Comment - Assuring Continuity of Government

Reply to Seth Tillman\u27s article , Comment - Assuring Continuity of Government, 4 Pierce L. Rev. 201 (2006), available at http://scholars.unh.edu/unh_lr/vol4/iss2/4 [Excerpt]”What makes Tillman’s proposal distinctive, and important, is that it presents a statutory solution to at least aspects of the problem. It is an audacious proposal well worth discussing at greater length than I have time for in preparing this brief comment. Before turning to the specifics of his proposal, though, it is worth spelling out the possible situation that underlies the concern displayed by an increasing number of thoughtful Americans about the issue of continuity in government. […] Tillman recognizes that the proposal raises fascinating constitutional questions about the ability in effect to suspend our bicameral legislative system for a unicameral one, though, of course, the President would be a vital participant in both proposing and then signing legislation. […] I hope that his proposal gets the attention that it deserves.

Bush v. Gore and the French Revolution: A Tentative List of Some Early Lessons

Levinson examines the Supreme Court\u27s decision in Bush v. Gore as an entry-point into understanding American constitutional culture. Law, as people ordinarily think of it, may be much less important than people might believe (or hope) with regard to controlling politics. But law in another way may have Americans gripped within a constitutional iron cage that makes it next to impossible to engage in a cogent discussion of what might ail contemporary American polity and, concomitantly, what might be needed by way of reforms