Georgetown Center for the Constitution Inaugurates $50,000 Cooley Book Prize
2018 Marks the First Recognition of Outstanding Scholarship in Honor of Legal Scholar Thomas M. CooleyWASHINGTON, D.C. –
On April 20th, the Georgetown Center for the Constitution will award its first annual Thomas M. Cooley Book Prize of $50,000 to honor a book that makes an important contribution to our understanding of the Constitution. The first recipients will be professors Gary Lawson (Boston University School of Law) and Guy Seidman (IDC Herzliya—Radzyner School of Law) for their book, A Great Power of Attorney: Understanding the Fiduciary Constitution (Kansas University Press, 2017), which explores the type of legal document that is the Constitution and how this affects the powers it grants to government officials and the duties they owe to the public.
To commemorate the book, a day-long by-invitation-only Symposium will be held that day featuring critical papers about the book. At the Symposium, a group of constitutional professors from area law schools will join Professors Lawson and Seidman and paper authors Ethan Leib (Fordham), John Mikhail (Georgetown), Richard Primus (Michigan) and Suzanna Sherry (Vanderbilt) to discuss the issues raised by the book and papers—which will be published in a special issue of the Georgetown Journal of Law and Public Policy.
The Cooley Book Prize is named after renowned legal scholar Thomas McIntyre Cooley. Cooley was a longstanding Chief Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court, and a professor at the University of Michigan Law School, where he also served as the Dean. He authored several highly influential books, including A Treatise on the Constitutional Limitations Which Rest Upon the Legislative Power of the States of the American Union. In December, the Georgetown Center for the Constitution's annual Salmon P. Chase Distinguished Lecture and Faculty Colloquium will commemorate the 150th anniversary of the publication of Cooley's Constitutional Limitations.
How Former Visiting Scholar Christina Mulligan Is Looking to the Past and the Future
Brooklyn Law Professor Christina Mulligan talks about her works-in-progress
Most law students-turned-law professors don't normally get to experience the same law course twice, but Christina Mulligan is an exception. Professor Mulligan spent spring semester as a Visiting Scholar at the Georgetown Center for the Constitution, during which she took a trip back down memory lane.
While doing research at Georgetown, Professor Mulligan sat in on Constitutional Law I by Professor Randy Barnett. "It was a particularly interesting experience because I actually took the same course from him over ten years ago when I was a first-year law student," Mulligan says. "Experiencing how the course has changed has helped me reflect on how constitutional law has evolved in the past decade."
For the past few months, Professor Mulligan participated in seminars and conferences hosted by the Center, in addition to courses taught by the Center's scholars. She also joined Professor Solum's constitutional law colloquium, where Georgetown Law students offered critiques about her work. "I presented a draft of a new paper, Diverse Originalism, to Larry Solum's colloquium, and that has been hugely helpful to orienting that project," Mulligan says. "Such great comments and feedback from the students and attendees!"
Mulligan, who studied philosophy and mathematics and almost pursued a graduate degree in philosophy, ultimately decided to attend law school to "engage with more practical problems." Although Mulligan initially became a professor to study and teach intellectual property and technology law, she began serious constitutional law scholarship through a series of events. Her scholarship in both areas offers insights into current debates about originalism and telecommunications.
While writing an earlier paper, Founding Era Translations of the US Constitution, Mulligan says she became interested in studying "unusual sources" to better understand the Constitution. "I realized I wanted to get more involved in discussions about constitutional interpretation," Mulligan says. "Being a visiting scholar has [allowed me] to drink from the firehose of constitutional law scholarship —I have learned so much this semester."
Now back at Brooklyn Law, Professor Mulligan will resume her current projects in both constitutional law and technology law. During the past several years, she's written about the impact of software licensing on our legal relationship to intellectual property as well as the omnipresent objects in our daily lives that are becoming "smart" and Internet-connected. Mulligan says that on the technology law front, black-box algorithms are "going to be very disruptive —how do we understand "who" caused something to happen when programmers write algorithms so complex that the programmer can't explain why the computer acted as it did?"
Regardless of how far forward into the future she goes, she also remains interested in learning from the past. "I'm also looking at unexpected sources of constitutional interpretation from the founding era —speakers who weren't in the public eye or who have flown under the radar." And Professor Mulligan says she has no plans to stop exploring the vast timeline of law and modernism. "I think I'm destined to continue looking at the past and the future!" Mulligan says. "I expect to keep a foot in both the founding era and future for quite some time."
Professor's Mulligan's story on what brought her to study foreign language translations of the Constitution:
"Back in about 2011, a friend of mine told me that he'd heard that the Constitution had been translated into German in 1787, and wouldn't it be fascinating to see how the different terms were translated? I searched a bit on the Internet but could hardly find anything about them —Pauline Maier mentioned German translations existed in her 2010 book Ratification, but actual copies of the translated text didn't immediately pop up online. At the time, I was primarily writing about copyright law and software patents while doing a fellowship at Yale, but for about a year if I ran into a historian or librarian, I would basically accost them and ask, "Have you ever heard of these translations? Do you know where they might be?" Eventually I thought to ask Michael Widener, the rare book librarian at Yale Law School, and he managed to find a copy of not just the German translation that had been commissioned by the Pennsylvania legislature, but also a Dutch translation commissioned by the Federal Committee of New York. The oddest part is that the translations had been right under our nose the whole time, in the Yale Law Library, reprinted in a volume called "Constitutions of the World" that had been published in Germany, but they were so obscure at that point that no one had known! I hadn't really expected to find them, and when I did, I had to write about them. It was a herculean project, and I'm so grateful I had the opportunity to do it."
(And why those translations are significant…)
"The translations provide two important illustrations of public meaning. On the one hand, we can use the translators' word choices to learn how they understood the text of the Constitution. For example, there were multiple words the German and Dutch translators could have chosen for "commerce". By investigating the words they chose and noticeably didn't choose, we gained a better understanding of what the translators understood the scope of "commerce" to be. But we can also look at the translations and see where the translators deviated from each other's apparent understanding or from popular commentaries to get a better idea of how different members of the founding-era public might have understood the same text in slightly different ways. In other words, while the translations help show that most constitutional text is not indeterminate, they also highlight where some of the text may be somewhat vague or subject to multiple (but usually similar and overlapping) interpretations. I also love that the translations are complete restatements of the constitutional text —no other commentary on the Constitution is complete. Other pamphlets or speakers discussed particular clauses, but of course couldn't expound upon the entire document. But translators can't skip, and so the translations give us interpretations, albeit short ones, of every single part of the Constitution."
Visiting Scholar Tara Helfman on originalism, the Constitution and her new status at Georgetown
Of all the labels swirling around to describe Supreme Court nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch before his confirmation hearings beginning March 20th, patriotic is likely among them, according to Tara Helfman, who is on loan from Syracuse Law School while she works as a Georgetown Center for the Constitution Visiting Scholar.
Helfman’s recent slate of articles reflect her ongoing scholarship that includes executive powers, the Constitution and originalism. While at Georgetown for the 2017 spring semester, Professor Helfman hosts GULC students in her “Freedom and the Framers” reading group, where she guides students through an exploration of the ideas and events that helped shape the American Constitution.
The purpose of the group, Professor Helfman says, is to allow students to enrich their understanding of constitutional doctrine and thereby become “useful and effective lawyers. [The reading group] is a lot more free-wheeling than a normal Socratic-oriented course. We read interesting things, and everyone is motivated to be there because they’ve chosen to be there. It’s not for credit.”
One of her students is Angell Darvalics, a first-year evening student who says she looks forward to the reading groups each week where Helfman brings homemade cupcakes. “Professor Helfman’s vast knowledge of constitutional history combined with her enthusiasm and humor inspires me to want to learn more,” Darvalics says. “What I love most about her teaching style is that her passion and enthusiasm for the history of the Constitution is infectious.”
“It’s a delight for me and I do it in part for purely self-indulgent reasons,” Helfman says. “I could read these texts on my own but there is something especially illuminating about re-visiting texts I’ve read more times than I can count with students. The students teach me a lot.”
Given her relaxed teaching duties, Helfman is able to immerse herself in a different setting and focus on being a scholar. Her primary reason for being with the Center is to continue research on the original meaning of the law of nations, which is loosely translated in modern speak as international law.
Her other project is a forthcoming manuscript about Robert Thorpe, a British vice-admiralty judge and abolitionist in the Sierra Leone colony. “It’s a history that, for whatever reason, has been neglected,” Helfman says. “It tells a story about liberated Africans who found freedom through his court, and explains how international norms are made—through legal theory and the presence of force.”
And Helfman, an originalist scholar, says that the very idea of a written constitution demands nothing less. “Originalism provides us with a meaningful way to situate our present in light of our past without rendering us helpless in the dead hand of the past,” Helfman says. “It recognizes that ideas have durability and that the ideas that underpin the Constitution endure in part because we are constantly engaging in conversation with them as lawyers and scholars and as citizens.”
After spending years studying legal texts from different ages, Helfman says she doesn’t need citizens to love the Constitution, but instead to read it, think about it and engage with it. “From the standpoint of the entire history of human experience, our Constitution is remarkable.”
Q/A with Professor Helfman
Q: Did you always want to teach?
A: I knew I wanted to be a teacher. I grew up in Queens, New York which has been characterized as one of the most multicultural areas in the world. I didn’t know any lawyers growing up so I thought I’d be a school teacher or secretary. I worked my way through college, working the 4:00 to midnight shift in a hospital trauma center in the most violent neighborhood in Queens.
Q: Do you enjoy writing contemporary pieces for the masses?
A: I see it as consistent with being a lawyer and professor. Our profession doesn’t have a monopoly on the Constitution; it belongs to all Americans. To the extent I can make deeply politicized or seemingly complex issues intelligible to laypeople, I feel like I am living up to one of my highest and best uses: to help people engage intelligently with the law. I do that in the classroom by training lawyers, and in magazine articles by educating, engaging, and sometimes infuriating readers. I don’t mind if some people are infuriated by my opinions–I have a thick skin.
Q: How did you get to where you are today?
A: I had professors who encouraged me to think bigger and differently than the world in which I had grown up. They encouraged me to apply for graduate scholarships. As a graduate student I studied the history of ideas at Cambridge in the same program that Professor Laura Donohue (Georgetown Center for the Constitution Senior Scholar) did. It was a mind-expanding and horizon-altering experience. I thought about career opportunities in a whole different way.
Q: Do you have any mentors?
A: I’ve been very blessed to have had professors who were true mentors to me and saw in me capacities that I did not recognize in myself. They encouraged me to pursue ideas or projects or goals that I would not have done were it not for their vision and confidence. These were people who challenged me and did not hold my hand. They challenged my assumptions and arguments in order to encourage me to think more rigorously. They made me a stubborn researcher and a dedicated scholar. Those mentorships made me a better lawyer and scholar.
Q: Tell us about your book, “Liberty & Union.”
A: My co-author was a professor who taught me constitutional history and become my mentor, then my friend. We kept in close contact over the years. We realized there are histories of constitutional law – basically, histories of case law and the Supreme Court. But this book is different in that it is a constitutional history of the United States. It takes as its unifying theme the notion that the Constitution plays an extremely unique role in this nation in the way we self-define. We don’t have a royal family, we don’t have a common religion, we don’t have a state ideology like an official state party, and we don’t even have the same common history as individuals in this country – but we share a common commitment to the Constitution. The book comments on how that commitment manifests itself through history
Q: What advice do you give to your law students?
A: I encourage my 1Ls to find a study buddy whom they get along with and can bounce ideas off of. As a student, you may have understood 40% of the content of a case and your partner may have understood another 40% of the case, material that you may have missed altogether. Together you can come to a more complete understanding of the material. The danger of studying alone is that you don’t know what you’ve missed – because you’ve missed it.
Q: If you were to return to your law school days at Yale, what would you tell yourself?
A: To cherish the friendships you make. I recently had lunch with a classmate I had not seen in 10 years and we picked up right where we had left off. Also, competition [in law school] does not have to occur at the expense of decency and goodness. In a profession that trades on personal integrity and professional ethics, the way you treat your classmates and the reputation you cultivate in law school really brands you as a professional long before you are sworn in to the bar.
Congratulations to Tara Helfman and Christina Mulligan, Our New Visiting Scholars!
The Georgetown Center for the Constitution welcomes Tara Helfman (Syracuse Law School) and Christina Mulligan (Brooklyn Law School) as our Spring 2017 Visiting Scholars. The Visiting Scholars Program is designed to assist faculty members at various law schools in expanding their body of scholarship by providing them with the time and resources to complete a significant project, often a book, while in residence at Georgetown.