Groundbased cometary studies

The physical properties of comets were studied by applying a wide variety of observational techniques. Emphasis is on simultaneous or coordinated observations in different spectral regions (e.g., visible and thermal IR or visible and far UV) or with different instrumentation (imaging, spectroscopy, and photometry). The aim was to: (1) measure the basic properties of cometary nuclei by studying comets whose comae are so anemic that the signal from the nucleus can be extracted; (2) investigate the group characteristics of comets by narrowband photometry applied uniformly to a large sample of comets; (3) understand the detailed physics and chemistry occurring in cometary comae through wide-field charge coupled device (CCD) imaging using narrow filters and through long-slit CCD spectroscopy; and (4) investigate the rotational states of comets through time-resolution photometry

Surreply: How and Why We Should Become Un-Stuck!

Writing a surreply in a law review symposium is almost always a mistake. The author of the initial piece is inevitably motivated by conflicting and counterproductive impulses. Initially, the author will always experience an overwhelming feeling of gratitude that leading scholars took the time to write responses. I certainly feel this. The four responses to my article, Stuck! The Law and Economics of Residential Stagnation, are serious, in-depth, and thoughtful. I am very grateful to their four respective authors. But focusing on one\u27s appreciation leads to saccharine responses, better fodder for thank you notes than for the pages of a law journal

From Here All-the-Way-Down, or How to Write a Festschrift Piece

This paper was presented at the 2012 Legal Scholarship Symposium. The full video is available here

City Unplanning

Generations of scholarship on the political economy of land use have tried to explain a world in which tony suburbs use zoning to keep out development but big cities allow untrammeled growth because of the political influence of developers. But as demand to live in them has increased, many of the nation\u27s biggest cities have substantially limited development. Although developers remain important players in city politics, we have not seen enough growth in the housing supply in many cities to keep prices from skyrocketing. This Article seeks to explain this change with a story about big-city land use that places the legal regime governing land-use decisions at its center. In the absence of strong local political parties, land-use laws that set the voting procedure in local legislatures determine policy results between cycling preferences. Specifically, the Standard Zoning Enabling Act (SZEA) creates a peculiar procedure that privileges the intense preferences of local residents opposed to new building. Amendments to zoning maps are considered one-by-one, making deals across projects and neighborhoods difficult. Legislators may prefer to allow some building rather to stopping it everywhere, but are most concerned that their districts not bear the brunt of the negative externalities associated with new development. Absent deals that link zoning changes in different neighborhoods, all legislators will work to stop the zoning amendments that effect their districts. Without a strong party leadership to whip votes into line, the preferences of legislators about projects in their districts dominate and building is restricted everywhere. Further, the seriatim nature of local land-use procedure results in frequent downzonings, as big developers do not have an incentive to fight reductions in the ability of landowners to build incremental additions to the housing stock as of right. The cost of moving amendments through the land-use process means that small developers cannot overcome the burdens imposed by downzonings. The Article concludes by considering several forms of legislative process reform that mimic procedural changes Congress adopted in order to pass international trade treaties

The Seventeenth Amendment and Federalism in an Age of National Political Parties

Despite it being the constitutional amendment that most directly altered the structure of the federal government, little is known about how and why the Seventeenth Amendment was enacted. Existing scholarship on why the Constitution was amended to require direct elections for U.S. Senators, rather than having them appointed by state legislatures, has troubled accounting for two major puzzles. Why were state legislatures eager to give away the power to choose Senators? And why was there virtually no discussion of federalism during debates over removing a key constitutional protection for states governments? This Article offers a theory that can provide an answer to both of these questions. Support for direct elections was, at least in part, a result of the rise of ideologically coherent, national political parties. The rise of truly national parties meant that state legislative elections increasingly turned on national issues, as voters used these elections as means to select Senators. State politicians and interest groups supported direct elections as a way of separating national and state politics. Advocates of repealing the Seventeenth Amendment claim the mantle of federalism, but repeal would reduce the benefits of federalism, making state legislatures into something akin to electoral colleges for U.S. Senators. While important in its own right, the history of the Seventeenth Amendment can also teach us a great deal about how federalism functions in eras of strong national political parties. First, national political parties have not generally served as “political safeguards of federalism,” but instead have made state politics turn on national issues. Second, despite the Seventeenth Amendment, state elections still largely turn on national politics. Although state issues are sometimes important, the most important factor in state legislative elections is the popularity of the President. To achieve the benefits for state democracy sought by supporters of the Seventeenth Amendment, election law reform would be more effective than structural constitutional changes

Federalism and State Democracy

When scholars, judges, and politicians talk about federalism, they frequently praise the qualities of state and local democracy. State and local governments, it is said, are closer to the people, promote more innovation, and produce outputs that are a better fit for the diverse set of preferences that exist in a large nation. But these stories about state democracy rarely wrestle with the reality of elections for, say, state senator and city council. Voters frequently know little about the identity or performance of officials in these offices or about political parties at the state and local levels. Voting in state and local elections is frequently second order, reflecting voter preferences about the President and Congress with little or no variation based on the performance or promises of state officeholders and candidates. State and local elections vary in the degree to which they are second order-chief executive races seem to be less second order than legislative ones, and elections were less second order in the 1970s and 1980s than they are today-but we see second-order voting behavior quite consistently across many state and local elections

Liberal International Law Theory and the United Nations Mission in Kosovo: Ideas and Practice

The creation of the United Nations Mission in Kosovo was a unique moment in international politics, a moment when events compelled the key players in international politics to reveal what they thought about a crucial question of international affairs; what is a state? The way the important states, the United Nations, the North American Treaty Organization, the European Union, and other international organizations went about creating a new government from thin air provides important insight into both what ideas dominated international law thinking at the time and perhaps more importantly, how ideas impact decision-making at the international level. This Article argues that disaggregated sovereignty, and the general corpus of Liberalism in international relations and international law, provided the dominant understanding of state behavior in late twentieth century legal scholarship. Moreover, the Article will argue that the principles of this legal and international relations literature underlay the design of the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK). The administrative and legal framework of UNMIK closely resembles the idea of a modern liberal state inherent in the disaggregated sovereignty literature