• Selected
• Entire List

Abstract:
The purpose and function of this article is to provide the intelligent novice a beginner's guide to the considerable body of scholarly writings about the theory of American constitutional law. This article is all about trying to make some sense of in-class discussion and out-of-class readings in treatises and law reviews of a peculiar dialect of legalese that might be called con law prof talk.

Constitutional theory helps us to master our subject. It helps us to understand Supreme Court decisions and helps us to cope with the elaborate and often conflicting opinions of the Justices. It allows us to distinguish between a good argument and a bad argument. Constitutional theory helps us to understand where an argument is coming from and where it might take us. It helps us to see the big picture. We better understand how a doctrine came to be and how it might evolve. We see how different doctrines are related and how they fit into the overall organization of constitutional law. Constitutional theory allows us to talk about our subject with each other. It is the patois that constitutional law professors write and speak to other professors and to their students. If we manage to gain some perspective from the vantage of constitutional theory, we will better understand constitutional law. At least, that is what a con law prof would tell you while sober.

This article provides a nutshell description of the leading theories and identifies some of the leading theorists on the Constitution. The unit of currency here is the academic law review article, not the Supreme Court decision. The citations here provide illustrative examples of the vast body of literature. The discussion provides preliminary sketches of an intellectual landscape that is vast and often foreboding to the beginner. This article is organized around three basic interpretative questions: Who has the authority to interpret the Constitution? What are the legitimate sources of meaning for interpreting the Constitution? How is the Constitution interpreted within different theoretical approaches? The discussion then briefly identifies some of the basic tenets of the prominent contemporary schools of legal philosophy about the Constitution: liberal theory; conservative theory; feminist theory; critical race theory; and postmodern theory. Finally, a somewhat self-consciously introspective conclusion will ask rhetorically: does theory matter? (The answer is a faux-Zen bit of con law prof talk: It depends...)

Constitution, constitutional theory, constitutional interpretation

Abstract:
The purpose and function of this article is to provide the intelligent novice a beginner's guide to the considerable body of scholarly writings about the theory of American constitutional law. This article is all about trying to make some sense of in-class discussion and out-of-class readings in treatises and law reviews of a peculiar dialect of legalese that might be called "con law prof talk."

Constitutional theory helps us to master our subject. It helps us to understand Supreme Court decisions and helps us to cope with the elaborate and often conflicting opinions of the Justices. It allows us to distinguish between a good argument and a bad argument. Constitutional theory helps us to understand where an argument is coming from and where it might take us. It helps us to see the big picture. We better understand how a doctrine came to be and how it might evolve. We see how different doctrines are related and how they fit into the overall organization of constitutional law. Constitutional theory allows us to talk about our subject with each other. It is the patois that constitutional law professors write and speak to other professors and to their students. If we manage to gain some perspective from the vantage of constitutional theory, we will better understand constitutional law. At least, that is what a con law prof would tell you while sober.

This article provides a nutshell description of the leading theories and identifies some of the leading theorists on the Constitution. The unit of currency here is the academic law review article, not the Supreme Court decision. The citations here provide illustrative examples of the vast body of literature. The discussion provides preliminary sketches of an intellectual landscape that is vast and often foreboding to the beginner. This article is organized around three basic interpretative questions: Who has the authority to interpret the Constitution? What are the legitimate sources of meaning for interpreting the Constitution? How is the Constitution interpreted within different theoretical approaches? The discussion then briefly identifies some of the basic tenets of the prominent contemporary schools of legal philosophy about the Constitution: liberal theory; conservative theory; feminist theory; critical race theory; and postmodern theory. Finally, a somewhat self-consciously introspective conclusion will ask rhetorically: does theory matter? (The answer is a faux-Zen bit of con law prof talk: "It depends. . . .")

Constitution, constitutional theory, constitutional interpretation

Abstract:
This annotated bibliography was prepared for the panel on Diverse Teaching Methods Designed to Improve the Education of Law Students at the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Association of Law Schools (Aug. 3, 2009). It is offered as a resource to law teachers. It self-consciously and selectively surveys books and more recent articles with an emphasis on teaching qua teaching. It does not include articles specific to particular courses or subjects. Each entry appears only once. The categories and assignments are somewhat subjective but helpful for canvassing a rich literature. The online resources themselves include still more bibliographies.

bibliography, teaching methods, law students, legal education, Southeastern Association of Law Schools, law schools, professors

Abstract:
This article was written for and submitted to the International Association of Law Schools Conference on Comparative Constitutional Law, Washington, DC (Sept. 11-12, 2009), hosted by the American University Washington College of Law and the Georgetown University Law Center. It generally describes the curriculum commitment of the Florida International University College of Law to inculcate perspectives from international law and comparative law into all domestic law courses. It offers some brief and tentative advice to instructors. The focus is on the basic, first-year survey course in U.S. constitutional law. An Appendix provides a set of sample Lessons on comparative constitutional law developed by the author.

Constitutional Law, Law Teaching, Comparative Law, International Law

Abstract:
Professors Balkin and Siegel's book is part of a larger project to improve the constitutional theorizing of judges and the elected political branches in the direction of left, liberal outcomes, i.e., to realize a progressive political agenda for the Nation. The coeditors and the twenty-two contributors are fancy con law professors at fancy law schools. They combined for twenty-seven brief essays on how to make the United States a better country according to their 2020 constitutional vision (pun intended). Their ruminations cover pretty much the entire constitutional domain, including: interpretation, voting, social justice, citizenship, democracy, civil liberties, religious diversity, family, reproductive rights, federalism, presidential power, and transnationalism. There are frequent appeals to diversity and dialogue and regular entreaties for new mobilizations.

constitutional law, book review, The Constitution in 2020, Jack M. Balkin, Reva B. Siegel

Abstract:
A Primer on the Jurisdiction of the U.S. Courts of Appeals provides an introduction to the complexity and nuance in the subject-matter jurisdiction of the U.S. Courts of Appeals. The monograph examines procedural issues related to the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in appeals from final judgments and interlocutory appeals. Coverage includes civil and criminal appeals, extraordinary writs, and federal administrative agency reviews. This edition contains new sections on the future of the Courts of Appeals, judicial rulemaking, non-party appeals in criminal matters, and an updated bibliography. Research for the second edition is current through the end of the Supreme Court Term 2007-2008, and includes appellate case law through October 2008.