pageok
pageok
pageok
My Constitution in 2020 Blog Post:

Yale Law School has organized a conference on The Constitution in 2020, a much-discussed recent book that puts together contributions by numerous prominent left of center scholars on the future of constitutional law. To their credit, the conference organizers have chosen to invite scholars with a wide range of viewpoints to the conference, including some who are conservative or libertarian. I will be appearing on the panel on Localism and Democracy, along with Ernest Young (Duke), Rick Schragger (Virginia), Ethan Leib (UC Hastings), and Judith Resnik (Yale, author of the chapter on federalism in The Constitution in 2020). The conference organizers have also created a website where each participant can summarize their presentations in a short blog post. Mine is available here. I include a brief excerpt below:

American federalism faces both great promise and serious dangers over the next few years. One of the most important advantages of federalism is the ability to "vote with your feet" -- to leave a state with oppressive or ineffective policies and move to a better one . . . Increasing mobility and declining information costs give state and local governments stronger incentives to adopt policies that will be attractive to migrants. Revenue-hungry state governments know that valuable taxpayers will depart if they raise taxes too high or provide poor public services....

Unfortunately, American federalism is imperiled by the ongoing growth of federal power, especially the increasing dependence of state governments on federal funds. Our system has been successful in part because state governments have historically been forced to raise most of their revenue themselves. State governments that raise their own funds have strong incentives to adopt policies that promote economic growth and attract potential migrants. A state that falls behind its rivals is likely to lose its tax base. But states that can rely on federal funding to meet their fiscal needs face much less competitive pressure and are therefore less likely to adopt good policies.....

Federalism has also been weakened by the expansion of Congressional regulatory authority. The federal government has come to regulate almost every aspect of American society. This trend accelerated under the Bush Administration, which pushed through legislation expanding federal control of education and health care, and supported federal preemption of a variety of state laws, including ones permitting assisted suicide and the use of medical marijuana. The more policy areas come under federal control, the less the scope for interjurisdictional competition at the state and local level....

The 21st century could be an extraordinarily successful time for American federalism - but only if we restrain the growth of federal power.

Posts by the other participants are also available at the Constitution in 2020 blog site. The conference at YLS will be held October 2 to October 4. They are well worth reading if you are interested in the future of federalism. Yale has posted the conference schedule on its website.

UPDATE: In the original version of this post, I mislabeled Prof. Ernest Young's school affiliation. I apologize for the error, which has now been corrected.

The_End_Is_Near:
While I'm sympathetic to the federalism argument, were I to prognosticate, I'd say globalization, networking technologies, and industrialization will only increase federal power by 2020.
9.24.2009 9:33pm
Larry Sheldon:
I am not a lawyer. Not even a sea lawyer--although I did try my hand at that many years ago.

It seems to me that lawyers make things too complicated, particularly with respect to the Constitution.

It seems to me that an understanding of why the first amendments were made. They were made to allay fears that the central government might see powers in the Constitution as written to take control of things the local folks did not want to risk losing control-of.

What we have here is an example of bad law--law written to "cover all the bases", to assure that the central government could not quash dissent. The authors tried to list every form of communication they could think of.

A fair reading of the first amendments is that "is to make no law suppressing communications between dissidents".

No Tienanmen Square suppression of people using small computers and printers.

No "Fairness Doctrine" suppressing opinionated radio programs.

No HHS whatever-it-was denying insurance company access to their customers.

No "Net Neutrality" to suppress communications via "blogs" and such.

No rules about what you can print (or must print) (if you happen to own a printing press).

And so on. Sky-writers? Chalk on sidewalks? Signs on cars? Card stunts in stadia?
9.24.2009 9:50pm
qwerty (mail):
"My is available here"? Who are you, Elie Mystal?
9.24.2009 9:51pm
ThinkingInTime:
As a thought experiment, imagine if you had proposed the same conference in 1985: "The Constitution in 2005."

The only textual difference would have been the 27th Amendment. 20 years is less than 1/10th of the history of the Republic. Why should we believe that the text--or its interpretation, since it is clearly the interpretation that is more volatile than the text itself--will change any more or any less than it has in the last 20 years?
9.24.2009 10:02pm
J. Aldridge:
The Federal Criminal Empire will come crashing down as soon as China and Japan decides to stop being an accessory to crime by refusing to purchase Federal debt.
9.24.2009 10:54pm
ploks (mail) (www):
I own 2 laptops. If I puchase an external portable drive with enough capacity to take both backups can it be done on one drive?

_____________________
#1 [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmaPuVvat-s]world of warcraft warrior guide[/url] [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwrbG1hJFEw]fap turbo guide[/url] [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r11ltMmao5Q]unlock iphone[/url]
9.25.2009 3:23am
Effefonseft (mail) (www):
http://www.asstraffic.com/go/482826/1/9/n/ass-fuck ass fuckig ass fuck anal sex
9.25.2009 7:03am
ploks (mail) (www):
I am unable to open any of the programs on my computer, except for the internet explorer. I am unable to perform a system restore because it just comes up as an error of some sort. Can I put the computer into safe mode and then perform a systems restore to fix it, or do I need to do something else? Also anytime I click on a link in Google it doesn't actually bring me to that site. How do I fix these problems. Thanks.

_____________________
#1 [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmaPuVvat-s]world of warcraft shaman guide[/url] [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwrbG1hJFEw]fap turbo guide[/url] [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r11ltMmao5Q]unlock iphone 3g[/url]
9.25.2009 4:10pm
Larry Sheldon:
Posting (or reading) comments here is pretty much a waste of time, innit?
9.25.2009 6:09pm

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.