BRUCE ACKERMAN raises legal arguments against the Bush Administration’s doctrine of “strong preemption.” They’re related to, but not the same as, those raised by William Van Alstyne earlier. Had Ackerman’s earlier comments on the war not been so embarrassingly partisan and uninformed, this piece — which has some actual substance — would carry more weight.

UPDATE: Stuart Buck writes that Ackerman is on the wrong side of an ongoing “constitutional moment.”