The Annals of Scholarly Opportunism

To: Editor-In-Chief, Impressive Law Review
From: Kyle Graham
Date: August 5, 2003
Re: My Article “College Admissions, Equal Protection, and the ‘Dock-Yard’ Clause: What Gratz v. Bollinger Tells Us About Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution.”

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please find attached, for your review and publication consideration, a copy of my recent article, “College Admissions, Equal Protection, and the ‘Dock-Yard’ Clause: What Gratz v. Bollinger Tells Us About the “Dock-Yards” of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution.” In this article, I discuss how, even though the Gratz Court never expressly or implicitly acknowledged its reliance on the “dock-yards” language within the Constitution, this provision just might have influenced the Court’s resolution of the affirmative-action issue presented in that case.  Or at least, one cannot prove that this provision did not influence the Court.

Please contact me at your first convenience, should you wish to publish this article.

Regards,

Kyle Graham

 

To: Editor-In-Chief, Impressive Law Review
From: Kyle Graham
Date: August 5, 2005
Re: My Article “Pierless, or Up In Smoke?: Gonzales v. Raich, the Seaside Importation of Marijuana, and the “Dock-Yards” of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution.”

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please find attached, for your review and publication consideration, a copy of my recent article, “Pierless, or up in Smoke?: Gonzales v. Raich, the Seaside Importation of Marijuana, and the “Dock-Yards” of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution.” In this article, I discuss how the Founders’ reference of “dock-yards” within our nation’s charter document dovetails with, and lends support to, the Court’s interstate-commerce analysis in Raich.

Please contact me at your first convenience, should you wish to publish this article.

Regards,

Kyle Graham

 

To: Editor-In-Chief, Impressive Law Review
From: Kyle Graham
Date: August 5, 2006
Re: My Article “Sailing to Guantanamo: Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Maritime Access to Military Tribunal Sites, and the “Dock-Yards” of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution.”

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please find attached, for your review and publication consideration, a copy of my recent article, “Sailing to Guantanamo: Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Maritime Access to Military Tribunal Sites, and the “Dock-Yards” of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution.” With this piece, I explain how the Founders would have supported military tribunals if, but only if, these tribunals afforded access to maritime trade channels, consistent with the Constitution’s “dock-yard” provision.  This article thus provides a strong rebuke to the Court’s analysis in Hamdan, and provides a framework for analysis of military tribunals going forward.

Please contact me at your first convenience, should you wish to publish this article.

Regards,

Kyle Graham

 

To: Editor-In-Chief, Impressive Law Review
From: Kyle Graham
Date: August 5, 2007
Re: My Article “Of Ports and Pleading Standards: What Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution Tells Us About Twombly.”

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please find attached, for your review and publication consideration, a copy of my recent article, “Of Ports and Pleading Standards: What Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution Tells Us About Twombly.” This article follows upon the Court’s recent decision in Twombly v. Bell Atlantic, and explains how the heightened pleading standards adopted by the Court logically follow from the clarity and precision insisted upon by the Founders in drafting the Constitution’s “dock-yards” language.

Please contact me at your first convenience, should you wish to publish this article.

Regards,

Kyle Graham

 

To: Editor-In-Chief, Impressive Law Review
From: Kyle Graham
Date: August 5, 2010
Re: My Article “Firefight on the Dock-Yards: Gun Rights, McDonald v. Chicago, and Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution.”

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please find attached, for your review and publication consideration, a copy of my recent article, “Firefight on the Dock-Yards: Gun Rights, McDonald v. Chicago, and Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution.” Since the Court’s recent decision in the McDonald case, one question has loomed large in the public mind: What impact will the decision have on how courts construe the “dock-yards” language within the Constitution?  This article seeks to resolve this debate, explaining how courts likely will assess, inter alia, the constitutionality of overseas gun shipments in a post-McDonald world.

Please contact me at your first convenience, should you wish to publish this article.

Regards,

Kyle Graham

 

To: Editor-In-Chief, Impressive Law Review
From: Kyle Graham
Date: August 5, 2010
Re: My Article “‘Dock-Yards’ United: Speaking Freely About Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution.”

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please find attached, for your review and publication consideration, a copy of my recent article, “ ‘Dock-Yards’ United: Speaking Freely About Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution.” This past term, the United States Supreme Court’s controversial Citizens United decision answered some questions, but raised others. Among the latter: What impact will Citizens United have on free-speech rights in “dock-yards,” of the sort referenced in the Constitution? In my article, I seek to provide at least some preliminary answers to this and related questions.

And to anticipate a question that you may be asking yourself, yes, I am aware that I also am circulating a similar article during this submission cycle, one that analyzes the “dock-yards” clause in the wake of the Supreme Court’s McDonald decision. I do not regard the two articles as overlapping in the slightest; quite to the contrary, each piece sheds new light on the very, very subtle nuances of the ‘dock-yards’ language.

Please contact me at your first convenience, should you wish to publish this article.

Regards,

Kyle Graham

 

To: Editor-In-Chief, Impressive Law Review
From: Kyle Graham
Date: August 5, 2012
Re: My Article “Shoring up the ACA Cases: A Switch in Time on Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution.”

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please find attached, for your review and publication consideration, a copy of my recent article, “Shoring Up The ACA Cases: A Switch in Time on Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution.” Borrowing a page from Chief Justice Roberts, in this article I renounce my previous decade’s worth of interpretations of the “dock-yards” language within Article I of the Constitution. In its place, I posit a bold, new interpretation of this phrasing, and defend the legitimacy of both this reversal and Justice Roberts’ apparent vote-switch in the ACA litigation.

Please contact me at your first convenience, should you wish to publish this article.

Regards,

Kyle Graham

You may also like...

2 Responses

  1. Kyle says:

    Edited at 2:30 PDT on 9/29/2012 to correct an error in the McDonald date and add a sentence to the Citizens United post.

  2. mls says:

    I hope you included a citation to my landmark article, “Needful Buildings: A 17 part test for determining the constitutionality of structures on federal lands”