Blog

Based on the overwhelming poll results, I will be attending the Constitution in 2020 conference proudly bearing my Madison Federalist Society pin, and asking around to have Fed Soc pocket constitution signed. 2 hours to New Haven.

Over at PrawfsBlawg, Professor Johnson, writes that the original Constitution drafted in Philadelphia is not that well written, and contains many scriveners errors and interlinations.

He points out one crucial error that I never noticed:

In Article I, Section 3, explaining Senate procedure upon the impeachment of the president, there is this doozy. The intended language is: “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside[.] The original uncorrected, verbless text is: “When the President of the United States the Chief Justice shall preside[.]”

How can you screw up and write something like that unless you are totally mentally wandering while doing it? This is the Constitution of the United States of America for crying out loud. You’d think you could focus. And if you can’t get it right the first time, then I say grab another sheet of parchment and start from the top of the page. Where is the craftsmanship?

Johnson references a total of four interlineations in the Constitution: “U.S. Const. art. I, § 2 (“the”); art. I, § 3 (“is tried,”); art. I, § 10 (“the” in two different places).” Also, Johnson blasts the drafter, Shallus for a shoddy job including “erasures, a misspelling, and wildly inconsistent capitalization”

As Johnson notes, “the federal district court for the District of Columbia, where the Constitution currently resides, has declared legal documents unenforceable on grounds of sloppiness.”

What’s a Textualist to do when the text of the Constitution is flawed? If you saw Scalia, the Textualist who holds the Constitution on his shoulders, if you saw that he stood, blood running down his chest, his knees buckling, his arms trembling but still trying to hold the text of the Constitution aloft with the last of his strength, and the greater his effort the heavier the Constitution bore down upon his shoulders – What would you tell him?

Shrug.

In addition to his interesting CSPAN interview, here are some more links to recent Thomas, J., sightings.

For the most reticent member on the bench, he sure loves chatting it up. H/T How Appealing.

Law.com has an account of his talk at SMU, and Thomas, J., further opines the value of oral arguments and why he abstains from asking questions.

In response to Olson’s questions about the value of oral arguments, Thomas said that sometimes they made a difference but rarely did they change votes, and never did they make a difference on a sustained basis. Olson asked if oral arguments should be dispatched with altogether. Thomas said no but that the other court members should let the advocates talk rather than peppering and interrupting them with questions. He said, “I have no idea what they are doing,” about his fellow justices who speak more often in oral arguments and speculated that other justices may be seeking “to get a chuckle out of the audience.”

I wonder which Justice(s) tries “to get a chuckle out of the audience.” Well I’ll give you a hint, according to the Supreme Court’s seating scheme based on seniority, Justice Thomas will be sitting right next to him come Oral Arguments! The SMU school newspaper has further reports.

Justice Thomas on precedent and liberty, and some great audio, after the jump.

(more…)

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.

Testing. This is my puppy chana

Update: Great Success! I can now upload photos from my blackberry directly to my blog. I will use this for liveblogging tomorrow. And yes, this is Chana, my five year-old Dachshund. She is adorable. And I will not approve any comments to the contrary.