{"id":3981,"date":"2026-03-13T15:31:00","date_gmt":"2026-03-13T19:31:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlpp\/?page_id=3981"},"modified":"2026-03-17T12:20:27","modified_gmt":"2026-03-17T16:20:27","slug":"volume-34","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlpp\/volume-34\/","title":{"rendered":"Volume 34"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Issue 3<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY NATIONAL LAWYERS
CONVENTION \u2014 2010<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
819<\/td><\/a>DIRECT DEMOCRACY: GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, AND FOR THE PEOPLE?<\/a><\/td>Richard A. Epstein<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
827<\/td><\/a>ELECTIONS MATTER<\/a><\/td>Michael J. Gerhardt<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
837<\/td><\/a>HOW TO COUNT TO THIRTY\u2010FOUR: THE CONSTITUTIONAL CASE FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION<\/a><\/td>Michael Stokes Paulsen<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
873<\/td><\/a>ENTRENCHING GOOD GOVERNMENT REFORMS<\/a><\/td>Mark V. Tushnet<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
879<\/td><\/a>THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF PROPOSITION 8<\/a><\/td>Richard A. Epstein<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
Articles<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
889<\/td><\/a>EMBODIED EQUALITY: DEBUNKING EQUAL PROTECTION ARGUMENTS FOR ABORTION RIGHTS<\/a><\/td>Erika Bachiochi<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
951<\/td><\/a>THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SOCIAL COST<\/a><\/td>Josh Blackman<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
1043<\/td>MAY LAWYERS BE GIVEN THE POWER TO ELECT THOSE WHO CHOOSE OUR JUDGES? \u201cMERIT SELECTION\u201d AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW<\/a><\/td>Nelson Lund<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
Notes<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
1071<\/td><\/a>WHAT\u2019S THE HARM? NONTAXPAYER STANDING TO CHALLENGE RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS<\/a><\/td><\/td><\/tr>
1099<\/td><\/a>WHY WE CANNOT ASK WHY: ETHICAL INDEPENDENCE AND VOTER INTENT<\/a><\/td><\/td><\/tr>
Recent Developments<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
1117<\/td><\/a>THE CHANGING LANDSCAPE OF FIREARM LEGISLATION IN THE WAKE OF McDonald v. City of Chicago<\/em>, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010)<\/a><\/td><\/td><\/tr>
1131<\/td><\/a>MACHINEGUNNING REASON: SENTENCING FACTORS AND MANDATORY MINIMUMS IN United States v. O\u2019Brien<\/em>, 130 S. Ct. 2169 (2010)<\/a><\/td><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Issue 2<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
PRESIDENT OBAMA’S FIRST TWO YEARS: A LEGAL REFLECTION<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
421<\/td><\/a><\/a>HEAT EXPANDS ALL THINGS: THE PROLIFERATION OF GREENHOUSE GAS REGULATION UNDER THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION<\/a><\/td>Jonathan H. Adler<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
453<\/td><\/a><\/a>“ANYTHING BUT BUSH?”: THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AND GUANTANAMO BAY<\/a><\/td>Tung Yin<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
493<\/td><\/a><\/a>THE “FULL ACCESS DOCTRINE”: CONGRESS’S CONSTITUTIONAL ENTITLEMENT TO NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION<\/a><\/td>Vicki Divoll<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
543<\/td><\/a><\/a>PRIVATE REGULATION<\/a><\/td>Ronen Avraham<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
CORPORATE SPEECH AND ELECTORAL SPENDING<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
639<\/td><\/a><\/a>CITIZENS UNITED V. FEC<\/em>: THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT THAT BIG CORPORATIONS SHOULD HAVE BUT DO NOT WANT<\/a><\/td>Richard A. Epstein<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
663<\/td><\/a><\/a>FOREIGN NATIONALS, ELECTORAL SPENDING, AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT<\/a><\/td>Toni M. Massaro<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
Articles & Essays<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
705<\/td><\/a><\/a>DAMAGES UNDER THE PRIVACY ACT: SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY AND A CALL FOR LEGISLATIVE REFORM<\/a><\/td>Alex Kardon<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
769<\/td><\/a><\/a>PROTECTING RELIGIONS FROM “DEFAMATION”: A THREAT TO UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS STANDARDS<\/a><\/td>Leonard A. Leo, Felice D. Gaer, & Elizabeth Cassidy<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
Notes<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
785<\/td><\/a><\/a>EVOLVING STANDARDS AS A JUDICIAL MANDATE: NECESSARY OR SUPERFLUOUS?<\/a><\/td><\/td><\/tr>
805<\/td><\/a><\/a>THE LOSS OF FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION IN CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOCIETY V. MARTINEZ<\/em>, 130 S. CT. 2971 (2010)<\/a><\/td><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Issue 1<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
THE TWENTY\u2010NINTH ANNUAL FEDERALIST SOCIETY NATIONAL STUDENT SYMPOSIUM\u20142010<\/strong>
ORIGINALISM 2.0<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
5<\/td><\/a>ARE ORIGINALIST CONSTITUTIONAL THEORIES PRINCIPLED, OR ARE THEY RATIONALIZATIONS FOR CONSERVATISM?<\/a><\/td>Richard H. Fallon, Jr.<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
29<\/td><\/a>IS ORIGINALISM TOO CONSERVATIVE?<\/a><\/td>Keith E. Whittington<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
45<\/td><\/a>TWO CHEERS, NOT THREE, FOR SIXTH AMENDMENT ORIGINALISM<\/a><\/td>Stephanos Bibas<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
53<\/td><\/a>ORIGINALISM AS AN ANCHOR FOR THE SIXTH AMENDMENT<\/a><\/td>Jeffrey L. Fisher<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
65<\/td><\/a>INTERPRETATION AND CONSTRUCTION<\/a><\/td>Randy E. Barnett<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
73<\/td><\/a>ORIGINALISM AND THE CONSTITUTION: DOES ORIGINALISM ALWAYS PROVIDE THE ANSWER?<\/a><\/td>Lino A. Graglia<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
89<\/td><\/a>ORIGINALISM AND HISTORY: THE CASE OF BOUMEDIENE V. BUSH<\/em><\/a><\/td>A. Raymond Randolph<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
99<\/td><\/a>INTERPRETATION AND CONSTRUCTION: ORIGINALISM AND ITS DISCONTENTS<\/a><\/td>Kermit Roosevelt III<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
111<\/td><\/a>ORIGINALISM AND STARE DECISIS<\/a><\/td>Stephen Markman<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
121<\/td><\/a>ORIGINALISM AND PRECEDENT<\/a><\/td>John O. McGinnis & Michael B. Rappaport<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
129<\/td><\/a><\/a>ORIGINALISM, PRECEDENT, AND JUDICIAL RESTRAINT<\/a><\/td>Jeffrey Rosen<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
137<\/td><\/a><\/a>ORIGINALISM, CONSERVATISM, AND JUDICIAL RESTRAINT<\/a><\/td>David A. Strauss<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
149<\/td><\/a><\/a><\/a>DOES THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT GUARANTEE EQUAL JUSTICE FOR ALL?<\/a><\/td>Steven G. Calabresi<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
Articles & Essays<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
157<\/td><\/a>WAS BORK RIGHT ABOUT JUDGES?<\/a><\/td>Thomas B. Griffith<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
171<\/td><\/a>GOOGLE AND THE LIMITS OF ANTITRUST: THE CASE AGAINST THE CASE AGAINST GOOGLE<\/a><\/td>Geoffrey A. Manne & Joshua D. Wright<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
245<\/td><\/a><\/a>WHAT IS MARRIAGE?<\/a><\/td>Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, & Ryan T. Anderson<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
289<\/td><\/a><\/a>SHAREHOLDER ACTIVISM BY PUBLIC PENSION FUNDS AND THE RIGHTS OF DISSENTING EMPLOYEES UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT<\/a><\/td>Eric John Finseth<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
Coda<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
367<\/td><\/a>CAN CONGRESS OVERTURN GRAHAM V. FLORIDA<\/em>?<\/a><\/td>Richard M. Re<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
Recent Developments<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
377<\/td><\/a>PATENTABLE SUBJECT MATTER IN Bilski v. Kappos<\/em>, 130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010)<\/a><\/td><\/td><\/tr>
393<\/td><\/a><\/a>FEDERAL \u201cPROCEDURAL\u201d RULES UNDERMINE IMPORTANT STATE INTERESTS IN Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A. v. Allstate Insurance Co.<\/em>, 130 S. Ct. 1431 (2010)<\/a><\/td><\/td><\/tr>
405<\/td><\/a><\/a>REMOVING CORPORATE CAMPAIGN FINANCE RESTRICTIONS IN Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission<\/em>, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010)<\/a><\/td><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Issue 3 THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY NATIONAL LAWYERSCONVENTION \u2014 2010 819 DIRECT DEMOCRACY: GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, AND FOR THE PEOPLE? Richard A. Epstein 827 ELECTIONS MATTER Michael J. Gerhardt 837 HOW TO COUNT TO THIRTY\u2010FOUR: THE CONSTITUTIONAL CASE FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION Michael Stokes Paulsen 873 ENTRENCHING GOOD GOVERNMENT REFORMS Mark V. Tushnet 879 THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF PROPOSITION 8 Richard A. Epstein Articles 889 EMBODIED EQUALITY: DEBUNKING EQUAL PROTECTION ARGUMENTS FOR ABORTION […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":209,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-3981","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/PeZSiL-12d","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/3981","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/209"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3981"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/3981\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3981"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}