As Ramesh noted <a
href=”http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/04_05_09_corner-
archive.asp#031482″>here, I am indeed involved in an extended on-line
debate with Steve Bainbridge, that I think is proving to be unusually
revealing of both of our positions, and of the issues surrounding different
approaches to constitutional interpretation generally. This spontaneous
exchange highlights how blogging is changing the nature of and audience for
academic discourse. Interested readers can find links to
Steve’s posts, the first of which was entitled, “Should Conservatives by
Cheerful,” in the following entries by me (which are listed in chronological
order):
<a
href=”http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2004_05_07.shtml#1083928263″>Should
Conservatives Be Uninformed?
<a
href=”http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2004_05_07.shtml#1083955713″>Should
Conservatives Be Confused?
Founders on Democratic Majoritarianism
<a
href=”http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2004_05_07.shtml#1084246714″>Stephen
Bainbridge Replies
Stubbornness of Facts: Judicial Conservatives and the Ninth Amendment
<a
href=”http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2004_05_07.shtml#1084398394″>Abortion
& the 14th Amendment
<a
href=”http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2004_05_07.shtml#1084424207″>Originali
st Sacrifices