I am glad to report that Jack Balkin has posted an extended response to my new article on Resolution VI. His doing so allows me to both clarify my arguments and our points of disagreement. Jack’s scholarship on constitutional theory and history is deep and profound, and Jack himself is a warm and gregarious colleague. […]
Author Archive | Kurt Lash, guest-blogging
Neil Siegel and the Claims of Resolution VI Proponents (a reply)
My thanks to Neil Siegel for his willingness to engage the historical arguments presented in my new paper on Resolution VI. In this final post, I will address why the discussion is important and also respond to Neil’s comments and some of the comments made by others during the week. I should state from the […]
James Wilson, Resolution VI and Original Public Meaning
This is my third and final substantive guest-post on my new article, “Resolution VI”: The Virginia Plan and Authority to Resolve Collective Action Problems Under Article I, Section 8 and recent efforts to use Resolution VI as a foundational principle for construing federal power under Article I, Section 8. To recap my last post, proponents […]
The Framers’ Intent in Cases Involving the National Interest Where the States are “Separately Incompetent”
This is the second in a series of guest-posts on my new article, “Resolution VI”: The Virginia Plan and Authority to Resolve Collective Action Problems Under Article I, Section 8 and recent efforts to use Resolution VI as a foundational principle for construing federal power under Article I, Section 8. As amended and originally adopted […]
Resolution VI in Current Scholarship and the ACA Debate
My thanks to Eugene and the Volokh Conspiracy for giving me the opportunity to blog a bit on my new paper, “Resolution VI”: The Virginia Plan and Authority to Resolve Collective Action Problems Under Article I, Section 8. In brief, the paper argues that recent efforts to make an historical case for using Resolution VI […]