Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
    Loading
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • “A Critique of Two Left-of-Centre Views of the United States Constitution: Professor Akhil Amar & Professor Lawrence Lessig”

    Posted by Jonathan on December 28th, 2015 (All posts by )

    A new post from Seth Barrett Tillman:

    Professor Akhil Amar (Yale Law School) and Professor Lawrence Lessig (Harvard Law School) have both written on the scope of the Constitution’s office-language. Indeed, their individual views on the scope of the Constitution’s office-language are central to (some of) the leading theories they have each popularized.
     
    [. . .]
     
    Amar and Lessig cannot both be correct. At most: only one can be correct. We, the public, deserve a full, meaningful debate: not a cult—or, even, two well-placed elite academic cults—whose chief sacraments are omerta and humbug.
     
    Will anyone—particularly those on the Left—step forward? Or will the many who have supported both Professor Amar’s and Professor Lessig’s views in this matter continue to support both, notwithstanding that these two views contradict one another?

     

    12 Responses to ““A Critique of Two Left-of-Centre Views of the United States Constitution: Professor Akhil Amar & Professor Lawrence Lessig””

    1. dearieme Says:

      When I appeared as an expert witness in an English court, my side’s barrister carefully briefed me that I was not to think of myself as being like an American expert witness (at least as presented on TV): as an officer of the court I had to give my honest and impartial view even though only one side had paid me.

      I thought that an interesting use of “officer”: presumably you guys share it? Couldn’t it be a guide to Constitutional usage?

      Still, that has little bearing on the question of why lefties might be so happy to adopt two conflicting views. Surely that remarkable ability is well known: one can speak all sorts of lefty platitudes while ensuring that one’s actions in private life are completely incompatible with them.

    2. PenGun Says:

      This largely escapes me, I am impressed by the American ability to worship things however.

      This does appear to be a discussion about wording in a document you appear to worship. Worship has become a problem world wide, as you may have noticed. It’s why you kill each other.

      Oh well carry on worshiping stuff if that’s what you need, but look at the results in other places as to how useful this may be. They all claim to have the one true way, just like you.

    3. Jonathan Says:

      Pengun, you may find this film segment instructive:

    4. Mrs. Davis Says:

      Might but won’t. He knows more than you do.

    5. PenGun Says:

      One of my favorites. I do understand the patriarchal control systems rather well. It’s one of the things I find fascinating.

      Ever since, forever, the big boys have been playing no rules hardball. This has produced the world’s popular religions, which exist largely to control their populations. There is no enlightenment I could find there, so I left.

    6. vxxc2014 Says:

      Both are Priest class Humbug.

      Do spare the long suffering American Public any more debate.

      The only Constitutional Question:

      How many divisions does either Prog have?

      How many Divisions does Harvard have intrinsically? That it could field?

      We should listen to neither except for the sound of stretching rope.

    7. Tyouth Says:

      Freaking Pen-Gun. He’s too intellectually lazy to get a grip on the subject yet, wallowing in his ignorance, something in his mental make-up compels him to get snarky.

      PG, you do have the right to remain silent; you know?

    8. Tyouth Says:

      As a voter I certainly find foreign “emouluments” received by ANY candidate to be disqualifying. They should be used “like a club” by his adversary to beat her.

    9. Sgt. Mom Says:

      Agree with Tyouth. Foreign contributions in any amount ought to be disqualifying.

    10. djf Says:

      The all-time champ for collecting “emoluments” from foreigners while holding federal “office” is Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. The emoluments were laundered through the cheesy Clinton Foundation, but it’s pretty clear what was going on.

      Of course, that won’t stop the learned Prof. Lessig, or any other progressive oh-so-piously-concerned about money corrupting our political system, from voting for her.

      The Left’s only principle is to further it’s own power and to degrade and warp the institutions and parts of the society by which it feels threatened. All other principles are subordinate to that goal.

    11. Michael Hiteshew Says:

      The Left’s only principle is to further it’s own power and to degrade and warp the institutions and parts of the society by which it feels threatened. All other principles are subordinate to that goal.

      True.

    12. Mike K Says:

      The left is convinced that they are the sole guarantor of US virtue. I have two leftist children who convince me of that if we ever got on the topic of politics.

      Not that they are guarantor but that they believe they are.