John Q. Barrett, St. John's University School of Law, have posted Rehnquist's Missing Letter: A Former Law Clerk's 1955 Thoughts on Justice Jackson and Brown, which will appear in the Boston College Law Review 53 (2012).  Here is the abstract:    
"I think that Plessy v. Ferguson was right and should be reaffirmed." That's what Supreme Court law clerk William H. Rehnquist wrote privately in December 1952 to his boss, Justice Robert H. Jackson. When the memorandum was made public in 1971 and Rehnquist's Supreme Court confirmation hung in the balance, he claimed that the memorandum reflected Jackson's views, not Rehnquist's. Rehnquist was confirmed, but his explanation triggered charges that he had lied and smeared the memory of one of the Court's most revered justices. This Essay analyzes a newly discovered document, a letter Rehnquist wrote to Justice Felix Frankfurter in 1955, criticizing Jackson, that reveals what Rehnquist thought about Jackson shortly after Brown and the Justice's death. The 1955 letter was not known during Rehnquist's 1971 or 1986 confirmation hearings. It is also currently missing and may have been stolen from Frankfurter's Papers at the Library of Congress. This Essay argues that Rehnquist's 1955 letter represents his disappointment with Brown and the beginning of his outspoken criticism of the Warren Court. The letter, this Essay contends, says less about how Rehnquist felt about Jackson and more about Rehnquist's disappointment over his Justice's role in the most important Supreme Court decision of the twentieth century.
Update: Adam Liptak's column in the New York Times on the Snyder-Barrett find is here.
Read More >>

Nelson, "A Critical Guide to Erie . . ."

0 comments
Caleb Nelson, University of Virginia School of Law, has posted A Critical Guide to Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, which appears in William & Mary Law Review 54 (2012). Here is the abstract:
Library of Congress
This paper--part of William & Mary's recent symposium on "Law Without a Lawmaker"-- tries to provide a concise but comprehensive analysis of Justice Brandeis's various arguments in Erie. Consistent with much of the new learning about Erie, the paper concludes that Justice Brandeis's historical argument is wrong, that his constitutional argument is highly suspect, and that even his practical arguments are less clear-cut than he suggested. The paper does not claim that anything in written federal law FORECLOSES the conclusion that Justice Brandeis reached in Erie. But the paper argues that nothing in written federal law COMPELS that conclusion either. Ironically, the Erie doctrine probably is best characterized as what modern lawyers call "federal common law."
Hat tip: Legal Theory Blog
Read More >>

Born in the USA: The Politics of Birthright Citizenship in Historical Perspective

0 comments
Here is the schedule for what promises to be a world-class conference, Born in the USA: The Politics of Birthright Citizenship in Historical Perspective, to be held March 29-30, 2012, at the University of Maryland, College Park, MD.  The conference is free, and no registration is required.  Attendees are requested to park in a visitor lot or arrive via metro (free shuttle buses run regularly from the College Park metro to campus).

SESSION 1: Thursday, March 29, 7:00 pm, Ulrich Recital Hall, Tawes
Keynote Address by Eric Foner (Columbia University History Department)
"The Civil War, Reconstruction, and the Origins of Birthright Citizenship"

Introduction by Wallace Loh, President, University of Maryland

** A reception jointly sponsored by the Center and the Race, Law, and Literature
conference (Department of English) will precede the keynote address beginning at 5:30 in
the first floor lobby of Tawes Hall

SESSION 2: Friday, March 30, 2012, 9:30 a.m.-11:30 a.m.
Session 2A: Origins
Van Munching Hall Room 1330
This session will explore the common law and Civil War Era origins and politics of the Fourteenth Amendment's citizenship clause.

   Chair: Holly Brewer (University of Maryland History Department)
   Panelists:
   Peter Schuck (Yale Law School)
   Garrett Epps (University of Baltimore Law School)
   William Novak (University of Michigan Law School)

   Commentator: Mark Graber (University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law)

Session 2B: Birthright Citizenship in Comparative Perspective
Van Munching Hall Room 1333

This session will place birthright citizenship in global perspective and compare it with other systems of citizenship elsewhere in the world.

   Chair: Daryle Williams (University of Maryland History Department)

   Panelists:
   David Abraham (University of Miami Law School)
   Patrick Weil (Yale Law School)
   Marley Weiss (University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law)

   Commentator: James F. Hollifield (SMU, Department of Political Science)

LUNCH BREAK: 11:30-1:00

SESSION 3: Friday, March 30, 2012, 1:00pm-3:00 pm
Session 3A: Explicating Birthright Citizenship
Van Munching Hall Room 1330

This session will explore the post-Fourteenth Amendment birthright citizenship debates and legal decisions involving Chinese immigrants, Native Americans, and residents of Puerto Rico and the Philippines after the Spanish American War.

   Chair: Julie Greene (University of Maryland History Department)

   Panelists:
   Mae Ngai (Columbia University History Department)
   Christina Burnett (Columbia Law School)
   Rebecca Tsosie (Arizona State Law School)

   Commentator: Heather Cox Richardson (Boston College History Department)

Session 3B: What difference did Birthright Citizenship make?
Van Munching Hall Room 1333
This session explores the practical effects birthright citizenship has had on the history of the United States.

   Chair: Sonya Michel (University of Maryland History Department)

   Panelists:
   Gary Gerstle (Vanderbilt University History Department)
   Linda Kerber (University of Iowa History Department)
   Linda Bosniak (Rutgers Law School)

   Commentator: Aristede Zolberg (The New School)

SESSION 4: Friday, March 30, 2012, 3:15pm-5:15 pm
Birthright Citizenship in Contemporary American Politics
Van Munching Hall Room 1330

This panel will explore the current debate over birthright citizenship, state and federal efforts to regulate it, and recent proposals to amend the Constitution's birthright citizenship clause.

   Chair: Michael Ross (University of Maryland History Department)

   Panelists:
   Walter Dellinger (O'Melveny & Meyers; Duke Law School)
   David Gutierrez (UCSD History Department)
   Marc Lacey (Journalist, New York Times)

   Commentator: Tamar Jacoby (President & CEO, ImmigrationWorksUSA)

For more information please see the conference website:
Read More >>
Copyright © MASS GOOD BUSINESS