SSRN: I'm sort of new to all this, but David Fontana, a colleague of mine from Virginia and Oxford, has posted two interesting papers.
Refined Comparativism in Constitutional Law. From the abstract:This Article lays out a "refined comparativist" approach, whereby a court would consider comparative constitutional law only when faced with a "hard case," the comparative constitutional law can add something distinctive to American constitutional interpretation, and the contextual differences between the United States and the country the American court is considering borrowing from are slight. This Article then defends this refined comparativist model, paying particular attention to several strands of contemporary constitutional scholarship, before applying refined comparativism to address the constitutionality of hate speech.A Case for the Twenty-First Century Constitutional Canon: Schneiderman v. United States. From the abstract:Schneiderman raises a variety of issues related to disparate subjects, such as the role of courts during wartime, the place of the Constitution in the American "civil religion," constitutional limitations on immigration regulation, and so on. Because this case discusses all of these issues (and had a major impact on the evolution of some of these issues), it is a case of substantial importance and interest that has belonged in the constitutional canon for some time.
I'll have more to say about all this--including the very interesting topic of comparative constitutionalism--when exams are over. Until then, blogging is a study break.