Tribe, Laurence Henry

Tribe, Laurence

Harvard University - DASH

 Legal Scholarship Symposium:  The Scholarship of Laurence Tribe:Introductory Remarks  (Article begins on next page)The Harvard community has made this article openly available.Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters.Citation Laurence H. Tribe, Legal Scholarship Symposium:  TheScholarship of Laurence Tribe:  Introductory Remarks, 42 Tulsa L.Rev. 797 (2006).Published Version http://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol42/iss4/1/Accessed February 16, 2015 7:10:46 PM ESTCitable Link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:12967826Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University's DASHrepository, and is made available under the terms and conditionsapplicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth athttp://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of-use#LAATulsa Law ReviewVolume 42Issue 4The Scholarship of Laurence TribeArticle 12007Introductory RemarksLaurence H. TribeFollow this and additional works at:http://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlrPart of theLaw CommonsThis Legal Scholarship Symposia Articles is brought to you for free and open access by TU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion inTulsa Law Review by an authorized administrator of TU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contactdaniel-bell@utulsa.edu.Recommended CitationLaurence H. Tribe,Introductory Remarks, 42 Tulsa L. Rev. 797 (2006).Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol42/iss4/1LEGAL SCHOLARSHIP  SYMPOSIUM:THE SCHOLARSHIP  OF LAURENCE  TRIBEINTRODUCTORY  REMARKSLaurence H. Tribe*"They  say  that the  first sentence  in  any speech  is always  the hardest.  Well,  thatone's  behind  me."  If only  I could  claim  credit  for  that  way  of beginning  this  briefintroduction  to  the  embarrassingly  generous  collection  of articles  this  law journal  hasbeen thoughtful  and energetic  enough to solicit and orchestrate.  But here I am, alreadyinto my fourth sentence, and I find that it's every bit as hard, if not more so, than the firstthree.  Happily,  I  won't need  to  say very  much, because  the law journal's editors havekindly given me license to be as brief as I choose to be.  And I'll choose  to be very briefindeed.  As  the  author  of  my  opening  pair  of  sentences-Wislawa  Szymborska-explained  in  her Nobel  Lecture  (Stockholm,  Dec.  7,  1996),  "Imperfection  is  easier  totolerate  in small doses."Well, I'm now  into my  second paragraph  and I've yet  to  say anything  at all.  Asignal  achievement,  any reader must  admit.  But what, after all,  could  I  say that wouldnot tarnish,  or at  least cast  serious  doubt  upon,  the  intriguing  and  mostly  exaggeratedkindnesses heaped on me by the estimable array of legal thinkers whose words grace  thepages of this issue?Akhil  Amar's  graceful  (and,  as  always,  too  generous)  appreciation  of what  myconstitutional  law treatise  did to spark the  doctrinal investigations of many others-andto  inspire his  own towering contributions  (my assessment, not his) to  the genre-easesmy  transition  from  that  recently  abandoned  terrain  to  different,  no  less  challenging,territory. 1David  Barron's  sparkling  essay  on how  the  theme  of self-government  winds  itsway  through  my  Supreme  Court  advocacy  on  behalf  of cities  generates  a  geometryconnecting  the  dots of my briefs  and oral  arguments more  elegantly than any structure  Iconsciously  designed,  but  it  is  a  geometry  whose  congruence  with  my  own  thoughtprocess  I am thrilled to affirm;  my pride in having spun the web that David unraveled is*  Laurence  H.  Tribe  is  the  Carl  M  Loeb  University  Professor  at  Harvard  University  and  Professor  ofConstitutional Law  at Harvard Law School.1.  Akhil Reed Amar, A Tribute to Larry Tribe, 42  Tulsa L. Rev.  801  (2007).1Tribe: Introductory RemarksPublished by TU Law Digital Commons, 2006TULSA  LA W REVIEWexceeded  only  by  my  admiration  for  his  acumen  in  having  unearthed  its  hiddenarchitecture.2Erwin Chemerinsky's Herculean  effort to sew a silk purse out of what I  still  viewas  my sow's  ear of a  Supreme  Court Foreword  defending  the essence  of the SupremeCourt's  holding  in  Roe  v.  Wade3  represents  an  indisputably  powerful  and  enduringcontribution to the cottage industry that decision's poorly crafted rationale generated.4Heather  Gerken's wonderful  "Larry and Lawrence" investigation of the intractable"levels  of generality"  puzzle with which I have  grappled throughout my career prolongsmy period of mourning at having lost her as a colleague to Yale while reminding me thatHeather  remains  a colleague  in  spirit  despite  the  geographical  distance  between  NewHaven and Cambridge.5Pat Gudridge's hidden history of affirmative  obligation brilliantly deconstructs  andthen reconstructs  not only the interlocking defenses that Frank Michelman  and I offeredfor  some  of the  handiwork  of the  late  William H.  Rehnquist  but  also  the  complexlylayered linkage between the Rehnquist project and the theme of allegiance and protectionthat Pat illuminates beneath the Fourteenth Amendment.6Sandy Levinson's intriguing meditation on arms and constitutional  design remindsme  again  why I  find  his  invariably  unconventional  and perceptive  work  so  endlesslyprovocative.7Frank Michelman's  lapidary essay on the "not  so puzzling persistence of the futilesearch"  illuminates  with  Frank's  invariably  penetrating  and  uniquely  insightful  visionboth the strengths and the weaknesses of my 1980 critique of John Hart Ely's magisterialwork.8Martha Minow's  characteristically  Talmudic  exploration  of the linked  riddles  ofthe religion  clauses does honor to my  1975  reflections on three differently  linked riddlesby  performing  its intellectual  acrobatics  on the stage I sketched fully  33 years  ago, at ashockingly distant temporal remove  from today's horizons.9Steve  Reinhardt's  multifaceted  paean to  my  ostensible  achievements  as scholar,teacher,  and advocate leaves me speechless with humility. 10Kathleen  Sullivan's  unbelievably  brilliant  dissection  of  the  topological  andgeometric  infrastructure  of virtually  all  my most  serious  constitutional  work  likewiseleaves  me  wordless  with  gratitude  at  having  been  so  deeply  understood  and  warmly2.  David  J.  Barron,  The Promise of Tribe's City: Self-Government, The Constitution, and a New  UrbanAge, 42 Tulsa  L. Rev. 811  (2007).3.  410 U.S.  113 (1973).4.  Erwin Chemerinsky, In Defense of Roe and  Professor Tribe, 42 Tulsa L. Rev.  833 (2007).5.  Heather K. Gerken, Larry and Lawrence, 42 Tulsa  L. Rev.  843 (2007).6.  Patrick 0.  Gudridge, A Hidden History of  Affirmative Obligation,  42 Tulsa  L. Rev.  857 (2007).7.  Sanford Levinson, Arms and Constitutional  Design: An Essay  for Laurence Tribe, 42 Tulsa L. Rev.  883(2007).8.  Frank I. Michelman,  The Not So Puzzling Persistence of the Futile Search: Tribe on Proceduralism  inConstitutional  Theory, 42 Tulsa L. Rev.  891  (2007).9.  Martha  Minow,  The  Government Can't, May,  or Must Fund Religious Schools:  Three Riddles ofConstitutional  Change  for  Laurence Tribe, 42 Tulsa L. Rev.  911 (2007).10.  Stephen Reinhardt, Tribute to Professor  Laurence Tribe,  42 Tulsa  L. Rev. 939 (2007).[Vol. 42:7972Tulsa Law Review, Vol. 42 [2006], Iss. 4, Art. 1http://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol42/iss4/1INTRODUCTORY REMARKSembraced. 1And Kenji  Yoshino's dazzling dissection and defense of the double helix of libertyand  equality  that  underlies  the  theme  of dignity  running  through  my  constitutionaladvocacy  reinforces my conviction that I am at least asking the right questions-and myrespect for Kenji's striking contributions toward their formulation and perhaps  even theirresolution. 12In the oral presentations  in Tulsa 13 on  which  this remarkable  edifice  of essays isbuilt, several of the  symposiasts  spoke in considerably more  personal terms  about whatmy life  and career had meant to them.  Those were, I must confess, the presentations  thatinvariably brought tears to my eyes as they led me to reflect on what the lives and careersof those  I have  had the  good fortune to  touch with  my teaching  or my friendship  havemeant to me.Without growing maudlin,  I  must say that reading these essays-and, even  more,listening  to  the  presentations  in  their  rougher  and  more  personal  form-has  been  anexperience  akin to winning the  right to sit in on the most wonderful eulogies imaginableat one's own memorial  service.  Being able to  hear those remarks  in a pre-posthumousdress  rehearsal  while  rumors  of one's passing  remain  happily  premature  is  a privilegebeyond price.  I have miles to go before I  sleep, piles of wrongs to try righting, scores ofwindmills  at which to tilt, mountains  of intellectual  problems to tackle, but my courageand joy  in that remaining  voyage  are  inestimably enhanced  and enriched by the selflessgift these essays,  each written by someone  I deeply respect and admire, many written byfriends I love, have bestowed.  For all of that, I can offer only my warmest thanks.11.  Kathleen M. Sullivan, Law and Topology, 42 Tulsa  L. Rev. 949 (2007).12.  Kenji  Yoshino, Tribe,  42 Tulsa  L. Rev. 961 (2007).13.  Presentations were given on April 9 and  10, 2007,  at the University of Tulsa College of Law, during theSixth Annual Tulsa Law  Review Legal  Scholarship Symposium: The Scholarship  of Laurence Tribe.2007)3Tribe: Introductory RemarksPublished by TU Law Digital Commons, 2006TULSA LA W RE VIE W [Vol. 42:7974Tulsa Law Review, Vol. 42 [2006], Iss. 4, Art. 1http://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol42/iss4/1

Legal Scholarship Symposium:  The Scholarship of Laurence Tribe:  Introductory Remarks

http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/12967826/Introductory%20Remarks.pdf?sequence=1

Legal Scholarship Symposium: The Scholarship of Laurence Tribe: Introductory Remarks

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Harvard University - DASH