the reading list:
@malavika surprised to find Austin, despite a lot of reliance by the court missing in the study of context. Overrated ? Any specific reasons?
@amlanmishra the idea is to study the histories that win out and the histories that lose out, when we think of constitutional history. Austin was a dominant part of the former. Aravind Elangovan’s piece is the discussion piece from which Austin gets critiqued.
@malavika is there one composite drive where one could access the readings on 'Reading Constitutional Structure'?
@shraznar hi! sadly the main book by Charles Black I only have in book form. I can aim to have it scanned and uploaded by year end. Is that ok?