Search for: "Sandy Levinson" Results 301 - 320 of 553
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Jan 2012, 12:31 pm by JB
Following my previous post on why for-profit corporations cannot be persons for purposes of the Thirteenth Amendment, Sandy Levinson reminded me of another important fact. [read post]
28 Jan 2012, 10:38 am by Michael Froomkin
Obviously it does not, since it has not, but the inquiry as to why motivates a forthcoming paper by Jack Balkin and Sandy Levinson. [read post]
28 Jan 2012, 7:27 am by JB
Yesterday Columbia Law Review held a symposium on the Thirteenth Amendment, at which Sandy Levinson and I presented a paper we are currently working on (I hope to post a draft soon).As we explain in the paper, while the Fourteenth Amendment has been the font of a huge caselaw, and has been construed in ways that far outstrip its original purposes and understandings, the Thirteenth Amendment has been treated very differently. [read post]
19 Dec 2011, 5:11 am by Paul Horwitz
 I did until recently, and am still unpersuaded by Sandy Levinson's arguments against doing so. [read post]
26 Oct 2011, 12:25 pm by Lawrence Solum
Here is the abstract: The following essay pays tribute to Sandy Levinson's thoughts on constitutional compromises by paying tribute to the thoughts on constitutional compromises by our common mentor, Walter Murphy. [read post]
10 Oct 2011, 8:01 pm by pittlegalscholarship
Texas Law, Business, and Economics Dan Rodriguez (Texas Law) Touro Sandy V. [read post]
17 Sep 2011, 11:03 am by Keith Gerver
The afternoon session of Day 2 of the conference begins with introductory remarks from Gabby Blum, the moderator of the afternoon’s first panel. [read post]
1 Sep 2011, 9:50 am by JB
No, this is not a Rick roll Rick Perry apparently supports something like Paul Carrington's proposal-- joined by legal academics across the ideological spectrum, including Sandy Levinson and myself--for 18 year "term limits" for Supreme Court Justices. [read post]
26 Aug 2011, 6:08 am by Gerard N. Magliocca
If Sandy Levinson had been around then, he probably would have denounced the "egregious House of Representatives. [read post]
4 Aug 2011, 9:29 am by Bernadette Meyler
This question was posed for me by Dan Solove’s post on “Losing Our Religion,” as well as by the juxtaposition between Jack’s book and Sandy Levinson’s Our Undemocratic Constitution, works that share many sympathies yet appear to reach opposite conclusions. [read post]
3 Aug 2011, 11:43 am by Mark Graber
The most important constitutional question in 2011, as Sandy Levinson never tires of reminding us, is whether the Constitution of the United States (or many state constitutions) provides a means of staffing the government and making rules that enables government to do a decent job filling in potholes. [read post]
2 Aug 2011, 6:21 pm by Joey Fishkin
I think this is yet another area where Jack’s analogy (or really, Sandy Levinson’s analogy, which Jack credits generously) between constitutional faith and religious faith, between the Bible and the Constitution, is highly instructive. [read post]
31 Jul 2011, 7:42 pm by Tun-Jen Chiang
  Sandy Levinson made this point at Balkinization some time ago. [read post]
25 Jul 2011, 7:32 am by Glenn Reynolds
I wrote the foreword, Sandy Levinson wrote the afterword, and an all-star cast including Randy Barnett, Brannon Denning, Richard Epstein, Tim Lynch, Rob Natelson, and too many other luminaries to mention contributed the stuff in between. [read post]
13 Jul 2011, 8:59 am by Jonah Gelbach
Over at Balkinization, Sandy Levinson characterized this plan as "delegation run riot," but he seems to have misunderstood the proposal. [read post]
12 Jul 2011, 4:59 pm by Joey Fishkin
Following up on Sandy’s post, McConnell’s trial balloon today was, I believe, several degrees more cynical than Sandy suggests. [read post]
11 Jul 2011, 6:10 pm by Lovechilde
In another post for Balkinization, University of Texas at Austin law professor Sandy Levinson suggests that Obama take the alternative route of educating the public “about the unconstitutional behavior of his Republican adversaries. [read post]