A brief reaction to the travel-ban litigation, and to the end of the Supreme Court’s Term generally: Article II conservatism is alive and well. Let me explain.
Adrian Vermeule is the Ralph S. Tyler, Jr. Professor of Constitutional Law. Before coming to the Law School, he was the Bernard D. Meltzer Professor of Law at the University of Chicago. The author or co-author of eight books, most recently most recently Law's Abnegation: From Law's Empire to the Administrative State (Harvard University Press 2016) and The Constitution of Risk (2014), he was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2012. His research focuses on administrative law, the administrative state, the design of institutions, and constitutional theory. Having grown up in Cambridge and attended Harvard College '90 and Harvard Law School '93, Vermeule lives in Cambridge still.
Subscribe to this Lawfare contributor via RSS.
I've noticed, in a few recent discussions, rather uncritical reliance on the majority opinion in Morrison v.
As connoisseurs of Schadenfreude, I'm sure we all look forward to that fateful day when a phalanx of Trump-appointed judges will confront a Democratic president and administration, like the Spartan immortals confronting the Persians at Thermopylae. What principles of law will be fashioned, or rather be "discovered," that heretofore lay hidden deep within the recesses of the original Constitution?
In transitional justice, the "thick line" is a deliberate policy of forgetting what went before. I want to suggest a version of the thick line for the 2016 election campaign; more specifically, a one-year moratorium on pointing out the inconsistency or even hypocrisy of others, based on statements they made during the campaign. The gleeful and mocking charge of inconsistency, which accounts for some 50% of all Twitter posts, is purely destructive if, and when, the target's new course of action is a good one.