12-06-2017, 08:14
|
#2
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: State of confusion
Posts: 1,525
|
Guy sounds like a Muj. Anyone endorsed by the American Bar Association is hard-core leftist.
|
JimP is offline
|
|
12-06-2017, 08:23
|
#3
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: State of confusion
Posts: 1,525
|
Edit: danged "controlled-pair." Sorry -
|
JimP is offline
|
|
12-06-2017, 16:44
|
#4
|
Area Commander
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western WI
Posts: 6,824
|
Maybe try the online course at Hillsdale College here. Also, a required core course in residence at this school, regardless of major.
Online reading list here (their companion reader available free)
Hillsdale has it going on.
Disclaimer: Personally acquainted with one of their Sr. Econ profs who emigrated with his Dad here from former Yugoslavia and takes great delight in discussing the abject failure of socialism with his students.
__________________
"Civil Wars don't start when a few guys hunt down a specific bastard. Civil Wars start when many guys hunt down the nearest bastards."
The coin paid to enforce words on parchment is blood; tyrants will not be stopped with anything less dear. - QP Peregrino
|
Badger52 is offline
|
|
12-07-2017, 12:34
|
#5
|
Area Commander
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 1,588
|
I read an opinion piece somewhere this week where the author opined that the country would have been better off sticking with the "Articles of Confederation" rather than ratifying the Constitution.
I'm not familiar with the Articles of Confederation and will have to do some reading.
|
bblhead672 is offline
|
|
12-07-2017, 13:34
|
#6
|
Area Commander
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western WI
Posts: 6,824
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bblhead672
I read an opinion piece somewhere this week where the author opined that the country would have been better off sticking with the "Articles of Confederation" rather than ratifying the Constitution.
I'm not familiar with the Articles of Confederation and will have to do some reading.
|
If you're interested in putting a worthwhile reference on your shelf that can be passed down, try this. Pretty good discussion of the shortcomings of the original Articles of Confederation, as well as the rationale (good, bad, ugly, got uglier) of what came to be our Constitution. It names names so the next time someone just throws a blanket "Oh, yeah, I'm a devout Federalist baby, oo-RAH!" you'll understand where their brain cells are sitting, and that perhaps some of the revered founders may need to have the bubble around them cracked a bit.
It's well annotated and broken up sufficiently that it makes a good nightstand thing you can consume in chunks.
__________________
"Civil Wars don't start when a few guys hunt down a specific bastard. Civil Wars start when many guys hunt down the nearest bastards."
The coin paid to enforce words on parchment is blood; tyrants will not be stopped with anything less dear. - QP Peregrino
|
Badger52 is offline
|
|
12-07-2017, 13:53
|
#7
|
Area Commander
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 2,086
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Penn
|
Ouch...
Quote:
....tool and techniques for constitutional interpretation....
|
Quote:
This module teaches the interpretive technique of reading between the lines. This involves extracting, from the text, things that are implicit, but not expressly stated.
|
Sounds like a Living Document course.
__________________
Daniel
GM1 USNR (RET)
Si vis pacem, para bellum
|
Streck-Fu is offline
|
|
01-06-2018, 09:43
|
#8
|
Area Commander
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,462
|
Quote:
Sounds like a Living Document course.
|
It is, to argue against that position you must understand the origins and TTP, of those who view the Document as a living, breathing, evolving statement applied to the human social condition.
It has been interesting. What I treasure most is the knowledge of how difficult the process is to change the Constitution. The founders were correct in that regard. As lawyers, I am uncertain that they did not have the foresight to counter judicial review, which I suppose, brings into questions their long term future intention, that on the one hand created this incredibly difficult mechanism for change, while at the same time innately understood argument and reasonable settlement.
|
Penn is offline
|
|
01-06-2018, 10:29
|
#9
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 3,834
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Penn
It is, to argue against that position you must understand the origins and TTP, of those who view the Document as a living, breathing, evolving statement applied to the human social condition.
It has been interesting. What I treasure most is the knowledge of how difficult the process is to change the Constitution. The founders were correct in that regard. As lawyers, I am uncertain that they did not have the foresight to counter judicial review, which I suppose, brings into questions their long term future intention, that on the one hand created this incredibly difficult mechanism for change, while at the same time innately understood argument and reasonable settlement.
|
Good point, Penn!
I once argued for a "living" document approach to the Constitution. Boy, was I ever wrong!
Should that happen, we would have no Constitution at all. Separation of powers would be meaningless and all of the power would be centralized and "We the People" would be nothing more than meaningless pawns.
Wait, wasn't that the trajectory over the last 70+ years?
Reversing that trend is the raison d'etre for the rise of Populism and the salvation of our Constitutional Republic.
A strict constructionist view of the Constitution is essential to protecting "We the People".
The Amendment process provides the flexibility needed to provide adaptability over time and that should be difficult. And to that point, the most important modification we need presently, IMHO, is a repeal of the 17th Amendment.
__________________
Honor Above All Else
|
Trapper John is offline
|
|
01-06-2018, 11:06
|
#10
|
Area Commander
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western WI
Posts: 6,824
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trapper John
And to that point, the most important modification we need presently, IMHO, is a repeal of the 17th Amendment.
|
Woooh-boy, that would be some fun discussion since the very issue of provisioning Senators & their terms in the first place was such a hotly debated topic.
Bring your
__________________
"Civil Wars don't start when a few guys hunt down a specific bastard. Civil Wars start when many guys hunt down the nearest bastards."
The coin paid to enforce words on parchment is blood; tyrants will not be stopped with anything less dear. - QP Peregrino
|
Badger52 is offline
|
|
01-06-2018, 12:19
|
#11
|
Area Commander
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,690
|
Many of the people that argue the “living document” belief are those that want it to fit their narrative.
Brilliant men penned that document knowing exactly what they wanted it to mean for our country. Their desires and true meanings have never changed...only peoples attitudes and “softness” have.
|
Sohei is offline
|
|
01-06-2018, 12:51
|
#12
|
Area Commander
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,792
|
To paraphrase...the living document argument is seductive because it empowers judges and law professors...you can always reach a decision that you are happy with...
IMO it is time well spent to listen closely to the <14 minutes this GIANT shares with respect to the Constitution in the interview below.
Antonin Scalia - Philosophy of an Originalist
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XUnI3gaEmGY
__________________
The function of wisdom is to discriminate between good and evil.
Marcus Tullius Cicero
Last edited by tonyz; 01-06-2018 at 12:53.
|
tonyz is offline
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:56.
|
|
|