The Book of Feral Flora by Amanda Ackerman & Skeena by Sarah de Leeuw

Review of Amanda Ackerman\u27s The Book of Feral Flora. Review of Sarah de Leeuw\u27s Skeena

Mixing Metaphors: Voting, Dollars, and Campaign Finance Reform (Review Essay)

Reviewing, Bruce Ackerman & Ian Ayers, Voting with Dollars: A New Paradigm for Campaign Finance (2002

Arendt, Tushnet, and Lopez: The Philosophical Challenge Behind Ackerman\u27s Theory of Constitutional Moments

In his provocative article, Mark Tushnet asks whether United States v. Lopez signals a major constitutional shift in federalism-- specifically in the allocation of political and regulatory power between State and Nation. Tushnet uses the Lopez problem to test the adequacy of the political theory that Bruce Ackerman terms “dualist democracy,” delineated in Ackerman\u27s work in progress. Like many other reviewers, Tushnet finds Ackerman\u27s theory wanting in crucial respects.My response takes two tracks. First, I will argue that the import of Ackerman\u27s theory is better understood and evaluated when it is considered more as a work of political philosophy and political theory rather than as a work of law or jurisprudence. Ackerman should be understood as participating in two distinct conversations: The first, at the core of political philosophy, is concerned with the possibility for human freedom. The second is central to political theory, namely, what kind of governmental structures and organization will permit the realization of particular philosophical commitments. I think Ackerman is making startlingly original and valuable contributions in both realms. In the first part of this commentary, I will situate Ackerman\u27s theory most pointedly as a direct response to Hannah Arendt

Gossiping About Ideas

I do not know whether Tom Wolfe has reviewed Rawls\u27 A Theory of Justice, and I cannot remember a serious critique of Habermas or Horkheimer in recent issues of People magazine. It is this novel intellectual form, however, which the multi-talented Bruce Ackerman refines in Reconstructing American Law. The book\u27s bold objective is to account for the intellectual sources responsible for the expansion of federal governmental activity since the 1930\u27s. But Ackerman is not interested in the inherent strengths or weaknesses of the justifications for government action, nor quite in the influence of these ideas on the actual growth of government. Instead, Ackerman is concerned with how policymakers, particularly lawyers, have talked about these ideas. The subject of consequence to Ackerman is the relationship over the last fifty years between justifications for government action and the content of what Ackerman calls, variously, law-talk, lawstuff, legal discourse, legitimated [legal] conversation, and the new language of power. This unusual approach represents a new and significant synthesis of the central theme of Ackerman\u27s scholarly work. In 1977, in the first book of the series, Private Property and the Constitution, Ackerman described two world views competing for control of modern legal culture-views which he called ordinary observing and scientific policymaking. According to Ackerman, each conception sought to dominate the characterization of modern legal issues by imposing different constraints on legal language. The battle between them would determine control over the linguistic practices of a special group of conversationalists . . . trained as lawyers. Ackerman illustrated the hypothesis by showing that the various and confused approaches toward interpreting the takings clause were only different elaborations of one of the two competing linguistic methods

Justice Harlan\u27s Conservatism and Altenative Possibilites

Bruce Ackerman and Charles Fried\u27s rich essays address the subject of Justice Harlan as a conservative. One who comes to this topic has in mind questions like: Was Justice Harlan a conservative? If so, what kind of a conservative was he? How did his judicial actions exemplify a conservative approach? Most importantly, is his conservatism an appealing model for modern judicial practice? Professors Ackerman and Fried\u27s slices on this topic reflect their own casts of mind and philosophies of judging. Fried looks at a broad range of Justice Harlan\u27s opinions and sets them against particular conservative qualities that Fried commends. He manages a few acerbic swipes at those who have failed to exhibit these virtues, most notably Justice Douglas. Ackerman presents a contrast of two grand themes, two fundamentally opposed approaches to constitutional adjudication. Justice Black, with his expressed views somewhat improved by constructive re-creation, is revealed as an Ackermanian hero who begins with big general ideas and works down; Justice Harlan\u27s common law approach to constitutional decision making is shown to have grave defects. Although Ackerman\u27s final paragraph says he has not done much more than express some doubts about Harlan\u27s method, no reader will fail to grasp Ackerman\u27s own strong commitment to the contrary approach. What is a conservative judge? Wisely perhaps, neither Fried nor Ackerman take this question head on. But I think that facing it allows one better to understand Justice Harlan\u27s place and how the two essays relate to him and to each other. Distinguishing conservatism in basic social philosophy, conservatism in politics, and conservatism in judging is a helpful start

Review of Social Justice in the Liberal State

Bruce Ackerman\u27s goal, in Social Justice in the Liberal State, is to provide a new foundation for liberal political theory. Ackerman is dissatisfied with both utilitarian and contractarian defenses of liberal political institutions. Indeed, he writes most persuasively when he is criticizing utilitarians and contractarians, though his criticisms are largely familiar

Saying No to Stakeholding

What if America were to make good on its promise of equal opportunity by [XXX]? That\u27s the bold proposal set forth by Yale law professors Bruce Ackerman and Anne Alstott.... The quotation above is from the Yale University Press announcement describing Bruce Ackerman and Anne Alstott\u27s new book, with one change: we have substituted [XXX] for the authors\u27 catchphrase summary of their proposal. What do you think the missing words might be? How would you enable America to make good on its promise of equal opportunity ? As you ponder that question, you might consider the following feature of the Ackerman/ Alstott proposal. It calls for the federal government to spend an additional $255 billion per year (p. 35). Perhaps that is not surprising; perhaps you might have trouble spending much less if you wanted to make good on the promise of equal opportunity. So what would Ackerman and Alstott do