Honestly, this business about "the right does this’ and “the left does that” sounds like two high school in-groups fueding over a popularity contest.
Taken over? In what sense? Sounds like sour grapes. What specifically has prevented “the left” from using talk radio to its advantage?
Well only if getting elected = “taking over”. If you have some evidence that the courts favor a “rightist” view over a “leftist” view more often than not, let’s hear it.
I suppose the right is struggling for influence in education, but are you honestly going to say that the left is not doing so equally? Or is education supposed to be the left’s territory, and folks on the right are trespassers?
Have you been out of the country for the past 10 years?
The subtlety of its ideas, perhaps? Bombastic black/white rants are ever so much more entertaining.
Yes, the courts are still quite credible, thankfully.
The tone of the attacks on the “liberal educational establishment” these days are really quite strident. As I said, Limbaughesque. It’s more than an attempt to have a voice or gain influence, it’s a crusade by people who seem intent on using indimidation rather than the force of arguments or superior ideas, which would be welcomed and entirely appropriate.
Might I suggest that you notice mainly those attacks that are “Limbaughesque”, and don’t pay attentioned to the reasoned analysis that is out there? There are plenty of “rightist” or libertarian commentators out there who don’t share Rush’s love of hyperbole.
The Democratic candidates for president have let out their share of “Limbaughesque” comments. And I’m not talking about just Al Sharpton. Even Kerry likes to talk about “Benedict Arnold CEOs who send jobs overseas”. Benedict Arnold? He committed treason by aiding the enemy of the US during a time of war, for heaven’s sake!
**
Oh boy, oh boy, this is fun, like shooting fish in a barrel, beating my grandson at draw poker, or getting Janet Jackson to show us her tits.
**Lie Number One: America is an “Imperialist Nation” **
Most emphatically. We imperialized Japan, France, Viet Nam, Germany, South Korea, Italy, and Liberia ( our puppet, our showcase, our abject failure.)*
Lie Number Two: "Socialism Works Better Than Capitalism"
Ain’t it the truth, socialism has brought the good life to the masses. And then socialism has reduced the masses to exist as inanimate wards of the socialist state.*
Lie Number Three: The U.S. Constitution Is A "Living Document"
This is not a lie. The Constitution was always meant to be a basic document, outlining the fundamental and inalienable rights of all people. But the authors of our Constitution provided the occasion of Amendments to aid and advance these principals.*
Lie Number Four: America Was Founded On "Racism And Genocide"
That does it! I’m outa here! I don’t talk to fools, educators, and people from outer space.*
John, could you elaborate on this? I’m not sure what you mean by “both sides”; do you mean both the sides of a particular interpretation of Consitutional text, or two sides where one feels there is room for interpration of the Constitution and the other does not?
Sorry if that was unclear. “Both sides” was probably the wrong phrase to use. What I really meant was that a teacher should teach his/her students about both schools of thought regarding how the constitution can be interpreted. (And I’m sure I’m oversimplifying by assuming that there are only 2 schools of thought.) But using specific examples of two different interpretations for a given case would certainly be a good teaching tool.
The original post that I responded to on this subject seemed to imply* that the constructionist interpretation of the constution is not valid and need not be taught to students.
*I emphasize the word “imply” here, hence my request for the poster to clarify his/her position.
John, one nugget for you and Revtim - I understand what I think you’re saying about “both sides of constitutional interpretation”, but part of my confusion when I read your first post on the subject was your reference to “construtionist” in general. The term “constructionist” in some academic circles is in direct opposition to the very concept of “interpretation”.
What I mean is, there are some Roy Moore types in the world who view the Constitution not as a “living document” but a static Hammurabi’s Code, and that it should be understood literally, as some fundamentalists do the Bible or the Koran.
I don’t think you meant it, but at first read, it seemed like you were giving credence to this very specific constructionist view of the Constitution, that the document is somehow immutable and not open to debate. This is not what has made the document (or our nation) a success though. To debate ways to interpret the Constitution is part of our national discourse, but the prerequisite must first be acceptance that it can indeed be interpreted differently. This is a subtle but important distinction that some conservative demagogues wilfully ignore.
Revtim most certainly should not feel compelled to dedicate valuable class time to such extremism, any more than I would expect an History teacher to deliver a lecture on Holocaust denial or a Biology professor on the superiority of the white man. It should be sufficient to state that people once thought such foolish things, but they were wrong.
OK, if we go by what Theories of Constitutional Interpretation from the University of Missouri-KC Law School web site, perhaps I should use the term “originalist” and “non-originalist”. Suffice it to say that there is the “Antonin Scalia” school of thought and the “William Brennan” school of thought. To deny that a teacher has the responsibility to present both schools of thought without bias is to deny that one of those Supreme Court Justices has legitimacy as a jurist.
Personally, I fall in the Originalist camp. But I recognize that honorable people can disagree about that and prefer to argue the issue outright rather than deny that one side even be listenned to.
But does anyone really consistently subscribe to “originalism” or is it often just used as a convenient excuse to not read into the Constitution what you don’t agree with anyway. For example, can the decision in Bush vs. Gore (using the equal protection clause), signed off on by Scalia and Thomas, be justified on grounds of “originalism”? I am not saying it can’t but color me skeptical until shown otherwise.
That’s like saying a religion class should not teach about Catholicism because no one practices that religion in its purest form. At any rate, I’ll leave it to one our resident legal scholars to address the specific example cited. Just a side note: a strict originalist would have nipped the whole Florida recount thing in the bud at the state level when the Florida Sec of State certified the election per that state’s constutition. It was the “non-originalists” in the Florida Supreme Court who redefined the Florida Election law and caused the case to get kicked upstairs in the first place.
Man, that must be some college that guy went to. I was educated in public schools in Berkeley, California, and I was only taught number three. The others I learned on my own… (j/k)
But the author apparently has a pretty poor grip on history, or at least seems to treat facts with the same regard as, say, Ann Coulter – that is, ignore 'em when they get in the way of a good argument. In rebuttal to the allegation that America was founded on racism, he offers: “Slavery existed in areas of the United States from 1776, when the colonies declared their independence from Britain, to 1865, when Congress adopted the Thirteenth Amendment.”
I bet he’s just bitter because he flunked history classes with arguments like this. As if slavery did not exist in colonial America…
