AALS Con Law call for papers

[Mark Kende]

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, 
single-spaced) electronically 
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...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20080414/ea1d25a1/attachment.htm