Jack Balkin

Last updated

Balkin, J. M. (2020). The cycles of constitutional time. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN   978-0-19-753101-3. OCLC   1140362306.
  • Levinson, Sanford; Balkin, J. M. (2019). Democracy and dysfunction. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. ISBN   978-0-226-61199-0.
  • Balkin, J. M. (2011). Living originalism. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. ISBN   978-0-674-06178-1. OCLC   709670308.
  • Balkin, J. M. (2011). Constitutional redemption: political faith in an unjust world. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN   978-0-674-05874-3. OCLC   676725392.
  • Balkin, J. M. (2002). The laws of change: I ching and the philosophy of life (1st ed.). New York: Schocken Books. ISBN   978-0-8052-4199-0.
  • Balkin, Jack M. (1998). Cultural software: a theory of ideology. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press. ISBN   978-0-300-08450-4.
  • As editor

    • Brest, Paul; Levinson, Sanford; Balkin, Jack M.; Amar, Akhil; Siegel, Reva, eds. (2018). Processes of Constitutional Decisionmaking (7th ed.). Aspen Publications. ISBN   978-1454887492.
    • Balkin, Jack M.; Siegel, Reva B., eds. (2009). The Constitution in 2020 . Oxford University Press. ISBN   978-0-19-538796-4.
    • Balkin, Jack M.; Grimmelmann, James; Katz, Eddan; Kozlovski, Nimrod; Wagman, Shlomit; Zalsky, Tal, eds. (2007). Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment. NYU Press. ISBN   978-0-8147-9983-3.
    • Balkin, Jack M.; Noveck, Beth Simone, eds. (2006). The State of Play: Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds. NYU Press. ISBN   0-8147-9972-8.
    • Balkin, Jack M., ed. (2005). What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said. NYU Press. ISBN   0-8147-9918-3.
    • Balkin, Jack M., ed. (2001). What Brown v. Board of Education Should Have Said. NYU Press. ISBN   0-8147-9890-X.
    • Balkin, J. M.; Levinson, Sanford, eds. (2000). Legal Canons . NYU Press. ISBN   0-8147-9857-8.

    Journal articles

    See also

    Notes

    1. The Knight Law and Media Program at Yale Law School, "Knight Law and Media Program". Yale Law School. Archived from the original on August 14, 2012. Retrieved July 12, 2012.
    2. The Floyd Abrams Institute for Free Expression, "The Floyd Abrams Institute for Freedom of Expression". Yale Law School. Archived from the original on August 19, 2012. Retrieved July 12, 2012.
    3. "Book of Members, 1780-2010: Chapter B" (PDF). American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Retrieved May 9, 2011.
    4. "Members Elected July 2020". American Law Institute.
    5. "Professor Jack M. Balkin". American Law Institute.
    6. Balkin 1998, p. 14, 42-45.
    7. Balkin 1998, p. 143.
    8. Balkin 1998 , p. 144. See Seung, T. K. Intuition and Construction: The Foundation of Normative Theory. pp. 194–199. and Seung, T. K. Plato Rediscovered: Human Value and Social Order. pp. xi–xii.
    9. Brooks, P.; Gewirth, P., eds. (1996). "A Night in the Topics: The Reason of Legal Rhetoric and the Rhetoric of Legal Reason". Law's Stories: Narrative and Rhetoric in the Law. Yale Univ. Press. pp. 211–224. Archived from the original on June 14, 2006.
    10. "The Crystalline Structure of Legal Thought" (PDF). Rutgers L. Rev. 39: 1. 1986. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 23, 2002.
    11. "Deconstruction's Legal Career". Cardozo Law Review. 27: 719. 2005.
    12. Balkin, J. M. (1987). "Deconstructive Practice and Legal Theory". Yale L.J. 96 (4): 743–786. doi:10.2307/796361. JSTOR   796361.
    13. Balkin 2013.
    14. Balkin; Levinson (1999). "Interpreting Law and Music: Performance Notes on 'The Banjo Serenader' and 'The Lying Crowd of Jews'". Cardozo L. Rev. 20: 1513.
    15. Balkin; Levinson (1991). "Law, Music, and Other Performing Arts". U. Pa. L. Rev. 139 (6): 1597–1658. doi:10.2307/3312391. JSTOR   3312391.
    16. "The Processes of Constitutional Change: From Partisan Entrenchment to the National Surveillance State". Fordham Law Review. 75: 489. 2006.
    17. "Framework Originalism and the Living Constitution". Nw. L. Rev. 103: 549. 2009.
    18. Balkin, Jack M. (March 6, 2018). "Constitutional Rot". In Sunstein, Cass R. (ed.). Can it Happen Here?: Authoritarianism in America. HarperCollins. ISBN   9780062696199. SSRN   2992961.
    19. Balkin 2017.
    20. Balkin 2017, p. 152.
    21. Balkin 2020, p. 48.
    22. Balkin 2017, p. 147.
    23. Balkin 2017, p. 160.
    24. Levinson & Balkin 2009.
    25. Levinson & Balkin 2009, pp. 721–729.
    26. Levinson & Balkin 2009, pp. 729–738.
    27. Levinson & Balkin 2009, pp. 738–746.
    28. Levinson & Balkin 2009, p. 714.
    29. 1 2 Balkin 2020.
    30. Balkin, Jack M. (2004). "Digital Speech and Democratic Culture" (PDF). N.Y.U. L. Rev. 79. SSRN   470842.
    31. Balkin, Jack M. (2016). "Cultural Democracy and the First Amendment". Nw. L. Rev. 110 (5). SSRN   2676027.
    32. Balkin, Jack M. (2009). "The Future of Free Expression in a Digital Age". Pepperdine L. Rev. 36 (2). SSRN   1335055.
    33. Balkin, Jack M. (2014). "Old School/New School Speech Regulation". Harv. L. Rev. 127 (8). SSRN   2377526.
    34. Balkin, Jack M. (February 2018). "Free Speech in the Algorithmic Society". U.C. Davis L. Rev. 51 (3). SSRN   3038939.
    35. "The Processes of Constitutional Change: From Partisan Entrenchment to the National Surveillance State". Fordham Law Review. 75. 2006. SSRN   930514.
    36. Balkin 2008.
    37. Balkin 2008, pp. 3–4.
    38. Konczal, Mike (June 8, 2013). "Is a democratic surveillance state possible?". Wonkblog. Washington Post .
    39. Krugman, Paul (June 9, 2013). "Government Tilting Towards 'Authoritarian Surveillance' State". ABC News .
    40. Balkin 2008, p. 24.
    41. Balkin, Jack (March 5, 2014). "Information Fiduciaries in the Digital Age". Balkinization.[ self-published source ]
    42. "Information Fiduciaries and the First Amendment". U.C. Davis L. Rev. 49. 2016. SSRN   2675270.
    43. "The Three Laws of Robotics in the Age of Big Data". Ohio St. L. Rev. 78. 2017. SSRN   2890965.
    44. Jack Balkin on Robots, Algorithms, and Big Data. Yale Law School. February 23, 2017 via YouTube.

    Related Research Articles

    Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that established the principle of judicial review, meaning that American courts have the power to strike down laws and statutes they find to violate the Constitution of the United States. Decided in 1803, Marbury is regarded as the single most important decision in American constitutional law. It established that the U.S. Constitution is actual law, not just a statement of political principles and ideals. It also helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of the federal government.

    Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that held the U.S. Constitution did not extend American citizenship to people of black African descent, and therefore they could not enjoy the rights and privileges the Constitution conferred upon American citizens. The decision is widely considered the worst in the Supreme Court's history, being widely denounced for its overt racism, judicial activism, poor legal reasoning, and crucial role in the start of the American Civil War four years later. Legal scholar Bernard Schwartz said that it "stands first in any list of the worst Supreme Court decisions". A future chief justice, Charles Evans Hughes, called it the Court's "greatest self-inflicted wound".

    Critical legal studies (CLS) is a school of critical theory that developed in the United States during the 1970s. CLS adherents claim that laws are devised to maintain the status quo of society and thereby codify its biases against marginalized groups.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Originalism</span> Constitutional interpretation doctrine

    Originalism is a legal theory that bases constitutional, judicial, and statutory interpretation of text on the original understanding at the time of its adoption. Proponents of the theory object to judicial activism and other interpretations related to a living constitution framework. Instead, originalists argue for democratic modifications of laws through the legislature or through constitutional amendment.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">John Hart Ely</span> American legal scholar (1938–2003)

    John Hart Ely was an American legal scholar. He was a professor of law at Yale Law School from 1968 to 1973, Harvard Law School from 1973 to 1982, Stanford Law School from 1982 to 1996, and at the University of Miami Law School from 1996 until his death. From 1982 until 1987, he was the 9th dean of Stanford Law School.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Akhil Reed Amar</span> American legal scholar

    Akhil Reed Amar is an American legal scholar known for his expertise in U.S. constitutional law. He is the Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University, where he is a leading scholar of originalism, the U.S. Bill of Rights, and criminal procedure.

    Reva B. Siegel is the Nicholas deB. Katzenbach Professor of Law at Yale Law School. Siegel's writing draws on legal history to explore questions of law and inequality, and to analyze how courts interact with representative government and popular movements in interpreting the Constitution. She is currently writing on the role of social movement conflict in guiding constitutional change, addressing this question in recent articles on reproductive rights, originalism and the Second Amendment, the "de facto ERA," and the enforcement of Brown. Her publications include Processes of Constitutional Decisionmaking ; The Constitution in 2020 ; and Directions in Sexual Harassment Law. Professor Siegel received her B.A., M.Phil, and J.D. from Yale University, clerked for Judge Spottswood William Robinson III on the D.C. Circuit, and began teaching at the University of California at Berkeley. She is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and is active in the American Society for Legal History, the Association of American Law Schools, the American Constitution Society, in the national organization and as faculty advisor of Yale's chapter. She was elected to the American Philosophical Society in 2018.

    "The Constitution is not a suicide pact" is a phrase in American political and legal discourse. The phrase expresses the belief that constitutional restrictions on governmental power must be balanced against the need for survival of the state and its people. It is most often attributed to Abraham Lincoln, as a response to charges that he was violating the United States Constitution by suspending habeas corpus during the American Civil War. Although the phrase echoes statements made by Lincoln, and although versions of the sentiment have been advanced at various times in American history, the precise phrase "suicide pact" was first used in this context by Justice Robert H. Jackson in his dissenting opinion in Terminiello v. Chicago, a 1949 free speech case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The phrase also appears in the same context in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, a 1963 U.S. Supreme Court decision written by Justice Arthur Goldberg.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Living Constitution</span> U.S. Constitutional interpretation

    The Living Constitution, or judicial pragmatism, is the viewpoint that the U.S. constitution holds a dynamic meaning even if the document is not formally amended. The Constitution is said to develop alongside society's needs and provide a more malleable tool for governments. The idea is associated with views that contemporary society should be considered in the constitutional interpretation of phrases. The Constitution is referred to as the living law of the land as it is transformed according to necessities of the time and the situation. Some supporters of the living method of interpretation, such as professors Michael Kammen and Bruce Ackerman, refer to themselves as organicists.

    Constitutional theory is an area of constitutional law that focuses on the underpinnings of constitutional government. It overlaps with legal theory, constitutionalism, philosophy of law and democratic theory. It is not limited by country or jurisdiction.

    Balkinization is a legal blog focused on constitutional, First Amendment, and other civil liberties issues. The weblog was created on January 13, 2003 by Jack Balkin, a professor of U.S. constitutional law at Yale Law School.

    The New York University Law Review is a bimonthly general law review covering legal scholarship in all areas, including legal theory and policy, environmental law, legal history, and international law. The journal was established in 1924 as a collaborative effort between law students and members of the local bar. Its first editor-in-chief was Paul D. Kaufman. Between 1924 and 1950, it was at various times known as the Annual Review of the Law School of New York University and the New York University Law Quarterly Review before obtaining its current name in 1950.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Information Society Project</span>

    The Information Society Project (ISP) at Yale Law School is an intellectual center studying the implications of the Internet and new information technologies for law and society. The ISP was founded in 1997 by Jack Balkin, Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment at Yale Law School. Jack Balkin is the director of the ISP.

    An infomediary works as a personal agent on behalf of consumers to help them take control over information gathered about them for use by marketers and advertisers. The concept of the infomediary was first suggested by former McKinsey consultant John Hagel III and former Harvard Business School professor Jeffrey Rayport in their article The Coming Battle for Customer Information. The concept was explored in greater depth in Hagel's book Net Worth: Shaping Markets When Customers Make the Rules.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Sanford Levinson</span> American political writer

    Sanford Victor Levinson is an American legal scholar known for his writings on constitutional law. A professor at the University of Texas Law School, Levinson is notable for his criticism of the United States Constitution as well as excessive presidential power and has been widely quoted on such topics as the Second Amendment, gay marriage, nominations to the Supreme Court, and other legal issues. He has called for a Second Constitutional Convention of the United States.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Paul Brest</span> American legal scholar (born c. 1940)

    Paul Brest is an American legal scholar who is a former president of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and was dean of Stanford Law School. He is credited with coining the name originalism to describe a particular approach to interpreting the United States Constitution.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">James E. Fleming</span> American lawyer (born 1954)

    James E. Fleming is an American legal scholar who serves as the Paul J. Liacos Professor of Law at the Boston University School of Law. He is a scholar in standard constitutional theory and constitutional interpretation, with special attention to criticizing originalism and defending moral readings of the U.S. Constitution, developing a civic liberalism concerned with protecting rights and instilling civic virtues, and justifying rights to autonomy and equality as central to constitutional self-government.

    An unconstitutional constitutional amendment is a concept in judicial review based on the idea that even a properly passed and properly ratified constitutional amendment, specifically one that is not explicitly prohibited by a constitution's text, can nevertheless be unconstitutional on substantive grounds—such as due to this amendment conflicting with some constitutional or even extra-constitutional norm, value, and/or principle. As Israeli legal academic Yaniv Roznai's 2017 book Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendments: The Limits of Amendment Powers demonstrates, the unconstitutional constitutional amendment doctrine has been adopted by various courts and legal scholars in various countries throughout history. While this doctrine has generally applied specifically to constitutional amendments, there have been moves and proposals to also apply this doctrine to original parts of a constitution.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Common good constitutionalism</span> Conservative legal philosophy created by Adrian Vermeule

    Common good constitutionalism is a legal theory formulated by Harvard law professor Adrian Vermeule that asserts that "the central aim of the constitutional order is to promote good rule, not to 'protect liberty' as an end in itself". Vermeule describes it as an attempt to revive and develop the classical legal tradition by understanding enacted law as a positive application of background natural law principles. Within this tradition, he claims law is defined as "an ordinance of reason promulgated by political authorities for the common good." Vermeule states that law in this sense is "not tethered to particular written instruments of civil law or the will of the legislators who created them" but instead embody rational determinations of the common good, and it is those determinations, as well as the natural law background against which they are made, which constitute the law. Vermeule says that these principles include "a candid willingness to "legislate morality."

    A. Michael Froomkin is the Laurie Silvers & Mitchell Rubenstein Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Florida. His work on technology law since the mid-1990s spans Internet governance and regulation, privacy, encryption, AI and medicine, drones, and robotics. In 2012, he co-founded the annual We Robot conference with Ian Kerr and Ryan Calo in order to think ahead about the challenges to law and policy that widespread use of robots will bring. He blogs at Discourse.net

    References

    Jack Balkin
    Jack Balkin, Writers on Writing about Technology roundtable, 2009-09-30 (cropped).jpg
    Born (1956-08-13) August 13, 1956 (age 68)
    Academic background
    Education