I just found out about this webcast going on in a few weeks. I've registered for all the events. Mike always likes to point out that I don't know much about the constitution. I would argue that what I don't, and neither do most people, know much about is all of the judicial interpretations throughout the years. And of course, in any event, those are all subject to review anyway. Regardless, more information is always good and I am very interested in increasing my knowledge. If you're interested go to http://www.constitutiondaycelebration.com to register.

spambot

I was going to use [psa] tags but I refrained. Sorry, I thought some people might be interested in this. In fact, if only one person is then I'll be happy I passed it on. If none are then nothing lost except the tiny drop in bandwidth that occurred when I posted this.

What IS this "Constitution"?

Describe it to me

WOOKIE STOP CLOGGING THE TUBES MAN ARGH

The constitution of the US. Some people would call it the supreme law of the land in the USA. Others would call it an obstacle.

I say keep the thread open, if there's any doubt about whether that's happening. I can't add anything more of substance tonight (here or in the Obama thread) but at least a few of these events look interesting and I'm all in favor of people being exposed to new ideas/information about the Constitution.

Why wouldn't the thread stay open, other than if it devolves into some flame warfare or something? It seemed like an interesting event and I wanted to share with some of you that I plan to "attend" the entire thing.

The Constitution seems overrated, although it is now better than originally since, for one, it doesn't allow slavery anymore.

(The Finnish one isn't overrated because it's a basis for law instead of a basis for worship.)

Maybe we should avoid phrases like "the constitution is overrated" and "the foundation of your government isn't even that cool" etc.

There's a reason I said "seems" instead of "is", which is that my understanding of your system is very lacking so it's an impression I've gotten as a foreigner.

As for the latter hypothetical sentence, yes I agree that shouldn't be said. There are some points where I think it's valid to look at the US founders critically, but the Constitution was indeed very progressive (sound familiar, Wookie?).

Ps. I do know that slavery was an inflammable subject at the time and putting "no slaves plz" in the Constitution wasn't even possible.

Oooo... I will be checking this out.

Oh man, I wanna participate in a discussion of the Constitution ®, but it always makes me all emotional, so I won't.

Constitution ®, **** yeah!

This is understandable.



Progressive is indeed a term that is relative to the time in which it is used. Today's progressive is more likely to view the constitution as an obstacle because, of course, it is an obstacle to progressive change. I think it is fair to say that the constitution represents progressive change from the previous government, though.



At least the ground work was laid.

This is literally one of the dumbest things ever written.

Unless, of course, we want to build an Islamic Terror Mosque.

I'm not sure I understand the relevance of the Constitution with regards to building a "terror mosque".



You must not know what a Progressive is in America today if you think there is no difference between a modern day Progressive and the "progressive" nature of the US Constitution.

OHHHHHHHHH that's what you're talking about

All this time I thought you guys were talking about

In my Federal Courts class right now, but I'll go ahead and recommend reading Justice David Souter's recent graduation speech for a pretty accessible and interesting take on constitutional interpretation.

Freedom of religion, duh. I'm pretty sure that's in the constitution somewhere.

"Be it forthwith efthablifhed that any terror mofque of fturdy conftruction fhall be hereby placed upon the hallowed groundf of zero."

I think it's inflammatory to refer to a mosque as a "terror mosque" but whatever floats your boat.

When so many New Yorkers are clearly terrified by it? Don't be ridiculous.

I think offended would be a better term.

Oh hey, one of the professors from my university will be in one of those Constitution Day events. A friend of mine took Sandy Levinson's class last semester and really enjoyed it. He (Levinson, not my friend) has got some far-out ideas though. Should be an interesting discussion.

Having looked around Hillsdale's website, though, I think it's clear that the institution has its own "originalist" slant and overall I'd expect to see that reflected in the events it's putting on. The Souter speech I linked to is a good counterpoint to that.

To me that seemed like an odd speech for a graduation but it was interesting to read his view.

So, not that too many here will care, this starts tomorrow. I went ahead and installed FRAPS so I can record these things. I'm really looking forward to webcasts that pertain to interpretting the constitution. Something I didn't like in the speech I referenced above was how Souter just offhandedly dismissed the content of the First Amendment, that "Congress shall make no law" really meant all government. I hold that the people that wrote the constitution knew what they meant and carefully worded things. In fact, his (Souter's) thought process seems at odds with itself by saying they were intentionally vague in some areas, which they were, but when they were specific they clearly must have meant something else. Damn you, gHwb. Yeah, that's right. His almost middle name was Herbert.

Oh, are you *****ing about incorporation again? I think you must be, because it's a matter of simple logic that the First Amendment applies to the other branches of the federal government. If Congress can't make a law abridging freedom of speech (and I'll stipulate for simplicity's sake that this restriction is absolute, even though that's an absurd proposition in reality), then it certainly can't delegate to an executive agency the power to make regulations abridging the freedom of speech, and the courts can't provide a legal remedy that abridges freedom of speech.

Well, simplifying this, overly perhaps, the fact that congress can't do it means the executive branch can't sign off on it and the courts can't affirm it. However "lower", ie state governments, aren't a part of that chain. Or so my general opinion goes. Again, a reason I've been looking forward to this.

The Constitution is a pretty great thing. Good job on that.

There is a speaker on campus today who will talk about this, but I have a Fire Dynamics lab so I probably can't go (unless I can read a deposition in less than an hour).