AALS Con Law call for papers
mark.kende at DRAKE.EDU
Mon Apr 14 17:11:39 PDT 2008
Here is a repeat of an earlier announcement as the deadline (May 1) is
rapidly approaching. Please feel free to forward this to anyone who might
be interested, but who is not on this list. Thanks very much. Mark
2009 ANNUAL AALS MEETING
AALS SECTION ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
CALL FOR PAPERS
IS AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IN CRISIS?
At the January 2009 Annual Meeting of the AALS, the Section on
Constitutional Law will host a panel asking whether American constitutional
law doctrine is in crisis; and, if so, what the causes and cures are for
that crisis. One paper from an untenured, non-adjunct, faculty of law
member will be included. Its author will join a panel consisting of
Professor Jack Balkin, Professor Steven Calabresi, Judge Alex Kozinski, and
Professor Suzanna Sherry. The author must be teaching at an AALS member or
AALS fee-paid law school.
To submit an entry, send an abstract of your paper (five pages or less,
to: <mailto:amy.russell at drake.edu>amy.russell at drake.edu. She is the
assistant to the Section Chair, Professor Mark Kende. Please include your
name, institutional affiliation, and contact information on a cover sheet
only. All entries will be subject to a blind review by various members of
the Executive Committee of the Section on Constitutional Law. Submissions
must be received by no later than May 1, 2008. Late submissions will not
be accepted. The author of the abstract that is chosen will be expected
to produce a 20 page (single-space) manuscript by the time of the AALS
panel. If you have any questions, please e-mail Professor Kende
(mark.kende at drake.edu).
From the panel description:
American constitutional doctrine appears to have problems. In the commerce
clause area, Gonzales v. Raich is hard to reconcile with United States v.
Morrison. Regarding substantive due process, the U.S. Supreme Court was
cautious in Washington v. Glucksberg but bold in Lawrence v.
Texas. Moreover, two similar partial abortion cases reached opposite
results. On equal protection, the Court states that it has three levels of
scrutiny but it actually uses several other variations. In addition the
Court in Grutter v. Bollinger said it was using strict scrutiny but was
actually deferential in upholding the law school's affirmative action
plan. The Court's hate speech decision, R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul,
announced that certain categories of previously unprotected expression
could sometimes receive protection. Other examples abound. These results
make it difficult for lower court judges, lawyers, and the public to know
how the Court will decide certain questions. They can also generate
charges of judicial legislating. For law professors, this situation makes
teaching and doing scholarship more challenging.
This panel will address whether American constitutional law is in doctrinal
chaos, or whether these are the acceptable consequences when difficult
constitutional questions come before a divided Court interpreting an old
constitution. The discussions over Laurence Tribe's decision not to
continue writing his treatise illuminated the issue further. This panel
of distinguished scholars and jurists will examine these questions and
explore the causes of the current situation. It will also examine what
role law professors should play in addressing these matters.
Professor Mark Kende
Director, Constitutional Law Center
James Madison Chair, Drake Law School
2507 University Ave.
Des Moines, IA 50311
515-271-3354, 515-271-1858 (fax)
mark.kende at drake.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Conlawprof