Lemons from Lemonade

In the Spring, I sent out an article on The Gold Clause Cases that included a discussion of Section Four of the Fourteenth Amendment and the only Supreme Court case interpreting that provision–Perry v. United States.  No law review wanted it.  This has happened to one or two other drafts that I submitted, so I went through an “agonizing reappraisal.” Was the topic too obscure?  Was the article too descriptive?  Too boring?

Now I think I have my answer — I should turn this into an article about Section Four and the issues raised by a possible default.  That shouldn’t be too hard, though we’ll see when I’ll have time.  No reason to start until the current negotiations end through.

I should note that I went through John Bingham’s statements on Section Four and didn’t find anything helpful. Maybe I’ll throw up another post reproducing what I did find, but I’ll be traveling next week.


You may also like...

5 Responses

  1. Ken Rhodes says:

    “In the spring … no law review wanted it.”

    Hmmm … does the expression “ahead of your time” ring a bell? Without a substantial rewrite, bring it up to date with a little extra emphasis on the current problem and send it out again. But instead of law reviews, send it to The New Yorker, Vanity Fair, Playboy, and a few others that publish long articles.

    Those guys probably pay better than law reviews.

  2. Bruce Boyden says:

    The rejection from the Kentucky Journal of Equine and Gold Cases Law must have been particularly disappointing.

  3. Gerard Magliocca says:

    You can get PAID to write articles?

  4. Joe Delamater says:

    Keep fighting the good fight. I wish I was back in law school just to keep up with you. Your live blogging from last week was refreshing. Cheers.

  5. Michael Peroni says:

    Dear Gerard,

    I have taken interest in your opinions of the recent debt ceiling debacle and even read your chat interview on the Washington Post link.

    I am not a student of law, mainly economics, but it seems as if I still cannot get a clearer and simpler answer on the 14th Amendment, Sec 4, and Perry vs US.

    What I would like to know is how does Section 4 and Perry vs. US play a role into this fiasco? Does it dictate anything in terms of who is wrong, who is right in government today, and if so who is and who isn’t?

    Does Section 4 really force Congress, and if not Congress then the President (?), to pay the debt? And, how does Perry vs. US back-up your answer to that?

    Sorry for simpleness of the questions, and I am not looking for a long answer that takes up a lot of your time, you must be a busy person. Just an answer in simple terms, though, would clarify a lot of things for me would be of great help.