The Bailout and Separation of Powers: Bench Memos has a post from Robert Alt that directs readers to a Heritage Foundation piece discussing some of "fundamental constitutional values at stake" in the bailout debate. Some of the concerns the article raises include: the missing enumerated power that gives Congress the authority to intervene with private markets in the manner contemplated, lack of meaningful standards to guide the Treasury of Secretary, and the limits on judicial review over the exercise of "that almost limitless discretion." The Heritage Foundation's piece suggests that to address the Constitutional concerns, Congress should draft a policy "cabin[s] the scope and character of the Treasury secretary’s discretion, connect[s] the exercise of that discretion to legitimate government purposes, and allow[s] Americans adversely affected to seek meaningful judicial review."

Judges, Foreign Policy, & the Constitution: Hattip to Howard Bashman at How Appealing for the link to this article, by Noah Feldman discussing the power of the Supreme Court to give "[e]very generation gets the Constitution that it deserves." Feldman's article specifically addresses whether international law should be treated as the law of the United States. This issue has stirred some debate since the Court's decisions in Boumediene v. Bush and Medellin v. Texas. The article discusses two schools of thought on this issue. Feldman states the more conservative school of thought interprets the Constitution to provide rights for its citizens within the borders of our country. The Constitution was meant to secure domestic order. The competing school of thought defines law "not as a quintessentially national phenomenon but rather as a global ideal." In other words, "rights similar to those it confers on Americans should protect all people everywhere, so that no one falls outside the reach of some legitimate legal order." The article will appear in Sunday's New York Times Magazine.