Sanford Levinson

Last updated
Sanford Levinson
Sanford Levinson at the National Archives (cropped).jpg
Levinson in 2017
Born (1941-06-17) June 17, 1941 (age 83)
Hendersonville, North Carolina, U.S.
Alma mater Duke University (BA)
Harvard University (PhD)
Stanford University (JD)
Known forOur Undemocratic Constitution
Scientific career
Fields Constitutional law
Institutions University of Texas

Sanford Victor Levinson (born June 17, 1941) 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 [1] 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.

Contents

Early life and education

Levinson was born in 1941 in Hendersonville, North Carolina. [2] He is Jewish. [3] Levinson graduated from Duke University with an A.B. in 1962, then earned a Ph.D. in government from Harvard University in 1969. He then attended Stanford Law School, graduating with a J.D. in 1973. [4] [5] [6]

Academic career

Levinson was a member of the department of Politics at Princeton. [4] [7] Levinson taught law at Georgetown, Yale, Harvard, New York University, Boston University, [4] Central European University in Budapest[ dubious – discuss ], Panthéon-Assas University, the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, [6] [8] Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem [9] London, Auckland and Melbourne. [5] In 2001, Levinson was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. [7] In 2010, he was given the Lifetime Achievement Award by the Law and Courts Section of the American Political Science Association. [5] In 1980, he joined the University of Texas School of Law at Austin, Texas, where he is also a professor of government. He holds the W. St. John Garwood and W. St. John Garwood Jr. Centennial Chair in Law. [7]

Books, scholarship, activism

Levinson is quoted often in publications about numerous topics involving law. [10] [11] Levinson has described himself as "a card-carrying A.C.L.U. member who doesn't own a gun" and has argued that the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution limits the government's authority to regulate private gun ownership. [12] [13] Levinson's opinions on Constitutional Law have been reported in the media including his opinions about Second Amendment cases. [14] Levinson has been a panelist on programs sponsored by the Association of American Law Schools and has spoken on topics alongside prominent lawyers such as Kenneth W. Starr. [15] Levinson has been identified as a "prominent liberal law professor" [16] and been grouped with other professors including Laurence H. Tribe of Harvard and Akhil Reed Amar of Yale. [17] Levinson's opinion has been cited during the nominating process for Supreme Court nominees. [11]

Levinson has been critical of Supreme Court justices who have stayed in office despite medical deterioration stemming from age; for example, Levinson criticized Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist for a "degree of egoistic narcissism" by declaring six weeks before his death his intention to stay on. [18] Levinson has called for term limits for Supreme Court justices, as has a growing list of "scholars across the ideological spectrum." [18] He has published comments critical of life tenure for Supreme Court justices. [19]

Levinson is particularly noted for his 1989 "seminal article" in the Yale Law Journal entitled The Embarrassing Second Amendment. [17] [20] He argued that the Second Amendment doesn't offer either gun rights or gun control advocates a refuge. [21] He argued "society must decide the issue of gun control on practical as well as on constitutional grounds ... the issue is to what extent does the Second Amendment permit the Government to do what it wants in controlling firearms, just as we have to establish the extent to which it can limit speech or break into your house without a warrant. [21] Levinson has criticized liberal lawyers as treating "the Second Amendment as the equivalent of an embarrassing relative whose mention brings a quick change of subject." [21] He has argued that the Constitution protects some personal ownership of firearms but admits that "courts are likely to rule that Congress can do almost anything short of an outright prohibition of owning guns." [22] Levinson's article was cited in Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' concurring opinion in Printz v. United States .

Levinson taught a course called Torture, Law and Lawyers at Harvard Law School in 2005. [23] Levinson has written essays in The New York Times . [24] Levinson edited Torture: A Collection (2005). [25] A reviewer commented: "What's most striking about these essays is that despite their abstract and theoretical content, they generally do not contradict the depiction of actual interrogators described by Mackey and Miller. The wall between the liberal campus and a conservative, utilitarian-minded military breaks down because the questions are so serious that few of this book's contributors want to engage in polemics, and few – to their credit – ever seem completely comfortable with their own conclusions." [25]

Levinson has been a critic of the unitary executive and excessive presidential power. In the magazine Dissent , he argued that "constitutional dictators have become the American norm." [26] Presidents "have an incentive to declare emergencies" and assume "quasi-dictatorial powers," wrote Levinson. [26] Levinson was highly critical of president George W. Bush who he regarded as possibly the "absolutely worst president." [26] Levinson notes that President Obama seems likely to repeat the pattern of expansive presidential power. [26] He wrote an essay titled "The Decider Can Become a Dictator" in which he criticized a system which allows presidents to make dictatorial decisions of great consequence without providing ways to discipline those who display bad judgment. [27] [28] Levinson commented about a ban on gay marriage proposed by former President George W. Bush in legal terms as a Constitutional issue. [29]

Levinson has criticized the Constitution (invoking comparisons to Thomas Jefferson) for what he considers to be its numerous failings, including an inability to remove the President despite lack of confidence by lawmakers and the public, the President's veto power as being "extraordinarily undemocratic", the difficulty of enacting Constitutional amendments through Article 5 and a lack of more representation in the Senate for highly populated states such as California. [30] He also criticizes the primary process in which important states which aren't considered "battleground states" are ignored by presidential candidates. [30] He's often called for a Second Constitutional Convention: "We ought to think about it almost literally every day, and then ask, 'Well, to what extent is government organized to realize the noble visions of the preamble?' That the preamble begins, 'We the people.' It's a notion of a people that can engage in self-determination." [8] Levinson's book Our Undemocratic Constitution: Where the Constitution Goes Wrong (and How We the People Can Correct It) calls for "wholesale revision of our nation's founding document." [31]

Levinson appeared on the Bill Moyers television program in 2007. [8] Levinson's research interests include American Constitutional development, Constitutional design, law, religion, multiculturalism, society, and theories of Constitutional interpretation. [5] Levinson participates in a blog called Balkinization which focuses on constitutional, First Amendment, and other civil liberties issues [4] as well as a blog called Our Undemocratic Constitution. With Jeffrey K. Tulis, he is co-editor of the Johns Hopkins Series in Constitutional Thought and also of a new series, Constitutional Thinking at University Press of Kansas.

Publications

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitution of the United States</span> Supreme law of the US since 1789

The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States. It superseded the Articles of Confederation, the nation's first constitution, on March 4, 1789. Originally including seven articles, the Constitution delineates the frame of the federal government. The Constitution's first three articles embody the doctrine of the separation of powers, in which the federal government is divided into three branches: the legislative, consisting of the bicameral Congress ; the executive, consisting of the president and subordinate officers ; and the judicial, consisting of the Supreme Court and other federal courts. Article IV, Article V, and Article VI embody concepts of federalism, describing the rights and responsibilities of state governments, the states in relationship to the federal government, and the shared process of constitutional amendment. Article VII establishes the procedure subsequently used by the 13 states to ratify it. The Constitution of the United States is the oldest and longest-standing written and codified national constitution in force in the world.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Second Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment protecting the right to keep and bear arms

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms. It was ratified on December 15, 1791, along with nine other articles of the Bill of Rights. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court affirmed for the first time that the right belongs to individuals, for self-defense in the home, while also including, as dicta, that the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those forbidding "the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill" or restrictions on "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons". In McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) the Supreme Court ruled that state and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing upon this right. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022) assured the right to carry weapons in public spaces with reasonable exceptions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of the United States</span> Highest court of jurisdiction in the US

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all U.S. federal court cases, and over state court cases that turn on questions of U.S. constitutional or federal law. It also has original jurisdiction over a narrow range of cases, specifically "all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party." The court holds the power of judicial review, the ability to invalidate a statute for violating a provision of the Constitution. It is also able to strike down presidential directives for violating either the Constitution or statutory law.

McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that defined the scope of the U.S. Congress's legislative power and how it relates to the powers of American state legislatures. The dispute in McCulloch involved the legality of the national bank and a tax that the state of Maryland imposed on it. In its ruling, the Supreme Court established firstly that the "Necessary and Proper" Clause of the U.S. Constitution gives the U.S. federal government certain implied powers necessary and proper for the exercise of the powers enumerated explicitly in the Constitution, and secondly that the American federal government is supreme over the states, and so states' ability to interfere with the federal government is restricted. Since the legislature has the authority to tax and spend, the court held that it therefore has authority to establish a national bank, as being "necessary and proper" to that end.

Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case dealing with sexual orientation and state laws. It was the first Supreme Court case to address gay rights since Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), when the Court had held that laws criminalizing sodomy were constitutional.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stephen Breyer</span> US Supreme Court justice from 1994 to 2022 (born 1938)

Stephen Gerald Breyer is an American lawyer and jurist who served as an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1994 until his retirement in 2022. He was nominated by President Bill Clinton, and replaced retiring justice Harry Blackmun. Breyer was generally associated with the liberal wing of the Court. He is now the Byrne Professor of Administrative Law and Process at Harvard Law School.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Randy Barnett</span> American legal scholar (born 1952)

Randy Evan Barnett is an American legal scholar. He serves as the Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law at Georgetown University, where he teaches constitutional law and contracts, and is the director of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution.

<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">Laurence Tribe</span> American lawyer and Harvard Law School professor

Laurence Henry Tribe is an American legal scholar who is a University Professor Emeritus at Harvard University. He previously served as the Carl M. Loeb University Professor at Harvard Law School.

Leonard Williams Levy was an American historian, the Andrew W. Mellon All-Claremont Professor of Humanities and chairman of the Graduate Faculty of History at Claremont Graduate School, California, who specialized in the history of basic American Constitutional freedoms.

<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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mark Tushnet</span> American constitutional law scholar (born 1945)

Mark Victor Tushnet is an American legal scholar. He specializes in constitutional law and theory, including comparative constitutional law, and is currently the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. Tushnet is identified with the critical legal studies movement.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jack Balkin</span> American legal scholar

Jack M. Balkin is an American legal scholar. He is the Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment at Yale Law School. Balkin is the founder and director of the Yale Information Society Project (ISP), a research center whose mission is "to study the implications of the Internet, telecommunications, and the new information technologies for law and society." He also directs the Knight Law and Media Program and the Abrams Institute for Free Expression at Yale Law School.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. It ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms—unconnected with service in a militia—for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that certain restrictions on guns and gun ownership were permissible. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or whether the right was only intended for state militias.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Daniel A. Farber</span> American legal scholar

Daniel A. Farber is an American lawyer, law professor, author, and historian. He is the Sho Sato Professor of Law at the UC Berkeley School of Law.

<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.

The calling of a Second Constitutional Convention of the United States is a proposal made by some academics and activists from across the political spectrum for the purpose of making substantive reforms to the federal government of the United States by rewriting the U.S. Constitution.

In the United States, the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights, and by the constitutions of most U.S. states. The Second Amendment declares:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

An anticanon is a legal text that is now viewed as wrongly reasoned or decided. The term "anticanon" stands in distinction to the canon, which contains basic principles or rulings that almost all people support.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), abbreviated NYSRPA v. Bruen and also known as NYSRPA II or Bruen to distinguish it from the 2020 case, is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court related to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The case concerned the constitutionality of the 1911 Sullivan Act, a New York State law requiring applicants for a pistol concealed carry license to show "proper cause", or a special need distinguishable from that of the general public, in their application.

References

  1. ↑ Sanford Levinson (February 5, 2009). ""Wartime Presidents and the Constitution: From Lincoln to Obama" – speech by Sanford Levinson at Wayne Morse Center". Wayne Morse Center for Law and Politics. Retrieved 2009-10-10.[ dead link ]
  2. ↑ H.R. 2443, the Equitable Escheatment Act of 1993: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions Supervision, Regulation, and Deposit Insurance of the Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs, House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, Second Session, March 22, 1994. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1994. ISBN   9780160445453.
  3. ↑ Hannah Natanson (November 25, 2016). "Anti-Semitic Postcard Promises to 'Drain the Swamp' at Harvard Law". The Harvard Crimson. Retrieved 2019-10-02.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 staff (2017-01-21). "Sanford V Levinson". Texas Law – University of Texas at Austin. Retrieved 2017-01-21.
  5. 1 2 3 4 staff (2017-01-21). "Sanford Levinson". Harvard Law School. Retrieved 2017-01-21.
  6. 1 2 staff (2009-10-10). "Sanford V Levinson (bio circa 2011)". School of Law – University of Texas at Austin. Archived from the original on 2011-01-26. Retrieved 2017-01-21.
  7. 1 2 3 "Speaker: Sanford Levinson". FORA.tv. 2009-10-10. Archived from the original on February 13, 2011. Retrieved 2017-01-21.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
  8. 1 2 3 Robin Holland (December 21, 2007). "Sanford Levinson". Public Broadcasting Service: Bill Moyers' Journal. Retrieved 2017-01-21.
  9. ↑ staff (2010-06-15). "Hartman Institute Philosophy Conference to Examine Concept of 'Universal Religiosity' June 20–23, 2010". Shalom Hartman Institute. Retrieved 2017-01-21.
  10. ↑ Joan Biskupic (2008-11-06). "New solicitor general on Obama to-do list". USA Today. Retrieved 2009-10-10.
  11. 1 2 Joan Biskupic (2009-07-13). "With Sotomayor comes new era in judicial politics". USA Today. Retrieved 2017-01-21.
  12. ↑ Andrea Sachs (May 29, 1995). "WHY THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS A LOSER IN COURT". Time Magazine. Archived from the original on June 29, 2008. Retrieved 2009-10-10.
  13. ↑ Adam Liptak (March 16, 2009). "Few Ripples From Supreme Court Ruling on Guns". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-10.
  14. ↑ John Schwartz (June 16, 2009). "Gun Rulings Open Way to Supreme Court Review". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-10.
  15. ↑ PRNewswire-USNewswire (Jan 6, 2009). "The Association of American Law Schools 2009 Annual Meeting to Feature Three Presidential". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2012-11-14. Retrieved 2017-01-21.
  16. ↑ JEFFREY ROSEN (April 17, 2005). "The Unregulated Offensive". New York Times Magazine. Retrieved 2009-10-10.
  17. 1 2 Adam Liptak (October 20, 2008). "Ruling on Guns Elicits Rebuke From the Right". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-10.
  18. 1 2 Linda Greenhouse (September 10, 2007). "New Focus on the Effects of Life Tenure". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-10.
  19. ↑ Sanford Levinson (9 February 2009). "Supreme court prognosis – Ruth Bader Ginsburg's surgery for pancreatic cancer highlights why US supreme court justices shouldn't serve life terms". guardian.co.uk. Retrieved 2009-10-10.
  20. ↑ Levinson, Sanford (1989). "The Embarrassing Second Amendment". Yale Law Journal. 99 (3): 637–659. doi:10.2307/796759. JSTOR   796759.
  21. 1 2 3 RICHARD BERNSTEIN (January 28, 1990). "IDEAS & TRENDS; The Right to Bear Arms: A Working Definition". New York Times: Week in Review. Retrieved 2009-10-10.
  22. ↑ Richard Lacayo (Jun 24, 2001). "Beyond the Brady Bill". Time Magazine. Archived from the original on February 13, 2011. Retrieved 2009-10-10.
  23. ↑ JOSEPH LELYVELD (June 12, 2005). "Interrogating Ourselves". New York Times Magazine. Retrieved 2009-10-10.
  24. ↑ Sanford Levinson (August 4, 2000). "2 Texans, Not 1". New York Times: Opinion. Retrieved 2009-10-10.
  25. 1 2 ROBERT D. KAPLAN (January 23, 2005). "'The Interrogators' and 'Torture': Hard Questions". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-10.
  26. 1 2 3 4 ANAND GIRIDHARADAS (September 25, 2009). "Edging Out Congress and the Public". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-10.
  27. ↑ Kirston Fortune, Assistant Dean for Communications (September 17, 2008). "Constitution Day Essay 2008: Professor Sanford Levinson examines the dictatorial power of the Presidency". University of Texas School of Law – News and Events. Archived from the original on 11 December 2012. Retrieved 2009-10-10.
  28. ↑ Sanford Levinson (September 14, 2008). "The Decider Can Become a Dictator". www.commondreams.org. The News Journal . Retrieved 2017-01-21.
  29. ↑ KATHARINE Q. SEELYE and JANET ELDER (December 21, 2003). "Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage". New York Times. Archived from the original on June 9, 2009. Retrieved 2009-10-10.
  30. 1 2 Sanford Levinson (LA Times article available on website) (October 16, 2006). "Our Broken Constitution". University of Texas School of Law – News & Events. Archived from the original on October 5, 2009. Retrieved 2009-10-10.
  31. ↑ MICHAEL KINSLEY (November 5, 2006). "Essay: Election Day". New York Times: Sunday Book Review. Retrieved 2009-10-10.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.