Abstract
Nagel responds to Alan J. Meese's comments on Pres Clinton's actions following the Supreme Court's decision in "Regents of the University of California v. Bakke." While the Clinton Administration's strategy does not produce the best possible form of constitutional dialogue, it does produce another recognizable form of dialogue, one full of confusion and hypocrisy but a surprisingly central and entrenched part of the practice of judicial review itself.
Citation
Robert F. Nagel,
Indirect Constitutional Discourse: A Comment on Meese,
63 Law and Contemporary Problems
507-512
(Winter 2000)
Available at: https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/lcp/vol63/iss1/22