The Interactive Constitution is an interesting project of the National Constitution Center, described here:
In the Interactive Constitution, scholars from across the legal and philosophical spectrum interact with each other to explore the meaning of each provision of the Constitution. Here’s how the Interactive process works: Scholars are selected with guidance from leaders of the American Constitution Society and the Federalist Society—two prominent constitutional law organizations that represent different viewpoints on the Constitution. Leaders of each organization recommend scholars to write about each provision of the Constitution. The pairs of scholars find common ground, writing a joint statement of what they agree upon about that provision’s history and meaning. Then the scholars write individual statements describing their divergent views on that part of the Constitution.
The Interactive Constitution is a three year project. So far, we have completed Interactive materials for the first 15 Amendments of the Constitution. During the course of the next two years, we will complete Interactive materials all of the provisions of the Constitution. In the meanwhile, yet-to-be completed provisions of the Constitution are annotated with materials from Annenberg Classroom.
In a recently posted part of the project, Stephen Vladeck and I write on the declare war clause and the commander-in-chief clause. We don't end up disagreeing on much, especially on the declare war clause. Perhaps the editors should have picked someone more pro-executive than I am. I do try to explain the strongly pro-executive view, even though I don't accept it. And I have a somewhat more expansive idea of what military actions the President can take short of war, as outlined in this article. On the commander-in-chief power, I argue that the President has a narrow set of exclusive powers, basically in line with this article. This is more than Professor Vladeck wants to acknowledge, but still less than the strong pro-executive position.
In any event, the project is an excellent one, even if our exchange is less contentious than some might hope.
Posted at 6:06 AM