- UCLA School of Law: Kurt Lash, The Lost History of the Ninth Amendment. Highly recommended! Here is a taste:
A comprehensive look at the lost history of the Ninth Amendment is presented in two articles, Kurt T. Lash, The Lost Original Meaning of the Ninth Amendment, 83 Tex. L. Rev. 331 (2004), and Kurt T. Lash, The Lost Jurisprudence of the Ninth Amendment, 83 Tex. L. Rev. 597 (2005). This short essay briefly summarizes some important aspects of that history. Those interested in the subject are encouraged to read the full articles.
Given that the states had existed for more than a decade under the Articles as thirteen “free and independent states, it is no surprise that the degree to which the proposed Constitution would diminish (or eradicate) individual state autonomy was a major issue in the ratification debates. Despite Federalist assurances to the contrary, Anti-federalists warned of the potential consolidation of the states under a national government with unlimited power. Although a sufficient number of states eventually agreed to ratify the Constitution, a number of them did so with the understanding that the scope of federal power would be strictly limited. Several state conventions included statements of principle along with their notice of ratification declaring their understanding that all non-delegated powers, jurisdictions and rights were reserved to the states.
Northwestern International Law: Larry Helfer, Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University, "Exit Treaties". Here is a taste:
[B]uried at the back of most modern international agreements, and often overlooked by scholars, are provisions that call into question international law’s unequivocal command that states must either obey treaties or cooperate in abrogating or revising them. Such provisions, known as denunciation or withdrawal clauses, permit a state to “exit” from a treaty that the state had previously ratified and that is otherwise valid and in force.
Distilled to their essence, exit clauses create a lawful, public mechanism for a state to terminate its treaty obligations or withdraw from membership in an intergovernmental organization.5 Denunciation and withdrawal are fundamentally unilateral acts. They do not require the consent or approval of other states, and may often be effectuated simply by providing notice to the other parties. Moreover, a state that invokes these clauses to quit a treaty occupies a very different position from a state that breaches its treaty commitments. An exiting state faces different burdens and benefits, different prospects of being sanctioned, different reputational consequences, and different responses by other parties than a state that breaches an international agreement.
University of Texas School of Law: Richard Sander, University of California at Los Angeles, "A Systemic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American Law Schools".
Oxford Moral Philosophy Seminar: Robert Sugden, East Anglia.
Hofstra University School of Law: Myriam Gilles, Cardozo Law School, “Opting Out of Class Action Liability”.
Loyola Marymount University, Loyola Law School: Douglas Berman, Professor of Law, Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, "Booker: The Future of the U.S. Sentencing Guidlines".
NYU Law: Liam Murphy, Concepts of Law.
Vanderbilt Law & Economics: Jennifer Arlen, New York University, "Private Contractual Alternatives to Malpractice Liability".
Vanderbilt Charney Distinguished Lecture Series: William Schabas, National University of Ireland, Galway, "Genocide and International Law: Darfur, Srebenica and Cambodia".