Grand Visions in an Age of Conflict

Last spring Professor Laurence H. Tribe commented that federal constitutional law is in a state of intellectual disarray: [I]n area after area, we find ourselves at a fork in the road--a point at which it\u27s fair to say things could go in any. of several directions and we have little common ground from which to build agreement. No doubt fortuitously, two of our most formidable constitutional scholars, Akhil R. Amar and Jed Rubenfeld, have recently published systematic studies that implicitly challenge Tribe\u27s conclusion that ours [is] a peculiarly bad time to be going out on a limb to propound a Grand Unified Theory--or anything close. With admirable boldness, Professors Amar and Rubenfeld have done precisely that--gone out on a limb, or rather two very different limbs, to propound their own accounts of what American constitutionalism is, or should be. Amar\u27s America\u27s Constitution and Rubenfeld\u27s Revolution by Judiciary are alike in that each is its author\u27s synthesis of a remarkable effort, sustained over a number of years, to develop a comprehensive vision of the Constitution. We have much to learn from their successes as well as from the points at which they are, I believe, in error

The Conflicted Assumptions of Modern Constitutional Law

Contribution to Symposium - The Nature of Judicial Authority: A Reflection on Philip Hamburger\u27s Law and Judicial Dut

Grand Visions in an Age of Conflict

Last spring Professor Laurence H. Tribe commented that federal constitutional law is in a state of intellectual disarray: [I]n area after area, we find ourselves at a fork in the road--a point at which it\u27s fair to say things could go in any. of several directions and we have little common ground from which to build agreement. No doubt fortuitously, two of our most formidable constitutional scholars, Akhil R. Amar and Jed Rubenfeld, have recently published systematic studies that implicitly challenge Tribe\u27s conclusion that ours [is] a peculiarly bad time to be going out on a limb to propound a Grand Unified Theory--or anything close. With admirable boldness, Professors Amar and Rubenfeld have done precisely that--gone out on a limb, or rather two very different limbs, to propound their own accounts of what American constitutionalism is, or should be. Amar\u27s America\u27s Constitution and Rubenfeld\u27s Revolution by Judiciary are alike in that each is its author\u27s synthesis of a remarkable effort, sustained over a number of years, to develop a comprehensive vision of the Constitution. We have much to learn from their successes as well as from the points at which they are, I believe, in error

“Cardozo’s Foot”: The Chancellor’s Conscience and Constructive Trusts

The chancellor\u27s foot is a term coined by English legal scholar John Selden for the argument that equity is an unjustified and unfortunate interference in the regular course of the rule of law. This issue is examined by focusing on a particular doctrine of equity, the constructive trust, and on a seminal figure in the development of the modern US understanding of constructive trusts, Benjamin Cardozo

Program to produce horizontal stereographic print maps from Nimbus HRIR data

Computer program is written to display Nimbus high resolution infrared radiometer data in optimum form for experiment usage. Program produces three maps for Nimbus experimental data. Functions of program are to process data and prepare print maps from modified temperature measurements