Blog

Forthcoming in YLJ on SSRN (H/T Legal Theory Blog):

The signing of the U.S. Constitution is traditionally understood as the closing act of the Constitutional Convention. This Note provides an alternative account, one that understands the Constitution’s signing as the opening act of the ratification campaign that followed in the Convention’s wake. To begin, the Note explains the signatures’ ambiguous form as the product of political maneuvering designed to win support for the Constitution during ratification. The Note then hypothesizes two ways in which the signatures may have helped to secure this support: (1) by highlighting pro-Constitution selling-points likely to resonate with the ratifying public; and (2) by limiting the ability of the signers’ to recant their support for the Constitution once ratification battles had begun. Finally, the Note identifies a few respects in which this ratification-centered account of the Constitution’s signing may influence our modern-day understanding of the document.

The table of contents is enticing:Attesting Versus Endorsing: The Ambiguity Exposed, The Signatures as a Marketing Device, The Signatures as a Constraining Device.

Definitely check this out.

What happens to a person’s facebook page after they pass away? Do loved ones have access to the deceased’s Gmail? This article answers such morbid, yet curious questions.

Gmail and Hotmail provides access to the next of kin, while Yahoo! does not provide access to anyone. Facebook allows users to turn a deceased user pages into a memorial page. All services require valid proof of death and proof of kinship.

After reading this article, I definitely need to include language in my will to ensure that my Blog is given the perpetual care it deserves.

I’m still pretty stoked that Lawrence Hurely asked Justice Breyer about FantasySCOTUS.net. I met Justice Breyer once before at a Supreme Court Historical Society event, and he was kind enough to sign my copy of Active Liberty.

From the NY Daily News, H/T @ACSLaw:

A New Jersey-based shock jock is charged with threatening to kill the appellate judges after they upheld a ban on handguns. Prosecutors argue that right-wing loudmouth Harold (Hal) Turner crossed a line when he ranted on his blog that spilling the judges’ blood “will replenish the tree of liberty.” Turner of Oakland, N.J., also posted photos of the judges and the courthouse where they work on his Web site.

This is a very serious matter. But of special note to law nerds is that Judges Posner and Easterbrook will take the stand. A curious reversal of roles for these luminaries of the Seventh Circuit. I would love to be in the audience during those cross examinations. I pity the federal public defender who tries to trip up Judge Easterbrook.

Circle the date on your calendar. Best of luck to Alan Gura. For my thoughts on McDonald v. Chicago, check out my previous posts.