This article argues that amendment is the foundational if forgotten contribution of American constitutionalism. Adopting a written constitution requires making provision for its future by allowing for change: Americans devised that mechanism. The idea of constitutional repair, correction, and improvement through revision was so essential to the founding of the United States that it can best be described as a system of thought, which I call the philosophy of amendment and describe as the epitome of the eighteenth-century idea of progress.

Professor Lepore is issuing a timely and necessary warning about the need to think deeply about reforming our Constitution. The enemy, in this case, is not the British. Rather, it is ourselves, in our complacent unwillingness to engage with clear deficiencies of the present Constitution. She begins her essay with the extraordinary reminder that everything in the world is subject to decay, including the parchment on which the Constitution was originally written (for starters). That is true, of course, of the more abstract Constitution itself.

Professor Jill Lepore’s Jorde Symposium lecture paints a rich portrait of state constitutional conventions as engines of democratization during the 1800s and issues a dire warning about the United States’ ongoing amendment drought. Citing their unfamiliarity, however, Lepore declines to consider federal constitutional conventions as a possible corrective. In this response Essay, I argue: first, that Lepore’s marginalization of Article V’s convention mechanism is in tension with her own historical and normative account; second, that while Lepore’s wariness of conventions is entirely understandable given the state of our politics…

The Constitution, as I like to remind the students in my Constitutional Law I class, is very old, very short, and very vague. Among the 7,762 words of the Constitution are the twenty-seven amendments, the first and last of which were both proposed in 1789 but were ratified 201 years apart—the First Amendment in 1791, and the Twenty-Seventh in 1992.

Constitutional amendment has become irrelevant to most Americans of the twenty-first century—even to lawyers and leaders pursuing major systemic change. The most recent amendment was added to the U.S. Constitution in 1992, and that amendment was actually written two centuries prior. It has been nearly half a century since the last time Congress adopted an amendment and sent it to the states for ratification, which failed. What remains of the philosophy of amendment without any practice of it?

Conversations about police use of force have peaked in recent years as social movements and the increased visibility of police killings have led to demands for change and accountability. Unfortunately, criminal prosecutions are rare, which has led victims and their families to seek justice through civil actions. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the most common legal vehicle to do this and allows people who have suffered violations of their constitutional rights to seek and receive money for the harm done to them.

In this Essay, I situate front-end solutions in relation to the sorts of back-end accountability-type proposals I offer in Shielded and considering how to prioritize among the seemingly unending swirl of possibilities, suggestions, and demands about how to move forward.

Drawing inspiration from Professor Henry Hart’s work The Power of Congress to Limit the Jurisdiction of Federal Courts: An Exercise in Dialectic, the Essay presents a fictional conversation between two federal courts professors. This dialogue explores the implications of abolitionism and “non-reformist reform” in a legal doctrinal context.

Berkeley Law’s symposium, “Section 1983 and Police Use of Force: Building a Civil Justice Framework,” asked: “How do we reform the law in light of what we know?” This Essay offers three responses.

While still an emerging area of scholarship, a growing body of research suggests that police contact, in its multiple forms, is linked to adverse physical and mental health consequences. These consequences affect not only the individuals who experience direct contact with law enforcement but also their families and communities. We move beyond describing direct linkages between policing practices and immediate bodily harm to considering the ways in which multiple forms of police contact can harm families and communities.

Scholars have recently criticized Fourth Amendment pretext doctrine for leading to more police contact with Black and Brown people and thus to racially disproportionate uses of excessive force. This Essay reveals the intersection of the Court’s pretext and excessive force doctrines by unearthing their shared roots in the 1973 United States v. Robinson search-incident-to-arrest opinion.

I want to press a bit on the question of what the unwritten aspects of our constitutional structure establish. Rather than a fixed legal order constructed by conventions, I want to suggest that this unwrittenness points to the provisionality of the constitutional order itself—that is, to its essentially unsettled character. This perspective raises three problems…

The Constitution emerged from a convention—a convention of the states. State popular conventions, by ratifying it, made it law. Though it was meant to “form a more perfect union,” no one could have supposed the Philadelphia Convention’s proposal was anything close to perfect. Indeed, the Constitution’s terms refute any blithe confidence in its flawlessness. Article…

In this Essay, I identify several shifts in focus that might further illuminate the intersection of constitutional conventions and judicial review: first, attending to the role of internal executive-branch conventions, which are distinct in important ways from settlements between the political branches that are Issacharoff and Morrison’s primary focus; second, widening the lens to include…

In 2007, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts revitalized a little-known program to “foster communication” between the judicial and legislative branches, enabling federal appellate judges to send to Congress, without further comment, opinions “that describe possible technical problems in statutes.” In our view, such a program is sensible: The Judiciary is uniquely situated to…

Keynoter? What a daunting assignment before this gathering! I’m reminded of President John F. Kennedy’s remark at a dinner honoring Nobel Prize winners: “This is the most extraordinary collection of talent . . . that has ever been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.” As I survey this…

A principal mission of the Berkeley Judicial Institute (BJI), which I am privileged to serve as Executive Director, is to “fill a long-standing need to establish an effective bridge between the legal academy and the judiciary.” This mission statement reflects a common perception among both legal scholars and judges that the two institutions often talk…

The story that James Forman Jr. tells in his superb book, Locking Up Our Own, is local and nuanced. Forman explains that mass incarceration resulted from many small decisions made in many different places. Although all of those decisions were shaped by the legacies of racism and racial oppression, Forman shows that mass incarceration was…

Mass incarceration in America is a story of race discrimination. On the one hand, this means our knowledge about discrimination helps explain why our criminal system looks the way it does. On the other hand, mass incarceration can also teach us something profound about the nature of discrimination itself. In Locking Up Our Own, James Forman Jr. does a masterful job excavating, analyzing…

I was a prosecutor in the District of Columbia during the era of Locking Up Our Own. I was a trial attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice in the early 1990s. Most of my work was in the Public Integrity Section at Main Justice, but for approximately one year I was detailed to the misdemeanor section of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia. The U.S. Attorney’s Office serves as the…