ACS

Panel Seven:
9:30 – 11:15 Roundtable:  Mobilization
Moderator:  William Eskridge, Yale Law School
Panelists:  Addisu Demissie, Organizing for America; Marshall Ganz, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard; Judy Scott, SEIU, Michale Wishnie, Yale

Caroline Frederickson- Executive Director ACS

Thanked members of ACS, Panelists, and Organizers.

Conservatives have hijacked the constitutional process through strict construction and original meaning. It’s good to feel the love. Scholars have shed light on how constitution should be interpreted. Principels and values founders embodied in this document. Significant progress has been made over past 200 years. Still much work to be done.

Caroline Frederickson

Wiliam Eskridge

Like interpretation, these panels are dynamic. Yuk Yuk Yuk.

Mobilization. Main example- gay rights/gay marriage movement. Shows aspects of constitutional mobilization- huge mistakes, moderate successes. Mobilization in Vermont being done locally, state-wide, and nationally. Mobilization protected against right-wing retribution at Polls. Started with mobilization of small meetings (5-10 ppl).

Olson-Boises Law Suit

Bill Eskridge praising Ted Olson for the Olson-Boises law suit. Olson came out of “conservative closet” to favor SSM. Best thing to do with Olson-Boises law suit. LAMBDA denied intervention in lawsuit.

Eskridge’s strategery- Delay law suit as long as possible, and revoke Prop 8 in 2012. Revoking Prop 8 would moot the lawsuit. If lawsuit proceeds to 9th and “finds” Constitutional Right. CA9 has poor record with SCOTUS. Olson thinks he can get Justice Kennedy’s vote. Eskridge not sure if the movement has Breyer and Ginsburg. If not mooted before 20102, not optimistic SCOTUS will find right.

Winning constitutional arguments is not end-all of social movements. Yale Law School should not fetishize SCOTUS. We should reject it. Best thing to energize LGBT movement and straight allies was Bowers v. Hardwick.

The more gay marriage is talked about, the better it is to talk about. Eskridge has no doubt he is right. SSM Marriage good for the children, for neighbors, for states, good for jobs, good for America.

Older generations set on LGBT issues. Identity tied to traditional understanding of marriage. Progressives ought to understand hat.

Marshall Ganz

Calling, craft, and career with respect to mobilization. Who, how, and with whom, do you do the work of mobilization. Civil rights all about ending racism. Equates civil rights movement to exodus story told during Passover.

Deeper inequality driving racism was inequality of power. African-American’s couldn’t vote, unions out of power. What to do? Some thought you ask people in Washington for some of their power. If change comes from up high, it can be taken away easily, because power inequality still exists. Example, Montogmery bus strike. People had stake, could withdraw their bus fare.

To affect meaningful change, must engage resources of those who have an interest. Need skilled leadership.

While he thought racism was an exception in America, became an example in America.

Keys for mobilization

1. Translate power into action through narratives
2. Bringing people together around common interest through relationship building
3. Structuring organizations
4. Strategize- transform what you have into what you need
5. Measurable results

Talking about Obama, politics of hope, change.

Rabbi Hillel. “If I am not for myself, who will be for me. If I am for myself alone, who am I? If not now, when.”

Addisu Demissie

Political director for Organizing for America. It seems Organization for America was formally Obama for America. Is he a community organizer?

Get out the vote director for Obama in Ohio.

Hard for progressives to admit they are in power and to use their leverage of power. Really? Didn’t Obama make his Presidential seal before he was President? Didn’t Nancy Pelosi start measuring the drapes for her Speaker Office in October 2006?

Change made through citizen contact, with neighbors talking to one another. Difference between mobilizing and organizing. Mobilizing- fight you are in. Organizing- fight you are in, fight you will be in the future. He predicts the Left will win on health care. But there is always some issue to bring people in. Organization building will use health care, 2010, energy, etc. Can’t get totally submerged in the fight you are in. Need to consider fight you will be in next.

Organization building tips

1. Train leaders to take charge of their communities. Goal to train leader in every community in this country.
2. Permanent structure-Neighborhood team leader-community organizer model. For every group of precincts, a neighborhood team leader (NTL) to organize. That organizer reports to a community organizer that manages neighborhood team leaders. The community organizer linked to higher-ups. Don’t do nitty-gritty, more managerial. Not about any particular issue. It is about empowering them.
3. Meeting- getting face to face with people. Just like those helpful ACORN tax advisers in Baltimore!
4. Reporting. Strict, structured reporting system to track everyone from volunteers up to amangers

Need to creates sustainable organization that lasts beyond the current fight. Structure is important, don’t just focus on substance. 2/3 of fight is setting agenda and framing issue. Get excited about small victories.

Judy Scott

Economic Justice. Concentration of wealth, very few peopel who speak for bottom third. What is mobilization structure to make those voices heard? Not just individual rights, but collective rights and collective action.

Labor law has limited concepts of organization to bargaining unit. Look to issues of global unions.

Unions need to be:

1. Global- mulinational corporations growing at a fast rate.  Nation states incapable of dealing with multinational labor conditions. Need structures to deal with international IP rights, WTO for international trade. Need structure to enforce labors beyond borders.
2. National level. Change that work campaign. Need to extend to 12 states with much density. Labor movement density was 35% in 1950s to 7% today. This is a threat to Democracy.  Working with farmer unions, consumer leagues, around issue of health care reform. Showing up at town hall meetings. Like this SEIU member who roughed up a Town Hall attendee? Agitate for improvement of American families.

Don’t just think about filing grievances and arbitrations, but focus on organizing in community and mobilizing.

Mike Winshnie

Thanks everyone for giving up right to leisure to come here on Sunday. Apparently the right to leisure is declared in the fundamental declaration of human rights. I suppose I generally waive this right.

Progressives acheive social reform by supporting a particular social movement, and translate movement values to ways courts, legislatures, and agencies can understand. Lawyers are often crucial in this interpreting function.

In a few generations, we will look back at modern immigration law as de jure subjugation, similar to Jim Crow Laws.

There is a hope that “the constitution will jsut stay out of the way” because it hurts more than it helps. So the Constitution in 2020 is should just hide? He’s quoting Saul Alinsky now.

Judy Scott, Marshall Ganz, Bill Eskridge, Mike Wishnie, Addisu Demissie (Left to Right)

2:15 – 4:15   Individual Rights
Moderator:  Dan Kahan, Yale Law School
Panelists:  Elizabeth Emens, Columbia Law School; Rich Garnett, Notre Dame Law School; Paul Horwitz, University of Alabama School of Law; and Alice Ristroph, Seton Hall University School of Law

My comments in blue

Elizabeth Emens

Need to breath fresh life into ways of thinking about discrimination.Focus on small “c” constitutionalism. Focus on “disability” under ADA to understand discrimination. Three areas- discrimination, identity, and remedies.

With disability, no bad actors, but exclusion. E.g., Before ADA, building owners did not need to worry about building ramps.

Rich Garnett

Doesn’t want to be seen as the view from the other side. His proposal coheres well with the views of his ACS counteparts.

Proposal: need to better incorporat einto constitutional law debate of appreciation of roles and rights of religious institutions.

Discusses Balkin’s infrastructure of freedom of expression. Encourages developments of certain institutions- newspapers, libraries, etc. Plays role in civil society to allow individual freedoms of expression to be well exercised. These are conduits and scaffolding of civil society to allow free institutions to exist

Compares religious freedom to freedom of speech. Religion protected by institutions.

Infrastructure of religious freedom. Religious institutions shore up and facilitate religious conscience. Self-governing religious institutions provide the social ambasure of the social order where the individual human person can be secure in all places.

Paul Horwitz

First amendment institutions, what role they play in rethinking 1st amendment for 2020.

2020 is the wrong date for thinking about rethinking the constitution. Neither close enough to be within practical reach, or remote enough to imagine ourselves free to interpret the constitution.

How do we define institutions? What should the scope of their autonomy be? (e.g., Bob Jones, Boy Scouts case)

Alice Ristroph

To think about individual rights think about the individual creatures. Talk about violence in criminal justice system. Humans form governments to achieve physical security. Constitution will establishing governments to adjudicate conflicts peacefully, protect individuals from physical harm.

Three ways Constitution can regulate violence

1. 4th amendment prevents seizures, stops police contact, but cases does not support this

2. 4th amendment also governs use of force- pain, bruises, use of force that harms people, but court uses reasonable standard

3. 8th amendment cruel and unusual punishment- 8th has done some work in cpaital punishment, but not in the prison

Also use anti-discrimination norms of the Constitution to prevent violence, but Ristroph does not think this approach is strong enough.

Anti-violence norm in Constitution. Is there counter-majoritarian imitation? Not prepared to dismiss judicial review as quaint and obsolete.

Focus on Ulysses and the Sirens image. The constitution is a source of security and dangers that exist. Tie himself to mast. Safety in constitutionalism. Danger of departing from constitutional norms. Constitution is not a suicide pact. Must yield to security.

The constitution is risky and poses restraints on what we would do to keep ourselves safe.

Elizabeth Emens,  (not sure), Rich Garnett, Paul Horwitz, Alice Ristroph (Left to Right)

Questions

Ilya Somin, who is a big fan of public subsidies for the construction of the New Yankee Stadium

War on drugs, lage number of non-violent drug offenders in prisons, aggressive police tactics used in war on drugs, victimless crimes. Ilya does not want war on drugs in 2020. Amen.

Garnett- “orgy of over-criminalization.”

My observations

It almost seems like the panelists want to achieve some end, and they flip through the Constitution trying to find something, anything to justify her beliefs. This seems backwards. Shouldn’t the text of the constitution inform what the law is? I do not have a political science or philosophy background, but I would imagine if this conference was entitled Political Science in 2020 or Philosophy in 2020, there would not be much of a difference. These scholars are creating brilliant theories of society, government, policy and then as a footnote, try to make portions of the Constitution support it. This troubles me in a sense. All of their concerns are valid from a policy standpoint, but from a legal standpoint I don’t get it. Or maybe, I am too naive in thinking the law has a form. Is being a formalist just foolish? If the law does not have a form, then the law is whatever smart people say it is. If that’s the case, why hide behind the veneer of a written constitution? All this talk of “norms,” “constructs,” and “infrastructures” seem like talismanic incantations of juristic concepts, but ostensibly serve as a fig leafs for the authors idea of what is right and what is wrong.

Panel Three:
9:00 – 10:15 Social Rights
Moderator and Commentator:  Vicki Schultz, Yale Law School
Panelists:  Risa Goluboff, Virginia Law School; Jacob Hacker, Yale University (Political Science); and Ben Sachs, Harvard Law School

My comments in blue. I will be updating this during the day so refresh often.

Risa Goluboff

Discussion of the labels of civil rights, political rights, and social rights in 19th century. Social rights, as in Plesssy, were outside of the Constitution, and were not protected. Harlan dissented in Plessy, and considered riding in a train car as a civil right, and not a social right. In the 1950′s-60′s civil rights and social rights evolved during Civil Rights movement. Term social rights fell out of use, and everything merged into civil rights. In international distinction between civil and political rights, and social and economic rights. Some literature suggests importing terminology from international sources. She does not agree with these items. Right to healthcare, education, housing are considered civil and political rights in International law. United States ratified INternational covenant of civil and political rights, but did not ratify Inernational convention for economic, social, and economic rights.

Judicial unenforceability of social rights. Some think courts will not protect and legislatures are better to protect. For Constitution of 2020, she would like robust aspirations for constitutionally enforced social rights.

Main obstacle is calling these rights social rights.

Jacob Hacker

A student once told him, “If I had 15 minutes to live, I’d spend it in your class, because it will seem like an hour.” LOL!

Hacker is a political scientist, and not a constitutional law scholar. He said, you do not have to be a constitutional scholar to talk abotu social rights because the constitution holds “limited promise.” Well, duh. This is my main objection. The constitution is an obstacle, and not an enabler for this conference.

Discussing economic inequality in America. Top 10% of Americans earn a 1/3 of national income from WW II – 1970′s. In 1970′s, was 50%. Narrow slice of top 10% making out so well. Top 1% had 9% of income. In 2003, jumped up to 23%. Person behind me proclaimed “Jesus.” Half of Americans go without health insurance. Family declares bankruptcy every 15 minutes. 45,000 Americans die because of lack of national health insurance. There is a grave challenge. So Hacker asks what is the role of the Constitution and the judiciary to address this challenge.  See my previous post. There’s a problem? So what.

Courts wont use Constitution on a positive front to address these problems. Courts should stay out of the way. Not desirable to base larger compaign for larger security on the Constitution, per se, or ground it institutionally in the judiciary. So why is this conference called the CONSTITUTION in 2020 and not the progressive agenda in 2020?

Legislatures can address these issues. Hopefulyl we will not face a Lochner court to stand in the way (read, enforce the Constitution). Talking about Ackerman’s concept of national citizenship, twin commitments to equality and liberty.

Founders, Hume, Montesqiue considered large concentrations of wealth were bad for political inequality. Vast difference in economic standing would lead to vast difference of political standing. This got tied in early 20th century to legal realists.

Adam Smith quote- “Whenever there is great property, there is great inequality.” He said Hayekians seldom bring out this quote. I want to track down the full quote becuase I couldn’t transcribe the entire quote.

When people know about greater dimension of inequality, people more likely to support redistribution.

Ben Sachs

Right of workers to engage in collective action to improve working conditions and better lives. Right? How is this a right?

The most promising avenue for workers progress is NOT constitutional perform, but legislative action. I keep hearing this same refrain. Constitution is not relevant.

How to achieve this:

1. Concerted activity by workers.
2. Action at State Houses

Economic equality and political equality, and role of unions to equalize wealth.

Campaign finance law- deal with distorted effect of wealth on politics. Commitment to political equality demands stop treating  union spending as corproate spending.

Legislative, rather than constitutional law.

“Unions and constitution have history of unrequited love.” LOL

Not much has been found to locate union rights in the Constitution. Constitution only offers minimal protection for minor collective actions. 1st and 13th amendment provide minimal protections, no right to strike. How is the 13th amendment supposed to protect right to strike? Maybe I’m ignorant.

Political power by workers, and constitution that doesn’t “stand in the way of the exercise of that power.”

We have cleared away “constitutional hurdles“to acheive collective action. Liberty of contract no longer a problem for now. Plenty of room in commerce clause to facliitate colective activity. Oi vey.

Card check will eventually pass, increased protection for organizing activity. Constitutional arguments against Card check will be raised- 1st amendment on employer speech, non-delegation speech. Not worried about objections.

Greatest promise at state and local levels. Preemption problem, political power which workers have built at state and local level cant be translated into progressive labor legislation. Amend federal stautute to allow states to experiment. Wow, he’s a Federalist!

Best bet for progress on workers progress lies in political and legislative work, first at federal level to free up state experimentation, then at state level to accomplish things not on radar in Washington.

Unions attacked for leveling distribution of income, but that is exactly their goal. Unionization means more of income of a firm goes to employees, and less to owner. Unions increase income equality.Oi vey. Spread the wealth!

Reduce income inequality, help reduce political inequality.

Congress has constrained effect of economic inequality on political sphere through campaign finance. Harder to constrain effect once you have allowed powers to establish themselves. Campaign finance laws may soon be invalided. Let’s hope so. Hillary movie FTW!

In campaign finance laws, corporations and unions should be treated equally. He thinks this is wrong.

Unions and corporation are not the same. Treasuries built from contributions of lowest paid members of society. Unions represent views of low-level workers. Corporate treasuries built differently. Limiting corporate spending has leveling effect. Limiting union spending does not achieve this. Vision of constitutional equality should help to achieve this difference.

Vicki Schultz

She commented and summarized the other panelists. Questions for panelists.

Question for Risha: Social rights make her nervous. She prefers economic citizenship. Every citizen has privilege for men and woman alike to achieve economic autonomy- right to work (right, does someone have to hire you) and train for an occupation of one choice, and combine with hcild rearing and other significant life commitments. From Alice Kessler (sp). Why not speak of economic rights? Is McCarthyism so deep and embedded that we can’t talk about economic (socialist) rights?

She is puzzled why we don’t call these rights economic rights. Why is the right to work an economic right but liberty of contract is not an economic right. Why does the worker get the right, but not the employer? Who is John Galt?

Question for Ben: To Ben, the constitution is an impediment. This depends on formalist view of the constitution, and not a law and society view of the constitution; the constitution of aspirations and the rights and hope of us all. What? What role does or could the constitution, or the “idea of the constitution” not to create judiciall enforceably rights but to inspire society to dream up a more democratic society. What? Why bother mentioning the constitution if you are more comfortable with the mere idea of it?

Rising inequality and insecurity in America today. Talking about healthcare again. Between TR and FDR, evolution of how to progress political inequality created by economic imbalance. TR- Private property should be servant, not master of the commonwealth. FDR- “for too many of us the political equality we once had was meaningless. a small group concentrated in their own hands, have complete control of others property, labor, lives.”

Question for Jack: What forces can galvanize citizenry to take back our democracy. What is common vision that appeals to all of us to come together for benefit of us all? How collectivist. Notions of political equality are hollow shells. Need to fill out those shelsl wiht something that means something to people in their everyday lives. In US, right to work and to earn are inevitable in America, to build for others. Clintonian notion- work should pay. Can this be expressed in a universalized means, not in a gendered fashion.

Not the Constitution, but Wagner Act had inspirational affect on movement. CIO had signs that said, the president wants you to join a union. To what extent can the Constitution play this role today? Best chance is appeal to economic equality. Is this in the Constitution? It is probably wrong to think about this too monolithically. Different groups of workers respond differently to different groups of claims. E.g., immigrant workers, and importance of citizenship to those organizing.

Republican senators are in “La La” land except for a couple senators from Maine. ROFLOL. LMAO.

Questions:

Bruce Ackerman

The constitution is an entrechnmetn device. How hard is it for next generation to move it around? Compare Brown v. Board to Social Act. Brown is a failure. Parents involved, Supreme Court gave up on social aspect of Brown. FDR considered social security is entrenchment device. If FDR put it in, it will never go away. We need to design constitutional ideals and landmark statutes so they are hard to appeal. Bad entrenchment for healthcare would be disastrous. I love Ackerman’s unbridled cynicism, but unfailing genius to persuade. He wants these landmark statutes to become so entrenched they can never be removed. I would say the text of the Constitution is the ultimate entrenchment device. Article V is the total entrencher! But somehow, Ackerman thinks that the Social Security Act is entrenched, but the text of the Constitution isn’t. Does that make sense ?

Reva Siegel

Racial and social inequality were once entangled in the 1960s. Challenge now to recover distributive understandings of race.

The panelists also answered a question about langauge, and developing a framework and lexicon to “get on message.” I find that one of the geniuses of these scholars is to develop nice terms to describe concepts that I vehemently disagree with. Messaging so so important.

Comments

It’s worth noting that the four panelists are all progressives. I understand this conference is meant to explain the liberal view of the Constitution, but some balance would definitely have made this panel a little easier to swallow. Also, all of the questions from the floor were sympathetic. I’m inclined to ask a question here, but this is way out of my comfort zone, and I don’t feel I can contribute much here. To reiterate my point I made earlier this morning, the conference has a feeling of incestuousness, in that progressives are asking progressives questions, and there seems to be little dissent.

Vicki Schultz, Risa Goluboff, Jacob Hacker, Ben Sachs

Panel Two:
5:30 – 6:30   Roundtable:  About the Constitution in 2020
Moderator:  Neil Siegel, Duke Law School
Interviewing:  Bruce Ackerman, Yale Law School; Jack Balkin, Yale Law School;
Robert Post, Yale Law School; and Reva Siegel, Yale Law School

Update: I attempted to liveblog on my blackberry. In the modern lexicon, the formatting was an epic fail. My apologies. I will bring my laptop tomorrow, and hopefully the generous IT souls at Yale will provide free Wi-Fi. If not, back to the blackberry.

My comments in blue.

Reva Siegel

Siegel began by telling the story of how the Constitution in 2020 emerged. Dawn Johnson hosted conference, where she discussed General Meese’s Constitution in 2000, a document from Reagan white house. This document was restorative and not reconstructive. She attributes this document to the start of originalism.

While the Constitution in 2000 closely tied to politics, Constitution in 2020 makes change possible, and is not fully utopian.

Robert Post
Dean Post began by discussing a theory of democratic contitutionalism. He describes the concept as paradoxical. The best constitution may not be our constitution. Democratic change happens when the people try to take ownership of constitution. We are living with constitution we didn’t make. If we don’t like it we should change. But article 5 is inadequate. Ackerman made the same point, and called Article 5 obsolete. Any other provisions antiquated to Professor B? Maybe the 2nd amendment? How bout the First? The Constitution becomes ours through “norm contestation.” Changing understandings of society make us read the constitution differently. He aims to link cultural values of generation and our understanding of consitution.

Things that don’t appear to be constitutional are. For example same sex marriage. While same sex marriage suits are ostenisbly about states rights and federalism, they are really about same sex marriage. “The constitution is practically at sake.” I suppose this makes sense if Lawrence is extended to SSM, but I recall the majority specifically wrote that SSM is not covered under the DPC. Not yet at least.

Link democratic costitutionalism and originalism? Question.

Jack Balkin

He began, “My name is Jack, and I’m an originalist. Also I’m also a living constitutionalist” Some much needed laughter brought the house down. Balkin considers originalism and the living constitution 2 sides of same coin. Unfortunately, he did not elaborate on this concept.

Balkin posited that there are 3 values to any constitutional theory.
1. Legitimization- a constitutional theory must make whatever government does seem legitimate. In other words, make the unjust appear just.
2. Dissent- The constitution often creates dark times for all people. Balkin’s example was abortion; it is a dark time for pro-life and pro-choice. The Constitution must enable the right of dissent.
3. Persuasion- A constitutional theory  changes when people persuade that what we thought it meant isn’t what it meant. As Balkin explained it, we change what’s off the wall to on the wall. Norms change. What’s unreasonable yesterday may become reasonable today.

Balkin applies his framework to Conservative use of originalism.
Conserv use of orig 1970-95:

1. Legitimization- the processes in the Constitution legitimize the rule of law.
2. Dissent- conservatives argue, and dissent that the Constitution was taken away from them.
3. Persuade them- conservatives seek to persuade public that something is wrong, and has to change

In order ot redeem and restore the constitution, you must move what’s off the wall onto the wall. Transform the unjust to the just. Balkin advises that you need to understand these principles to understand constitutional theory. This discourse was, imho, the highlight of the event.

Balkin turned to the Supreme Court Justice confirmation process. He quipped, that the justices not dying frequently create problems. Lol. Brought the house down again. They used to die or retire every other yars. He bellowed, “Your turn to die” and quipped that these were judicial heath death panels. Guess that Sarah Palin post was pretty influential after all.

Balkin also informed the crowed that Consttution was amended in new deal. You didn’t get memo, he asked? Laughter. Nope, I’m still waiting for my memo.

Balkin Proposal to improve SCOTUS nominations.
1. Snate abolishes 60 vote rule for erything. No amendment to constitution needed, just change intenal rules.
2. Every 2 yrs the President gets new SCOTUS appointee. What to do with all those pesky justices running around? Balkin argues that a quorom is not mandated under the Constitution. Under his approach, the 9 most junior justices decide cases, while the senior justices perform ministerial tasks like the cert pool. I’m skeptical if this is constitutional under Article III.

Bruce Ackerman
Ackerman opened with the two main themes in American history are identity (who are we?) and economic justice.

Unlike Balkin, Ackerman is NOT an originalist. Because society has made a lot of progress on identity, Ackerman wants to turn back to question of economic justice. While there has been progress on national identity, there has been regress on economic justice. Amerca on verge of plutocracy. Top 1 percent own 41 perc of wealth. That’s it?

Ackerman then began on a new path that mirrors Chapter 10 of the Constitution in 2020. He argues that certain “landmark” legislation are “constitutional statements” to “build a constitutional order.”Don’t stick to article 5 which is obsolete, Ackerman argues. Landmark statues for economic justice become part of constitution, even without the Amendment process. I’ll give Ackerman a gold star for creativity in making up these eloquent nomenclatures, such as constitutional statements and constitutional orders, but I don’t see how you can write out Article V based on labeling it obsolete.

Among these landmark statutes are the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Social Security Act, the Voting Rights Act, and others. Ackerman said that we cannot rely on courts (which unfortunately for the forseeable future are Conservative) to protect these civil rights. Rather, we must rely on the legislature. Neil Siegel quipped that Scalia will only be 83 in 2020, and that 83 is the new 73. Should we wait for const in 2030? Lol

Then Ackerman treaded on a point I have been considering deeply. Would these landmark statutes be considered rights of national citizenship? And if so, would these positive grants of rights be grated as the privileges or immunities of national citizenship under the 14th amendment? If so, would this be a framework for transforming mere “landmark statutes” to the order of a new “constitutional order.” He did not come out and say this in Chapter 10 of his book. But where he is going is clear, in my mind at least.

So I asked him this exact question. His answer, unsurprisingly. Yes.

I also asked Professor Ackerman about his thoughts on the cert grant in McDonald v. Chicago, and the question presented dealing with the privileges or immunities clause. He looked intrigued, but said he hadn’t thought about it.

I also spoke with Professor Balkin about this same point. I will blog further about this later.

Summary.
This panel was filled with all-stars. I’m entranced listening to them, yet I agree wth litle of what they said. But wow, amazing panelists.

Reva Siegel, Jack Balkin,Neil Siegel (not sure if they are related), Robert Post, Bruce Ackerman (left to right)

There will be two panels tomorrow:

Panel One:
3:15 – 5:15   America and the World
Moderator:  Bruce Ackerman, Yale Law School
Commentator: Oona Hathaway, Yale Law School
Panelists:  Muneer Ahmad, Yale Law School; Aziz Huq, University of Chicago Law School; Jenny Martinez, Stanford Law School; and  Jon Michaels, University of California Law School-Los Angeles

Panel Two:
5:30 – 6:30   Roundtable:  About the Constitution in 2020
Moderator:  Neil Siegel, Duke Law School
Interviewing:  Bruce Ackerman, Yale Law School; Jack Balkin, Yale Law School;
Robert Post, Yale Law School; and Reva Siegel, Yale Law School

Absolutely standout panelists. Not too much balance, but Ilya Somin and Rich Garnett, who are speaking on panels on Saturday and Sunday, should fight the good fight. Should be fascinating.

I’ll keep you posted with blog updates, memorable quotes, and some instant pics! Follow me on Twitter to get updates when they happen.