The Constitution of the United States of America

[Penn]

One of the pointed discussion here has been the malleable constitution. That said, for those interested, it might make for an interesting point of departure if a few of us were to enroll in this free course, especially so, considering the source material and the professors possible proclivity.

America's Unwritten Constitution
https://www.coursera.org/learn/unwritten-constitution
https://www.coursera.org/instructor/akhilamar
https://fedsoc.org/

[JimP]

Guy sounds like a Muj. Anyone endorsed by the American Bar Association is hard-core leftist.

[JimP]

Edit: danged "controlled-pair." Sorry -

[Badger52]

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.

[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.

[Badger52]

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.

[Streck-Fu]

Originally Posted by Penn

https://www.coursera.org/learn/unwritten-constitution

Ouch...

....tool and techniques for constitutional interpretation....

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.

[Penn]

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.

[Trapper John]

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.

[Badger52]

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

[Sohei]

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.

[tonyz]

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