New edition of Brest, Levinson, et al.

[Leslie F Goldstein]

Hi Sandy,
I will be teaching a con law course starting in Feb.  Any chance actual
physical copies of the book will be availabel by then for our bookstore?
Leslie Goldstein

On Mon, 25 Oct 1999, Sandy Levinson wrote:

> What a lovely posting by Mike Paulsen?  In answer to h is entirely unsolicited (though much appreciated) question:
>
> We have just sent off the revisions for the next edition of Brest, Levinson, Balkin, and Amar.  I'm not sure exactly how soon page proofs will be available (though I will check on that), though I'm sure that Aspen would be delighted to make them available to users of the book.  Until then, we would certainly be more than happy to send anyone attachments with specific new materials (with "new" meaning either true additions to the casebook, as with, say, the Insular Cases and some materials on American Indians) or redone versions of material now in the book, as with Plessy and Korematsu.
>
> Sandy
>
> >>> Michael Stokes Paulsen <stoke001 at MAROON.TC.UMN.EDU> 10/23/99 10:20PM >>>
> I am giving Sandy Levinson the opportunity to make a free commercial, by asking my inquiry of him on this list, rather than privately.  It is possible other people may be in the same situation:
>
> Sandy, I will be teaching Constitutional Law this spring (a 1-semester, 4-unit first year course, their first con law course), beginning in early January.  Our bookstore has asked for a book order NOW.  (1) When will Brest, Levinson, Amar, and Balkin ("BLAB?") be out in its Y2K edition?  (2)  Would Aspen be amenable to sending spiral bound copies of page proofs (if it'll be ready in time), to be replaced by the final copies, for the same price?  If the alternative would be to lose prospective adoptions to Gunther, Sullivan?  What's the name of the person to call or email?  Can you grease the skids for us eager buyers?
>
> Michael Stokes Paulsen
> University of Minnesota Law School
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: Ann Althouse <althouse at facstaff.wisc.edu>
>     To: CONLAWPROF at listserv.ucla.edu <CONLAWPROF at listserv.ucla.edu>
>     Date: Wednesday, October 13, 1999 2:27 PM
>     Subject: Kimel oral argument
>
>
>     Below is a report on the Kimel oral argument from the Fox News website. It looks like the lack of an Atascadero-satisfying clear statement may keep the Court away from the really interesting question of the scope of the Section 5 power.
>
>     --------------------------
>
>     Supreme Court May Shield States From Age Bias Suits
>     2.28 p.m. ET (1836 GMT) October 13, 1999
>
>     WASHINGTON - A number of U.S. Supreme Court justices expressed doubt
>     Wednesday that Congress properly subjected the states to lawsuits in federal court for
>     violating a law that bars age discrimination on the job.
>
>     The high court during arguments in the case appeared likely to add to its string of
>     recent 5-4 rulings that have expanded states' rights to be free from some lawsuits
>     while restricting the power of Congress to adopt laws over the states.
>
>     The justices expressed concern that Congress in adopting the Age Discrimination in
>     Employment Act did not specifically state it was taking away the immunity states
>     traditionally enjoy under the Constitution's 11th Amendment from being sued in federal
>     courts.
>
>     The court's ruling, expected by the middle of next year, could affect whether millions
>     of state employees nationwide may sue a state in federal court for violations of the
>     law.
>
>     An attorney arguing on behalf of state workers who had sued in claiming they were
>     victims of age bias said Congress had the power to revoke state immunity in adopting
>     a law aimed at arbitrary and irrational discrimination.
>
>     "The heart of the statute ... is to get at a form of invidious discrimination,'' said the
>     attorney, Jeremiah Collins.
>
>     But Chief Justice William Rehnquist said the fact that Congress did not say what
>     constitutional provision it was acting under in adopting the law "seems strange.''
>
>     LAW AIMED AT MYTHS, STEREOTYPES
>
>     Deputy Solicitor General Barbara Underwood of the Justice Department said Congress
>     in adopting the law made extensive findings that workers older than 40 should not be
>     hired or fired "based on myths and stereotypes.''
>
>     But Justice Antonin Scalia asked whether it was irrational for an employer to want to
>     hire a younger work who will stay with the company longer than an older one. "It just
>     boggles my mind'' to say that was unconstitutional, he said.
>
>     Justice Sandra Day O'Connor asked, "Don't most states have their own age
>     discrimination laws?'' She said the workers in the case could have pursued state laws.
>
>     She added, "This statute does not mention the 11th Amendment.''
>
>     Justice Anthony Kennedy said the case involved far-reaching constitutional questions
>     and required a very clear statement of intent by Congress to revoke the immunity of
>     the states.
>
>     "Congress didn't have this debate we are having here. It didn't have anything close to
>     it,'' he said.
>
>     The case involved three different lawsuits.
>
>     In one dispute, 36 current and former faculty members and librarians at Florida State
>     University and Florida International University sued the state board of regents,
>     contending that age bias was why they lost out on certain salary increases given to
>     young faculty members.
>
>     In another lawsuit, two associate professors at the state-run University of Montevallo
>     in Alabama alleged younger faculty members were treated more favorably when it
>     came to salaries and promotions.
>
>     In a third lawsuit, Florida prison guard Wellington Dickson said he lost out on a
>     promotion because of discrimination partly based on his age.
>
>     A U.S. appeals court dismissed the lawsuits, ruling that the anti-bias law cannot be
>     invoked in federal lawsuits against states and state agencies.
>
>     It relied on a 1996 Supreme Court ruling that Congress may revoke a state's immunity
>     only when it was going after some specific discriminatory harm and when it
>     unequivocally states it was taking away the immunity.
>
>     Jeffrey Sutton, an attorney for the state agencies, said there was no need to uphold
>     the "broad'' federal law because all 50 states have laws "overprotecting the rights of
>     their citizens.''
>     ----------------------
>     Ann Althouse
>     Arthur-Bascom Professor of Law
>     University of Wisconsin
>     Madison, Wisconsin 53706
>