Daryl Levinson

Welcome to Divided Argument.

Welcome to Divided Argument.

Thanks for having me on your podcast.

Thanks for having me on your podcast.

I didn't actually see it. But I heard about it on your podcast, and that was really exciting news to me. I wouldn't have guessed at the time I wrote the article that it would ever be used for that purpose. But once we unleash scholarship into the world, it does its own thing.

I didn't actually see it. But I heard about it on your podcast, and that was really exciting news to me. I wouldn't have guessed at the time I wrote the article that it would ever be used for that purpose. But once we unleash scholarship into the world, it does its own thing.

Okay, well, I am happy to talk about the book and honored to be here. I hope your listeners aren't expecting another contribution that will show up in one of Justice Thomas's opinions anytime soon that we can hope. It's probably jarring for your listeners to hear me. It's like tuning into a podcast.

Okay, well, I am happy to talk about the book and honored to be here. I hope your listeners aren't expecting another contribution that will show up in one of Justice Thomas's opinions anytime soon that we can hope. It's probably jarring for your listeners to hear me. It's like tuning into a podcast.

about baseball and waiting to hear about which teams are going to make the playoffs and what record Otani is breaking this week. And instead there's someone talking in this weird way about how baseball is possible. And that may not be what people want to hear about, but that is kind of what the book is about, how constitutional law is possible.

about baseball and waiting to hear about which teams are going to make the playoffs and what record Otani is breaking this week. And instead there's someone talking in this weird way about how baseball is possible. And that may not be what people want to hear about, but that is kind of what the book is about, how constitutional law is possible.

So the broad theoretical problem is how do we make states the subject of law and When we think about law, what we're paradigmatically thinking about is the kind of law that's made and enforced by the state or by governments for people. But making the state itself subject to law is a very different kind of enterprise because there's no super state to make and enforce the law.

So the broad theoretical problem is how do we make states the subject of law and When we think about law, what we're paradigmatically thinking about is the kind of law that's made and enforced by the state or by governments for people. But making the state itself subject to law is a very different kind of enterprise because there's no super state to make and enforce the law.

And also the state is just a very different kind of legal subject than an ordinary person is. So that's the basic theoretical challenge of the book. And the way the book proceeds is to start with international law, which is a kind of weird body of law that's been grappling with its own weirdness for centuries.

And also the state is just a very different kind of legal subject than an ordinary person is. So that's the basic theoretical challenge of the book. And the way the book proceeds is to start with international law, which is a kind of weird body of law that's been grappling with its own weirdness for centuries.

And the strategy of the book is to try to show that constitutional law is just as weird and weird in basically the same ways as international law is. But constitutionalists have spent much less time self-consciously reconciling themselves to their weirdness.

And the strategy of the book is to try to show that constitutional law is just as weird and weird in basically the same ways as international law is. But constitutionalists have spent much less time self-consciously reconciling themselves to their weirdness.

So the straight person for the book is your second type of colleague who takes it all really at face value. I've run into fewer law professor types who are that skeptical about constitutional law. You're describing people who have the same attitude about constitutional law that lots of people do have about international law, that it's not really law and it's just power politics by other means.

So the straight person for the book is your second type of colleague who takes it all really at face value. I've run into fewer law professor types who are that skeptical about constitutional law. You're describing people who have the same attitude about constitutional law that lots of people do have about international law, that it's not really law and it's just power politics by other means.

And they're basically realists. And I didn't know there were so many constitutional realists out there or at Chicago. But right. they too are a kind of target of the book because what the book tries to show is that contrary to that skeptical realism, which originated with Hobbes, who is one of the characters of the book, I guess, we do have constitutional law and international law.

And they're basically realists. And I didn't know there were so many constitutional realists out there or at Chicago. But right. they too are a kind of target of the book because what the book tries to show is that contrary to that skeptical realism, which originated with Hobbes, who is one of the characters of the book, I guess, we do have constitutional law and international law.