Law Commons^™

The Partisan Republic: Democracy. Exclusion, The The Fall Of The Founders' Constitution, 1780s-1830s, Matthew Crow, Katlyn Marie Carter, Graham G. Dodds, Jessica K. Lowe, Stephen J. Rockwell, Saul Cornell, Gerald F. Leonard

Faculty Scholarship

This article is a forum on Gerald Leonard and Saul Cornell's The Partisan Republic: Democracy. Exclusion, and the Fall of the Founders' Constitution, 1780s-1830s (Cambridge University Press, 2019). ISBN 978-1-107-02416-8

Roundtable Contents:

• Introduction by Matthew Crow, Hobart and William Smith Colleges
• Review by Katlyn Marie Carter, University of Notre Dame
• Review by Graham G. Dodds, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada
• Review by Jessica K. Lowe, University of Virginia School of Law
• Review by Stephen J. Rockwell, St. Joseph's University
• Author's Response by Saul Cornell, Fordham University
• Author's Response by Gerald Leonard, Boston University

The (Joseph) Stories Of Newmyer And Cover: Hero Or Tragedy?, Jed Handelsman Shugerman

Faculty Scholarship

Kent Newmyer's classics Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story: Statesman of the Old Republic and John Marshall and the Heroic Age of the Supreme Court are important stories about the architects and heroes of the rule of law in America. In Newmyer's account, Story played a crucial role preserving the republic and building a legal nation out of rival states, and Newmyer's Story is fundamentally important for students of American history. But in Robert Cover's account in Justice Accused on northern judges' deference to slavery, Story is an anti-hero. Sometimes Story stayed silent. In Prigg v. Pennsylvania, Story overvalued formalistic …

Preface, Ken I. Kersch, Linda C. Mcclain

Faculty Scholarship

In an essay in the Texas Law Review not too long ago, Sandy Levinson lamented the degree to which law reviews—most prominently the Michigan Law Review—were sharply cutting down on the space they were devoting to book reviews.1 This was especially unfortunate as law professors were publishing more and more books. The publication of a book, as opposed to a journal article, was for many a deliberate choice involving an effort to address subjects at greater length, in greater depth, and on a broader scale for a wider scholarly (and perhaps educated popular) audience. Thematic review essays on books, whether …

Sovereignty As Discourse, Robert L. Tsai

Faculty Scholarship

This is a review of Howard Schweber's book, "The Language of Liberal Constitutionalism" (Cambridge University Press, 2007). Schweber argues that "the creation of a legitimate constitutional regime depends on a prior commitment to employ constitutional language, and that such a commitment is both the necessary and sufficient condition for constitution making." I critique the power and limits of this reformulated Lockean thesis, as well as Schweber's secondary claims that, for constitutional language to remain legitimate, it must increasingly become autonomous, specialized, and secular.

Together We Can: Imagining The Future Of Employee Pensions, Maria O'Brien

Faculty Scholarship

Reviewing Teresa Ghilarducci & Christian E. Weller, Eds. Employee Pensions: Policies, Problems & Possibilities (LERA 2007)

A little over thirty years ago Congress enacted the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA),¹ a comprehensive reform of the existing system of pension regulation.² Solidly into its fourth decade, ERISA has been the object of much commentary as the various federal courts have struggled to infuse its complicated and sometimes imprecise pieces with coherent meaning. ³ Some have suggested that ERISA's primary goal of reducing the risk to employees of employer default has largely been achieved.⁴ Others believe that almost …

Review Of "Constitutional Torts" By Sheldon H. Nahmod, Michael L. Wells, Thomas A. Eaton, Jack M. Beermann

Faculty Scholarship

The most interesting issues in the field of constitutional torts, involving the legal and moral bases for the government's responsibility for injuries it causes, are the most difficult ones for lawyers to explore. The question whether, as a moral or social policy matter, governments and government officials should enjoy immunities or other defenses not available to private individuals is rarely confronted directly in judicial opinions or in scholarship on constitutional torts, yet it lurks behind many of the doctrinal issues that come up in constitutional tort litigation.¹ A slight scratch on the surface of doctrines as disparate as official …