The Release of Michael Greve’s “The Upside-Down Constitution”

Yesterday, The Upside-Down Constitution was officially introduced to the masses. AEI’s roll-out event, co-sponsored by the Federalist Society, featured (in addition to yours truly) Chris DeMuth, Rick Hills, and Ben Wittes in a lively panel discussion moderated by Judge Brett Kavanaugh.  Highlights include Chris’s discussion of “Originalism 2.0”, and Ben Wittes’ analogy to an angry feminist (both available on the AEI event page).

 

You can watch the entire discussion here, or, if you’d rather, read my opening remarks.

Michael S. Greve is a professor at George Mason University School of Law. From 2000 to August, 2012, Professor Greve was the John G. Searle Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, where he remains a visiting scholar. Before coming to AEI, Professor Greve cofounded and, from 1989 to 2000, directed the Center for Individual Rights, a public interest law firm. He holds a Ph.D. and M.A. in government from Cornell University, and completed his undergraduate studies at the University of Hamburg. Currently, Professor Greve also chairs the board of the Competitive Enterprise Institute and is a frequent contributor to the Liberty Law Blog. Professor Greve has written extensively on many aspects of the American legal system. His publications include numerous law review articles and books, including most recently The Upside-Down Constitution (Harvard University Press, 2012). He has also written The Demise of Environmentalism in American Law (1996); Real Federalism: Why It Matters, How It Could Happen (1999); and Harm-less Lawsuits? What's Wrong With Consumer Class Actions (2005). He is the coeditor, with Richard A. Epstein, of Competition Laws in Conflict: Antitrust Jurisdiction in the Global Economy (2004) and Federal Preemption: States' Powers, National Interests (2007); and, with Michael Zoeller, of Citizenship in America and Europe: Beyond the Nation-State? (2009).

About the Author

Comments

  1. says

    I think legal positivist asks feefdrint question than natural law theorist. Legal positivist: What is law? Natural law theorist: What law (is so good that) imposes moral obligation? First question is conceptual, second question is normative. Third question: What is relation (if any) between first and second question?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>