How Leftists Legal Educators Distort the Meaning of An Originalist

Bump!

If you went to law school, you'd know why there are so many lib lawyers out there. Think college was bad? The professors in law school make college profs look like conservatives (or in the context of law- originalists. "Is the Constitution a living, breathing document?" was the first rhetorical question posed in Con law class.

The sad thing is, a lot of college kids come out of our colleges with that "mind of mush" mindset and eat it up. The funny thing is, the originalist part came to me so naturally and the split among classmates between originalist interpreters and progressive interpreters was on ideological lines.

Of course I used to write my essays like a Marxist, pretty much disregarding the law and writing from a "liberal heart", as I wanted a decent grade and law school has "blind grading."

So-called liberals want our constitution replaced by Das Kapital. The rest of their argumentation is just so much wind.

An 'Originalist' believes that there is one, and only one, way fot the Constitution to be changed; that the one way is through the ammendment process spelled out in the Constitution itself; and that once ammended in accordance with those procedures, those ammendments become as binding as the 'original' Constitution.

An originalist does not believe that the Constitution is a 'living' document that is changed by the ebb and flow of either public opinion or judicial appointment.

Thus, an originalist believes people of all races, creeds, colors, and genders are afforded the same rights because the original document has been properly ammended to say so. An originalist does NOT believe that emminent domain can be used to take your property and give it to another.

For example.

You are absolutely right. Many of their Hegleian type arguments simply give them an intellectual smokescreen with which to hide behind the fact that to them, leftist judges are their 21st century version of the "vanguard of the proletariet" - their means of imposing their will without any elections.

I became an originalist because the progressives never defined the limits of how much latitude a judge can have to deviate from the law in order to meet a "compelling national need". Without limits, a judge can plunge society into chaos. Look what had happen to our laws and legal system in the last thirty years and the chaos and fear it had created.

I wouldn't call the arguments Hegelian as a pejorative. They're just wrong. The Hegelian dialectic can be sturdily rational if used properly.

wuli, Mark has a freeper tagline; he is:

holdonnow

so go ahead and send him this very interesting note.

When you went to school were they using "disposition" theory in addition to academic performance in determining your grade?

With more and more conservative students and educators trying to break the leftist stranglehold in academia, the left has increasingly adopted "disposition" theory as a stated part of either the curriculum or the pedagogy.

Under the "disposition" theory teachers are told to not only look at the academic performance of the student but also to judge whether or not the student has a commitment to "social justice". At Washington State University, one education student faced punishment when professors decided he was insufficiently “sensitive to community and cultural norms” and that he did not “appreciate and value human diversity.” [Whatever in the hell you want that to mean]

In Rhode Island a student who was taking classes for a degree in social work was repeatedly told by his professors he should quit. At one point he was officially admonished because he refused to join a student-team that he was part of, in a class excercise where they had to officially lobby the Rhode Island state legislature to seek passage of a bill that his professors thought should be passed - a bill the student strongly disagreed with. In the official discussions with him over the issue he was shown the official curriculum standards for his major. And right there in black and white was the "social value" standards written by the Rhode Island professional association of social workers and adopted by the college as part of the requirements of the courses the student was taking. In other words, in black and white school regulations, this student was being told he had to either be a socialist or he could be denied his chosen course of education.

"The Hegelian dialectic can be sturdily rational if used properly."

Hegelian rational historicism has long since been replaced by radical historicism which rejects not only rational history but the very idea of rationality itself.

Indeed. But I refer to the traditional Hegelian dialectic...which was a great step forward in epistemology.

I laughed out loud the moment I heard "Ari" cite the 3/5ths compromise in the Constitution as evidence of the bigotry of our Founding Fathers.

Al Gore made such an idiotic contention in one of his public utterances several years ago.

If ignorance is bliss, these ignoramuses must be ecstatic.

I won't argue the point, but simply restate the view that they use Hegel (and others) and they do so for intellectual argument, yet they do not even believe what they say in those arguments - it is a smokescreen for their real intent; use of judicial fiat as their "vanguard".

Yes, I'm an '03 grad of law school. Yet, it is not open and obvious as one may think (especially in law school). The "Devil's Advocate" in the professor suddenly awakens when someone spouts "conservative".

College is a whole other ballgame (teams, etc.)

Although I am not a "fundamentalist Christian" myself, I think if I were going to college these days I would chose one of their colleges, at least for the law school part, in spite of the loss of possible "prestige" of some secular school.

Besides, in my prior college experience, my "education" seems to have been much more based on the work I put into it than any ideas or opinions I got from any of my professors. I could always filter out their opinion from the objective information in their discussions and when they short changed that objective information with too much opinion, I just had more research and reading to do.

"Thus, an originalist believes people of all races, creeds, colors, and genders are afforded the same rights because the original document has been properly ammended to say so. An originalist does NOT believe that emminent domain can be used to take your property and give it to another."

Strangely, I think you are very wrong here, althought I'd much prefer you were right.

Until the Constitution is amended, the eminent domain law really DOES say that. The Constitution doensn't make specific provisions in this regard. And, worse yet, such cases have been decided in this same manner before - see the Detoit Poletown GM decision in the 1980's.

We should've been fighting this battle in years past... and not been shocked when this case hit the fan. In other words, where were we all these years, and why didn't we change the law (which we did in Michigan)?

I just think it was mighty accommodating of Judge Roberts to let his wife out of her cage to come down to watch him during the hearings.

Seriously, would a guy whose wife has the following CV really want to limit her rights to EQUAL (not superior) RIGHTS??

Ms. Roberts is co-leader of the firm’s professional development and training program and she is a member of Pillsbury University, which provides professional development opportunities through curriculum of core and specialty programs for lawyers and staff. Ms. Roberts is leading the effort to develop practice milestones for attorneys at various stages of their careers.

Before assuming this role in 2003, Ms. Roberts was a partner in the firm’s Global Technology Group focusing on IT sourcing and procurement of satellite systems. Ms. Roberts practice concentrated in representing clients in sophisticated transactions involving technology. Ms. Roberts has extensive experience in representing clients in the buying and selling of space-related goods and services, including companies involved in the development of multi-billion dollar global and regional satellite systems. Ms. Roberts’ experience also includes representing clients in outsourcing transactions; software licensing, development, and maintenance contracts; and professional services arrangements.

Prior to 1992, Ms. Roberts practiced litigation at Shaw Pittman in a wide variety of matters before various courts and decision-making bodies, including large international commercial arbitrations involving nuclear power plants before the International Chamber of Commerce. In 1992, Ms. Roberts litigated before Australian courts with then Arthur Robinson & Hedderwicks, a leading law firm in Australia.

Education J.D., Georgetown University Law Center, 1984 cum laude M.S., Brown University, 1981 Dip. Ed., Melbourne University, 1977 A.B., College Of The Holy Cross, 1976 Magna Cum Laude Affiliations Admitted to practice: District of Columbia, Commonwealth of Virginia Admitted in: U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth and Eleventh Circuits Member of: American Bar Association, District of Columbia Bar Association, Virginia Bar Association, Society of Satellite Professionals, International Professional Development Consortium, Board of Trustees of the College of the Holy Cross External Publications Unsponsored Financed Entrepreneurial Satellite Ventures: Managing Completion Risk, Satellite Finance, Issue 16, 12-Aug-1996

But the important thing is: is she an originalist? Like her husband. Because, well gee whiz and by golly, if not, then he is definately more equal - to me.

You are absolutely right. Many of their Hegleian type arguments simply give them an intellectual smokescreen with which to hide behind the fact that to them, leftist judges are their 21st century version of the "vanguard of the proletariet" - their means of imposing their will without any elections.

Both the "left wing" and the "right wing" of Hegelians end up worshipping the state as the apotheosis of divine will acting in history. A good read on the rise, and decline, of the nation-state as an instrument of human social organization may be found in:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/052165629X/qid=1127453470/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-7485100-5053731?v=glance&s=books

The Rise and Decline of the State (Paperback)
by Martin van Creveld

Editorial Reviews
Review
' ... a very readable account, [van Creveld] paints a most persuasive picture of the decline of the state and the transfer of its powers to a host of substitute guardians. It is an intellectually exciting and highly recommended book.' Law Society Journal

Download Description
The state, which since the middle of the seventeenth century has been the most important and most characteristic of all modern institutions, is in decline. From Western Europe to Africa, many existing states are either combining into larger communities or falling apart. Many of their functions are being taken over by a variety of organizations which, whatever their precise nature, are not states. In this unique volume Martin van Creveld traces the story of the state from its beginnings to the present. Starting with the simplest political organizations that ever existed, he guides the reader through the origins of the state, its development, its apotheosis during the two World Wars, and its spread from its original home in Western Europe to cover the globe. In doing so, he provides a fascinating history of government from its origins to the present day.--This text refers to the Digital edition.

Book Description
This unique volume traces the history of the state from its beginnings to the present day.

Historical Pessimism Absent Recommendations for Change, November 12, 2001
Reviewer: Robert D. Steele (Oakton, VA United States)

Anything Martin van Crevald writes is a five, and this book, although over-priced (...), is as as good as history can get. His notes are world-class, including a highly relevant note in the final chapter, to wit, that according to Soviet General Lebed's 1997 public statement that, "out of 100 suitcase-sized nuclear bombs manufactured for the Soviet Union's special forces, two-thirds could no longer be accounted for."

To begin with, Van Crevald damns the state for its consistent increase of taxes and its decrease in public services. The state has become, in a word, incompetent and archaic--its grossly over-funded militaries are increasingly helpless in the face of covert and guerrilla violence, at the same time that states are spending more and more on police forces and less and less on a rapidly growing politically deprived disenfranchised underclass.

He ends, as a historical purist, without making recommendations for change. Indeed, he quotes Mao Tse Tung, "The sun will keep rising, trees with keep growing, and women will keep having children."

In many ways Van Crevald's book serves as a capstone to the fifty or so books I have reviewed in the past year, most of them about strategy, threat, intelligence, and the so-called revolution in military affairs, for what I take from this work is that the state does have an extremely important role to play in assuring the common security and prosperity of the people, and we abandon the state at our own peril.

Every nation, but especially the most prosperous nations that have allowed virtually out of control immigration and set no real standards for citizenship, must very carefully examine its policies and premises, both with regard to what constitutes citizenship and loyalty, and what services it must offer to preserve and protect the commonwealth.

I am told that the FBI was prevented from searching the homes of several of the suspects in the weeks prior to the 11 September attacks, because we have granted to our visitors--illegal as well as legal--all those rights that might better be reserved for proven citizens. Van Crevald's work is not, as some might take it, the death knell for the state, but rather the bath of cold water for the statesmen--and for those citizens who care to instruct their politicians on our demand for renewed focus on resurrecting the connection between citizenship, taxation, representation, and security.

Brilliant, December 25, 2000
Reviewer: Steve Jackson "stevejackson100atyahoocom" (New England)

Every once in a while you come across a book that goes beyond being interesting or thought-provoking, but is a veritable five lane intellectual super-highway. Martin van Creveld's The Rise and Decline of the State is such a book.

Prof. van Creveld's work revolves around this point: prior to the seventeenth century (with some exceptions) rule was seen as personal. The monarch personally ruled over a given region and the people owed him their loyalty. The state was not the abstract entity that it was to become. The change from personal to abstract rule brought with it profound consequences in virtually all aspects of life.

Along the path from personal to abstract rule, many thinkers and rulers played a role, but Hobbes was decisive. [p. 179.] Also important were Locke, Montesquieu and Rousseau.

Of course, personal rule didn't guarantee that you would live in a libertarian paradise. Nonetheless, personal rule carried with it certain obligations: the sovereign (generally as a servant of God) was under the law and his powers were limited. The modern, bureaucratic state has almost unlimited powers. Even worse, the total state often leads to total war. In earlier times, wars between "states" were really quarrels between ruling houses and the common man could escape involvement. Not so with the modern state: you are a citizen of the state and owe it your exclusive allegiance. [p. 185.]

There is a lot more a reviewer could comment on in this book. Prof. van Creveld has all sorts of interesting things to say about the rise of the state and changes in crime, education, war, and the economy.

I do have one quarrel with the book. On page 178, Prof. van Creveld says that Christianity teaches that God "is believed to possess no fewer than three different bodies." Since Prof. van Creveld is not (so far as I can tell) a Mormon, I'm at a loss to see how he came up with that idea.