[6] He argued that ideology is an effect of the "cultural software" or tools of understanding that become part of human beings and that are produced through the evolution and transmission of memes.

Balkin employed deconstruction and related literary theories to argue that legal thought was structured in terms of "nested oppositions"—opposed ideas or concepts that turn into each other over time or otherwise depend on each other in novel and unexpected ways.

[11][12] Although he draws on literary theory in his work on legal rhetoric, Balkin and his frequent co-author Sanford Levinson contend law is best analogized not to literature but to the performing arts such as music and drama.

[13][14][15] Balkin and Levinson argue that constitutional revolutions in judicial doctrine occur through a process called partisan entrenchment.

[16] The party that controls the White House can stock the federal courts with new judges and Justices who have views on key constitutional issues roughly similar to those of the President.

Balkin and Levinson view partisan entrenchment as roughly but imperfectly democratic; it guarantees neither legitimate nor correct constitutional interpretation.

Many of the Constitution's features, including staggered terms for the President, House, and Senate, separation of powers, federalism, and an independent judiciary, are forms of "republican insurance" designed to achieve this goal.

[24] In Type One crises, political actors publicly announce that they will no longer abide by the constitution and disobey direct judicial orders.

[29][page needed] Balkin argues that America is in a Second Gilded Age, and predicts that it is slowly moving toward a second Progressive Era.

[citation needed] Balkin's work on the First Amendment argues that the purpose of the free speech principle is to promote what he calls a democratic culture.

Balkin argues that protection of freedom of speech in the digital age will increasingly rely less on judge-made doctrines of the First Amendment and more on legislation, administrative regulation, and technological design.

This triangular tug of war—rather than the traditional dyadic model of states regulating the speech of private parties—characterizes the practical ability to speak in the algorithmic society.

[34] In a 2006 essay with Levinson,[35] and a 2008 article,[36] Balkin discusses the emergence of a "National Surveillance State" that uses the collection, collation and analysis of information to govern.

The executive branch must be redesigned with internal checks and balances to police itself, to report on its activities, and to prevent abuse.

"[40] Balkin coined the term "information fiduciary" to describe the legal and ethical obligations of digital businesses and social media companies.

Therefore, the digital age has produced a new kind of fiduciary obligation analogous to those the law imposes on money managers and on professionals like doctors, lawyers, and accountants.

Those who develop and employ robots, artificial intelligence agents, and algorithms may also be information fiduciaries toward their customers and end-users.

[43] Balkin argues that the obligations of information fiduciaries and the duty not to be algorithmic nuisances are part of new laws of robotics.