The article is from January 2007, but this is the first time I’ve encountered it.
I’m no physicist, but isn’t this silly in many ways?
AFAIK those ideas of physics can only apply to law and other non-physics areas by analogy only. (continued)
I would be very surprised if those things appear in the article as anything other than analogies.
(continued)
Thus, you don’t need a deep understanding of them to apply them. Which makes the connection weak, even if it sounds impressive.
Okay, the article must be misreporting what Obama really did with his work on the article.
But a law article using Einstein? That’s like a physics article referring to mob rule, dictatorship, free will, etc. 
:dubious: :rolleyes:
Conservapedia is your friend:
Relativity
From which: The Curvature of Constitutional Space: What Lawyers Can Learn from Modern Physics on JSTOR (abstract only)
This looks to be the whole essay:
ESSAY: THE CURVATURE OF CONSTITUTIONAL SPACE: WHAT LAWYERS CAN LEARN FROM MODERN PHYSICS.
Definitely Heisenberg. I’m pretty sure.
I hear Heisenberg was a key swing voter back in his day.
His opening paragraph seems to frankly address concerns about the silly exercise this could degenerate into:
“I do not address the subject because I am determined to bring science or mathematics into law; I still believe what I wrote in the 1970’s about the perils of that enterprise. n1 Nor [*2] do I wish to suggest that there exists an epistemological hierarchy with the law perched on a lower rung looking up to its superiors for guidance. Rather, my conjecture is that the metaphors and intuitions that guide physicists can enrich our comprehension of social and legal issues. I borrow metaphors from physics tentatively; my purpose is to explore the heuristic ramifications for the law; my criterion of appraisal is whether the concepts we might draw from physics promote illuminating questions and directions. I press forward in this endeavor because I believe that reflection upon certain developments in physics can help us hold on to and refine some of our deeper insights into the pervasive and profound role law plays in shaping our society and our lives.”
But the pollers hated him.
They didn’t hate him, they were just uncertain.
Reading Justice Heisenberg’s opinions was hell. Just when you felt like you figured out where he was going with an issue, he appeared to switch his position.
:eek:
WORMHOLE!
Brilliant! Absolutely brilliant!
Of course, if you observed him voting, his vote ceased to count.
Schrödinger’s Voters
A voter goes into the ballot box along with their ballot. Now you would expect the voter to be alive but in some precints the voter is actually dead. Therefore while still in the ballot box the voter is a mixture of alive and dead.
Schrödinger pulled in big numbers in Chicago, I hear.
Sailboat
His ballot was simultaneously Democratic and Republican until you plucked it out of the box and collapsed the chads?
Now, Richard P. Feynman could really drum out the votes for anyone.
The campaign will never be completely over because first it must be halfway over…
Frankly I find all of Obama’s talk of “change” very derivative…