4 responses so far ↓

• 1 washerdreyer // Apr 1, 2008 at 5:27 pm

  That reads remarkably like their real articles essays (they don’t like to cite for their claims as much as law reviews desire them to (for which, who can blame them?) and think they can avoid it by writing shorter pieces called essays). I’m a big fan of the one arguing that, contrary to what other scholars, have argued, courts and legislatures should worry less about broad power claims by the executive during emergencies than they should during non-emergencies and simultaneously offering no definition of emergency but implying that the only years since the commencement of WWII which were non-emergencies were between the end of the Cold War and September 11th.

• 2 Micha Ghertner // Apr 1, 2008 at 6:04 pm

  So did anyone read the full paper and understand their justification for the claim that deontological claims simply don’t apply to government action? That seems like it should be the central point of the paper, and yet the abstract glosses over it as if it’s obvious and well established. Yes, of course it is much easier to reach the conclusion that there is a moral obligation to torture innocent children if you start from some form of consequentialism and exclude deontological claims entirely.

• 3 Trevor // Apr 1, 2008 at 6:29 pm

  I tried to, but the link seems to be broken.

• 4 Micha Ghertner // Apr 1, 2008 at 7:37 pm

  Doh! Curses. Serves me right for not clicking on the link.