United States Constitution and Government > Likes and Comments
"In framing a system which we wish to last for ages, we shd. not lose sight of the changes which ages will produce."- James Madison, speech in the Constitutional Convention, June 26, 1787, in The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, ed. Max Farrand (New Haven: Yale University Press), 1966), 1:422.
Here are some relevant quotations from American Founders on separation of church and state:"[W]hen they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of Separation between the Garden of the Church and the Wildernes of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall it selfe, removed the Candlestick, &c. and made his Garden a Wildernesse, as at this day."
- Roger Williams, Mr. Cottons Letter Lately Printed, Examined and Answered, 45 (London, 1644), reprinted in The Complete Writings of Roger Williams, 1:108.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ."
- First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, ratified December 15, 1791.
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
- Letter of Thomas Jefferson to Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge and Others, a Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, in the State of Connecticut, January 1, 1802, in Daniel L. Dreisbach, Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation between Church and State (New York: New York University Press, 2002), Kindle ed., app. 6, loc. 2919-23 (quoting exactly from the original manuscript and correcting a common misquotation; I do not agree with Dreisbach's historical interpretation, but he properly quoted this original manuscript).
"[T]here remains [in some parts of the country] a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Govt. & Religion neither can be duly supported. Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst. And in a Govt. of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together. . . . Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Govt."
- Letter of James Madison to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822, in James Madison: Writings, ed. Jack N. Rakove (New York: Library of America, 1999), 788-89.
The nature of the U.S. system of government was changed by the Civil War (1861-65), the presidency of Abraham Lincoln (1861-65), and the ratification of the Thirteenth (1865), Fourteenth (1868), and Fifteenth (1860) Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. As a young man, Lincoln gave a remarkable speech in 1838 that presaged much of his future thinking. Although Lincoln's views on African Americans apparently evolved even during the last couple years of his life (he was assassinated in 1865) and although such views were probably never identical to the accepted views of today, he made a long intellectual journey. The following quotation from his early speech set forth the fundamental principle by which Lincoln attempted, during the ensuing decades, to guide his political thought and action. It is also a principle that could be appropriately consulted at a time, such as the present, when American political disputes are conducted with an extreme emotionalism reminiscent of the years preceding the Civil War. (Note: Lincoln used a meaning of the word "passion" that was more common in his and earlier centuries than in ours: "passion" meant, in this context, anger and emotionalism as distinguished from rational and calm thinking and expression.)"Passion has helped us; but can do so no more. It will in future be our enemy. Reason, cold, calculating, unimpassioned reason, must furnish all the materials for our future support and defence."
- Abraham Lincoln, "The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions," Address to the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois, January 27, 1838, in Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and Writings, 1832-1858, ed. Don E. Fehrenbacher (New York: Library of America, 1989), 36.
Follow-up to the preceding post:"The most significant and conclusive constitutional decision was not rendered by a court of law but delivered at the famous meeting of General Grant and General Lee at Appomattox."
Andrew C. McLaughlin, A Constitutional History of the United States (1935; repr., Safety Harbor, FL: Simon Publications, 2001), 1:vii.
I have discussed some of the principles and history of the U.S. institution of judicial review in my paper "A Modest Proposal: Same-Sex Marriage and Judicial Review".
An article by two historians in the current issue of the American Historical Association's publication Perspectives on History discusses the historical background of U.S. Supreme Court and other federal appellate jurisprudence on the question of the constitutional and statutory rights of for-profit and nonprofit corporations. Note the difference between the late Chief Justice Rehnquist's approach and that of the majority in the Court's recent Hobby Lobby case. I have been dissatisfied with the superficiality of most media accounts, left or right, of these issues. This analysis by American historians provides valuable information about the constitutional and statutory status of corporations in U.S. history.
Although it is not my intention for this group to debate current political topics, today's inconsistent decisions in the federal appellate system implicate certain structural issues in U.S. government.Today's 2-1 decision of a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit striking down federal subsidies for otherwise qualified people in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) federal exchange can be accessed here. Today's 3-0 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upholding federal subsidies for people in the federal exchange can be located here. I have not yet read these inconsistent opinions. My understanding is that the U.S. Department of Justice will appeal to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals en banc (including all or most of the D.C. Circuit judges not on senior status). Since there appear to be more Democratic than Republican appointees on the en banc court (probably thanks to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's recent decision not to allow filibusters on judicial appointments to federal courts below the Supreme Court), the panel decision is likely to be reversed. In that event, both the D.C. Circuit and the Fourth Circuit will have upheld the Obama administration's interpretation of the Affordable Care Act, and the Supreme Court would not feel absolutely compelled to take the case. They still could accept a petition for certiorari from the plaintiffs, however, in which event the outcome would depend on Chief Justice John Roberts and/or Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, with all the other votes probably falling predictably on either side of the left-right divide on the Court. If, of course, there turns out to be an ultimate split among the federal courts of appeals on this issue, or even if one of the circuits finally holds the Obama administration's interpretation of that part of the ACA unconstitutional, it is probable that the Supreme Court will take the case. The administration probably feels a greater likelihood of success in the en banc D.C. Circuit Court than in the Supreme Court.
We have many nonlawyers and many people from other countries in this Goodreads group. Although I am now retired from the practice of law (and have changed my law licenses to permanent "retired" status), I can probably answer any general procedural questions that group members may have on how the U.S. federal judicial system works. During my more than three decades of law practice, I had many cases in the federal appellate courts, including but not limited to preparing and filing petitions for certiorari and oppositions to petitions for certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court. Any comments I might make, however, do not and will not constitute the practice of law, for which I am no longer licensed. Rather, I address these issues from the perspective of a constitutional law scholar, as distinguished from as a lawyer.
Today's decision by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, holding that the Affordable Care Act does not violate the Origination Clause of the U.S. Constitution, can be located here. The case is Sissel v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Case No. 13-5202. The Origination Clause (article I, section 7, clause 1) provides: "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills." The unsuccessful plaintiff may seek review by the full court (en banc review) or file a petition for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Alan wrote: "Today's 3-0 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upholding federal subsidies for people in the federal exchange can be located here"According to media reports, the plaintiffs in the Fourth Circuit case have now filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court. It is possible that the Supreme Court might await the outcome of the petition for en banc review in the D.C. Circuit case before ruling on the petition for certiorari in the Fourth Circuit case. If the en banc court in the D.C. Court of Appeals case denies en banc review (it is discretionary) or affirms, the Supreme Court will almost have to take the case as a result of the circuit split on the issue.
The August 2014 issue of The Federal Lawyer has two interesting book reviews by U.S. constitutional law scholar Louis Fisher. Unlike most discussion in the popular media, Fisher discusses constitutional law issues in depth, whether one agrees with him or not. The two reviews by Fisher are the second and third reviews here. I myself currently take no position on these difficult issues.
I have reviewed Jill Lepore's The Whites of Their Eyes: The Tea Party's Revolution and the Battle over American History here.
Although I am now retired from the practice of law (and am on permanent retirement status with all bars and courts to which I was formerly admitted), I was an attorney in much constitutional and public law litigation for more than two decades of my legal career (which, overall, spanned the years 1979-2012). Those cases often involved 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (a Reconstruction-era civil rights act) and corresponding constitutional issues involving the application of the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution to federal constitutional issues involving local governments and their public officials (whom I normally represented by way of being appointed as defense counsel by their respective insurance carriers).As a result of my involvement in such constitutional litigation, I became quite familiar with the leading Supreme Court and other federal cases of the past three decades on these constitutional provisions. Although I have sometimes read scholarly works on constitutional law and American history, I did not have much time to focus on such secondary analyses during the time I was a practicing lawyer. Now, after finishing and publishing my book on Roger Williams ( The First American Founder: Roger Williams and Freedom of Conscience ), I have returned to more general constitutional and historical studies. I have recently read, and recommend, David Sehat's The Jefferson Rule: How the Founding Fathers Became Infallible and Our Politics Inflexible (for some reason Goodreads has a different subtitle for the Kindle edition) and Michael Kent Curtis's No State Shall Abridge: The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights. Curtis's book establishes, by way of copious documentation of the legislative and other relevant history, that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to incorporate all of the first eight amendments to the Constitution as well as other federal constitutional rights referenced in the Ninth Amendment or in the text of the original Constitution itself. Curtis was responding to much more restrictive interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment, including a book I am currently reading: Raoul Berger's Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment, 2nd ed. (again, Goodreads has an incorrect subtitle for the Kindle edition). Berger, who is a favorite of the conservative legal community, argues, for example, that the reapportionment and school desegregation (Brown v. Board of Education et al.) decisions were wrongly decided because the Fourteenth Amendment does not permit the Supreme Court to make such pronouncements affecting local government.
I may have more to say about these constitutional issues in the future. For now, I am still studying what the various secondary commentators have to say.
Alan,I write to start a discussion on the Second Amendment. One hears almost daily on public media in the US about the "constitutional right to bear arms". It is almost always assumed that the individual right to carry a firearm is somehow embedded in the phrase, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Yet in the dissent to DC vs Heller, Justice Stevens wrote, "Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution." This dissent was joined by the smartest members of the Supreme Court at the time: Ginsburg, Souter and Breyer. But a majority of five right-wing justices appointed by Republicans held, in contrast, that there was such an individual right. Are we a government of laws or of men? And what do you think of the arguments on either side in this case?
Cheers,
Randal
Randal wrote: "Alan,I write to start a discussion on the Second Amendment. One hears almost daily on public media in the US about the "constitutional right to bear arms". It is almost always assumed that the in..."
This is a complicated issue on which people have people have very strong opinions on both sides. I am not an expert on it, but the following are my tentative thoughts:
On June 26, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court decided District of Columbia v. Heller. Justice Scalia wrote the Opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito joined. Justice Stevens wrote a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer joined. Justice Breyer wrote a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg joined. Under well-established canons of judicial review, the Opinion of the Court, authored by Justice Scalia, is controlling law unless and until it is overruled by a future Supreme Court majority.
Justice Scalia's Opinion of the Court held that "the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home."
When Justice Scalia qualified this holding with the proviso "[a]ssuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights," he was referring to his earlier discussion of qualifications and exceptions to the Second Amendment right: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489-490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students' Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." In a footnote, Scalia stated: "We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive." Scalia further stated: "We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time.' 307 U.S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons'" (quoting Blackstone; citations omitted).
Thus, Scalia's opinion is not as broad as it would have been if he had been merely parroting the position of the National Rifle Association.
Scalia divorced the constitutional right to bear arms (subject to his qualifications and exceptions) from the militia clause. The dissenting opinions strongly challenged that divorce. It may very well be the case that the dissenters had the better history. However, Scalia had a majority of five of nine justices sign his opinion. Unless and until at least five justices in the future overrule Heller, Scalia's opinion will be recognized by all lower courts as the prevailing interpretation of the Second Amendment.
Heller involved a case arising from the District of Columbia. Accordingly, it involved only an entity that is a creature of the federal government. One question remaining after Heller was whether the Second Amendment, including the holding in that case, would apply to state (and thus local) governments under the Fourteenth Amendment's "incorporation" jurisprudence. (From the beginning of the republic, local governments have been considered to be merely political subdivisions of state governments and thus subject to the same constitutional limitations, though this is somewhat complicated by the Supreme Court's Eleventh Amendment jurisprudence that limits state—but not local—governmental liability for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.)
The Fourteenth Amendment incorporation issue was settled by the U.S. Supreme Court's June 28, 2010 decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago. The Supreme Court held, in an opinion by Justice Alito, joined in relevant part by a majority of the justices, that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Second Amendment so as to apply that amendment to state and local government. I will be restudying this opinion soon, because it appears that it may reject the earlier conservative view (as in Berger's Government by Judiciary) that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights. It should also be observed that Curtiss's No State Shall Abridge, discussed in an earlier post, repeatedly cited statements of the Fourteenth Amendment framers that African Americans had been denied the right to bear arms. Thus, the "liberal" position of today appears to be in conflict with the "liberal" position at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted by Congress and ratified by the state legislatures.
McDonald did not revisit Heller but merely addressed the Fourteenth Amendment issue. I would again note that Scalia's opinion in Heller does not prevent all regulation of guns, including many regulations currently being considered by progressives; the holding in that case is rather narrow. Although I tend to sympathize with progressive arguments in many areas, I am not so sure that the right to self-defense with a firearm is not, subject to appropriate regulation, a fundamental natural right and possibly a constitutional right either under the Second or Ninth Amendments. There may come a time in this country, as there was at earlier times, when there is a need to be able to defend oneself and one's family with lethal force. I do not, of course, support any alleged right to own a gun in order to resist the government. Any such approach is, among other things, purely illusory given the mismatch between the government and the individual from the perspective of available force.
Thank you Allan for that informed and nuanced perspective on the 2nd. I, for decades had the usual fixation on the militia clause and its historical anchor in 18th c custom. Recent reading has suggested and your explanation supports stronger constitutional support for the 2nd. Context is everything, and each and everyone of the Founders positions was of course grounded in their both their study of historic republics and nations as well as their appreciation for and support of their current society's traditions. As Gordon Wood and others have written, the Founders were radical within a conservative tradition. The radicalism of the revolution was, in my understanding, skin deep, notwithstanding much scholarship arguing the opposite view.
Charles wrote: "Thank you Allan for that informed and nuanced perspective on the 2nd. I, for decades had the usual fixation on the militia clause and its historical anchor in 18th c custom. Recent reading has sugg..."As I stated in my post 16, however, "It may very well be the case that the dissenters had the better history." It's been a few years since I studied the dissenting opinions in depth, but I recall concluding that they were probably correct from a historical perspective and that Justice Scalia and his conservative band were departing significantly from their "original intent" and strict construction jurisprudence in holding otherwise. Nevertheless, I tend to think that there is some sort of basic right to self defense that may even be rooted in natural right and thus a referent of the Ninth Amendment, if "strict construction" precludes utilization of the Second Amendment for that purpose. Of course, that would raise other questions of judicial interpretation. There is also a practical issue insofar as domestic violence, impulsive suicide, and accidental death (children playing with guns in the household, for example) are often facilitated by guns in the home. I don't know how to balance such factors against the need to protect oneself against criminal elements. I lived in Hyde Park (University of Chicago neighborhood) in Chicago from 1964 to 1970 and was accosted by gangs on a number of occasions. One gang almost entered my apartment when I was sleeping (they cleaned out the apartment below me). Two of my classmates were murdered, and female college students were routinely raped. One of my roommates was assaulted on the street and almost killed. Fifty years later, nothing has changed in Chicago (per objective news accounts on PBS's News Hour). I don't know what the solution is. But I'm not sure that taking all guns away from law-abiding citizens is the answer. There will always, of course, be a black market in guns even if guns are illegal. I hold no brief for Scalia (and usually disagree with him), but he did point to a proper role for governmental regulation regarding guns. Unfortunately, even minimal regulation has become impossible as a result of politicians of both parties being controlled by the gun lobby. Thus, lunatics can obtain relatively easy access to guns for use in mass shootings.
Alan wrote: "Nevertheless, I tend to think that there is some sort of basic right to self defense that may even be rooted in natural law ..."Hobbes would agree, but we are not limited to his arguments when addressing the idea of rights! I have tried to do justice (!) to what I call Amartya Sen's "Sceptical defense of rights" here. He tries to thread the needle between a Benthamite dismissal of natural right ("nonsense upon stilts") and the natural rights tradition (Hobbes, Locke, etc. up to Leo Stauss.) He tries to ground his defense in Adam Smith's theory of the impartial spectator. I remain a sceptic of both traditions, but recognize that we need to make our way in the world somehow. Your practical attitude may well be as good as we can get.
As relates to "gun rights" one way of looking at it would be from the societal perspective: comparative analysis of societies that closely regulate guns (England) and more shoot-em up cultures like our own or worse (Iraq!) More dead people in Iraq or the US than in England. Do you like more dead people or no? But historical perspectives also need to be accounted for.
In any case, thanks so much for your analysis of Heller. I haven't read Breyer or Scalia's arguments. I will try to do so.
Another interesting perspective here starts from Justice Souter's commencement speech at Harvard in 2010. He makes the important point here that one of the problems with the "strict constuctivist" view in US constitutional law is that the "original" document contains contradictory positions. One might use this sort of argument to forgive Scalia's contradictory (if nuanced - thanks again for your analysis) justification of gun rights, in departure, as you say, from his usually argued "original intent" view. But few would argue that contradictory agument based on a contradictory document is the best we can do. Souter certainly didn't when he signed on to Justice Stevens's dissent in Heller.
Cheers,
Randal
Randal wrote: "Alan wrote: "Nevertheless, I tend to think that there is some sort of basic right to self defense that may even be rooted in natural law ..."Hobbes would agree, but we are not limited to his arg..."
Leo Strauss, if I understand him correctly, traced the idea of natural right back to Plato, Aristotle et al. He distinguished the concept from medieval natural law as well as from the natural rights social contract theories of Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau et al. Nevertheless, Strauss appeared to sympathize with the formulation of natural rights as expressed, for example, in the U.S. Declaration of Independence. (See, for example, the beginning of his Natural Right and History.)
What I mean by a "natural right" is a right that is not granted by government (though it is properly recognized by government) but rather arises from the nature of humankind. For example, the initiation of physical force by private actors against individual human beings violates the right to life. Slavery violates the natural right to liberty. And so forth. The concept of the United States, as understood by most of the Founders (with a few glaring inconsistencies such as slavery), was that government exists, at least in part, to protect natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under the U.S. Constitution, as amended, one cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law (Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clauses; cf. Thirteenth Amendment, § 1; Fifth Amendment Takings Clause). In other words, under the social contract, government can deprive someone of life only by way of proper judicial procedures in capital criminal cases (setting aside, for the moment, the question whether the state should ever impose capital punishment) or in a "just war" (whatever that is, which is another very difficult question). Similarly, under the social contract, one cannot be deprived of liberty "except as punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted" (Thirteenth Amendment, § 1). However, some curtailment of economic liberty and property meets due process standards (according to Supreme Court jurisprudence) when properly enacted by Congress or other legislatures. There is, nevertheless, a limit: the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause (applied to state and local government by way of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause) requires the government to pay for property that it entirely "takes." One of the issues I sometimes addressed in the litigation in which I was formerly involved as an attorney was this: when does a regulation cross the line such that it becomes a "regulatory taking" of "all economically viable use" that, as such, is subject to the Takings Clause instead of the Due Process Clause? There is a substantial body of Supreme Court and other case law on all these questions.
So there is a distinction between natural rights and constitutional rights. Additionally, there are positive legal rights in the form of statutory and common law. Contrary to what many people think, much of our tort and contract law derives not from statutes passed by legislatures but rather from centuries of judge-made common law. If one doesn't believe me on this issue, one could consult Sir Edward Coke. (See Appendix A to my recent book about his law clerk and protégé, Roger Williams.) However, common law crimes have been abolished in the United States. To the best of my knowledge, all crimes in the state and federal systems are now carefully defined by statute.
I definitely do not accept the notion of legal positivism—that that state alone defines rights and that nobody has any rights other than those defined by positive law. As explained above, there are natural rights that supersede and inform positive legal rights. Conservatives would call these "God-given rights." If, however, they are "God-given," they are so only in an indirect way in the sense that God created a universe of natural laws, including human nature (at least as it evolved in the manner discovered by Darwin and his successors). But one does not have to introduce God into the equation to recognize natural rights based on an analysis of what human nature is. By the way, the word "Creator" was not in Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence. Julian P. Boyd, The Declaration of Independence: The Evolution of the Text, rev. ed., ed. Gerard W. Gewalt (Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 1999), 25-28, 59-60 (analysis of the language of Jefferson's original draft before it was modified by others); Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789, vol. 5, ed. Worthington Chauncey Ford (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1906), 491-92 and editorial note at 491n1. Moreover, Jefferson and many of the "elitist" Founders were Deists who did not believe in direct revelation.
Thank you for the link to Justice Souter's speech. I do not agree with the "original intent" or "strict construction" model of judicial review for a number of reasons. In this connection, I recommend an excellent book that was published a few months ago: David Sehat's The Jefferson Rule: How the Founding Fathers Became Infallible and Our Politics Inflexible (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2015). Among other things, Sehat's book points out that the generation that fought the Revolutionary War and established the Constitution and Bill of Rights disagreed significantly among themselves about the proper role of government (the conflict between Hamilton and Jefferson, with their respective parties, being the most obvious example). Accordingly, any attempt to ascertain "original intent" is impossible. There was no "original intent"; there were, rather, conflicting "original intents" that correspond, in important ways, to today's political divisions. It should also be observed that, at the time of the founding of the United States, communications and transportation were little developed, and the individual states were essentially separate little polities with much different customs and traditions. Many of the New England states had established churches and discriminated against Baptists and other religious dissenters. Virginia, in contrast, gave up its established church and pursued a policy of substantial freedom of conscience within the first decade after independence (thanks to Jefferson, Madison, and Baptists carrying on the tradition of Roger Williams). Rhode Island had recognized liberty of conscience and separation of church and state since it first became a colony (called "Providence Plantations") in 1644-47 (and earlier in the Town of Providence established by Roger Williams in 1636).
Of course, judicial review sometimes leads to bad results, and some progressives have opposed it for that reason. The classic example is Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857). The Supreme Court during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was also quite activist in striking down state and federal regulatory legislation in order to protect the financial bottom line of big corporations (no deference to state and federal legislatures by those conservatives!).
The foregoing is enough for now. I may add to this post if I can find something I wrote a few weeks ago. But I cannot currently locate it.
Randal wrote: "Another interesting perspective here starts from Justice Souter's commencement speech at Harvard in 2010."I've now read Justice Souter's speech. It is excellent. Unfortunately, unlike some of his former colleagues, Justice Souter has evidently not published a book setting forth in detail his views on judicial review.
I'll chime in here with my less-than-scholarly opinion:Randal hints that he thinks we need to look at the practicalities of the situation, and I agree. Unlike during colonial times, most of us live in densely-populated areas where there’s lots of traffic and aggravation.
I shudder to think of myself in rush hour traffic with a gun in the car to shoot instead of just a finger (which I used liberally before retirement). I also remember the decades of my deep depression. It would have been so tempting to just end it with a quick shot to the head if there had been a gun around.
Speaking of rights, don’t I have the right to live in a civilized country where I don’t have to fear going to the movies or the mall or the gym because some asshole might start shooting? What about the rights of our children to be safe in school?
And don't tell me more guns are the answer. More guns just turn this country into the decidedly uncivilized Wild West.
I think our right to live in a civilized place trumps anyone's imagined right to carry any gun any time any place.
Mimi wrote: "Speaking of rights, don’t I have the right to live in a civilized country where I don’t have to fear going to the movies or the mall or the gym because some asshole might start shooting? What about the rights of our children to be safe in school?..."Thank you, Mimi! Your forthrightness inspires me to come out of the closet here on guns: I sorely wish that you had been the fifth member of the Supremes on that day when Justice Stevens delivered what would then have been his majority opinion. Yes, it would take a good while for the US to flush all of the guns out of it's gun-soaked system, but I would join your opinion and start today having all firearms severely limited to back-up police squads as they are in England. The arguments about personal protection are all dogs that simply don't hunt, as one might say! We know that the likelihood of gun violence goes through the roof when there is a gun in the household or in the glove box. Duh! What did we think guns were for?
Cheers,
Randal
I note that guns will always be available to those who want them on the black market, even if they are prohibited by law. Look at all the drug laws. Have they stopped people from buying and using drugs illicitly? The same would happen if guns were outlawed. The law-abiding citizen would be defenseless against criminals who would buy guns illegally. Although many of us do not live in an area where self-defense is necessary, some other people may live in such areas (and I myself lived in such an area during the 1960s, even though I did not have a gun for self-defense; my solution was to move). The future may bring us to a situation where more of us may need guns for self-defense. Legal prohibitions against guns will not prevent criminals from obtaining them. In fact, such laws would only encourage those who obtain guns illegally, because they would know that the law-abiding citizens would not have them for self-defense.That said, appropriate laws are needed in the area of gun regulation, including but not limited to prohibiting lunatics and felons from having guns. Much more could be done, even within the framework of the Heller decision, if only Congress and the state legislatures were not so much in the control of the gun lobby.
I acknowledge, as I stated in my post, that there are practical problems regarding domestic violence, accidental death, and impulsive suicide. Perhaps, on balance, these issues overbalance the legitimate use of guns for self-defense. But, unless and until Heller is overruled, it is an academic question.
A final comment about England. Unlike the United States, England was, for many centuries, an essentially monocultural society without all that much internal violence. They didn't even need a police force until recently. The exceptions were, of course, the seventeenth-century English civil wars (fought over religion) and the borderlands wars with Scotland (also, of course, the situation regarding Ireland, but that was not so much an internal English issue except when the IRA manifested itself in England in the twentieth century, and the occasional sixteenth- and seventeenth-century terrorist acts by some Roman Catholic elements, prompted by Spain or France, against the English Anglican government). I have been unable to locate something I wrote a few weeks ago on this subject, which included a reference to an analogous situation in Canada. Although I cannot find the article (or my writing about it) with the Canada reference (the Canadian author stated that government and law always preceded the frontier in Canada, thus making the frontier more civilized), the book American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America by Colin Woodard shows that the Scottish border peoples were long afflicted with a lawless warrior culture and that many of these Scottish warrior types settled the frontier areas in America, thus imparting their warlike and antigovernment attitudes to those areas. See also the discussion of "Borderlands to the Backcountry" in Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America by David Hackett Fischer. In contrast to England (south of the border with Scotland) and Canada, the frontier areas in America did not receive effective government until, probably, the twentieth century. But by then the cultural patterns were so ingrained that these attitudes persist even today in those areas. Such factors go far to explain the current red state-blue state divide in the United States, especially on the issue of gun control.
On July 2, 2015, Colin Woodard published an update to his book American Nations here. His forthcoming book American Character: A History of the Epic Struggle Between Individual Liberty and the Common Good will be published on March 15, 2016. I have preordered it.
History explains why the U.S. is the way it is, but that doesn't mean we have to continue this obsession with guns forever. Maybe someday this country will as civilized as Canada and Northern Europe. We can dream, can't we?
Mimi wrote: "History explains why the U.S. is the way it is, but that doesn't mean we have to continue this obsession with guns forever. Maybe someday this country will as civilized as Canada and Northern Euro..."It has lasted for hundreds of years. Perhaps in another couple hundred years or more it will be different. But, given the persistence of the cultural patterns, I'm not holding my breath.
I'm with you Alan in this. Dreaming about getting rid of guns in the U.S seems like dreaming about perpetual peace, love and understanding. Wonderful concepts and the origin of many a song in 1968 but not a basis for improving our lives in the here and now . The U.S. Is different because it is. Each society has their own peculiarities ; the royals for England , intellectuals and 250 types of cheese for the French. I hope that we can place common sense limits on gun ownership ; and believe we are, as a nation , moving in that direction no matter the NRA.
When I referred in an earlier post to Colin Woodard's American Nations and David Hackett Fischer's Albion's Seed, I was relying on my memory (a dangerous practice at my age!). Both of these books did, indeed, discuss the Scottish borderlanders, their migration to America, and their influence on American history. In looking at these books again, however, I see that Fischer discussed the Scottish borderland culture and its transplantation in America in considerable detail (see pages 605-782 of Albion's Seed). Woodard, who wrote later, cited but did not attempt to replicate Fischer's analysis. Instead, he emphasized some of the continuing influences of this culture throughout American history. Needless to say, Presidents Jackson and Polk were among the American political leaders within this tradition.I have never owned a gun and have no love of guns. My previous posts are merely an attempt to come to terms with reality, especially American historical reality as it existed yesterday, exists today, and will likely exist in the foreseeable future. My study of history makes me a realist. My study of philosophy fosters my more idealistic side. But I try never to confuse the two. History shows that the road to hell is often paved with good intentions. As I have discussed above, however, I do not necessarily accept the majority's dismissal of the militia clause in Heller. Moreover, as I think all contributors to the present discussion agree, there is much that could be done within the confines of Heller. If, some day, Heller is overruled (a not impossible scenario given the turnout of Democratic voters in presidential election years, especially if the Republicans insist on nominating presidential candidates with views far outside the mainstream), the question will become a matter of what is politically possible and pragmatically desirable. But even in that case I do not believe that Congress and/or the state legislatures will at any time in the near future outlaw the possession of ordinary handguns for self-defense purposes by sane, law-abiding citizens. I believe that a cultural revolution in the United States would be necessary for such a result—a revolution that will certainly not happen during my lifetime. My study of history shows that we sometimes make progress. We no longer have slavery, for example. But the progress is very slow and sometimes reverses itself. For example, although slavery was abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment and disenfranchisement of African American voters by the Fifteenth Amendment, laws and/or ingrained customs have continued ever since to suppress the African American vote and to discriminate in other ways against African Americans. I am currently reading Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment, 2nd edition (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1997), in which law professor Raoul Berger (1901-2000) argued that the Supreme Court violated the U.S. Constitution when it used the Fourteenth Amendment to outlaw school racial segregation in Brown v. Board of Education and to require "one man [person] one vote" in reapportionment cases. (Berger's views were effectively refuted in Michael Kent Curtis's No State Shall Abridge: The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1986), which I recently read, and other works.) Berger's book is among those voices calling on the United States to favor "states' rights" (the calling card of the slavery and segregationist movements since at least the early nineteenth century) over individual rights. So the battle is long, and progress is slow. Let us hope that progress is nevertheless permanent.
I think the best case for "bearing arms" is that ultimately, the only final defense against tyranny is for the people to have the ability to overthrow their government. I've reluctantly come to that conclusion over the last three or four years. The Federalist Papers was probably the biggest contributor to this belief, but I also found some similar ideas in The Old Regime and the Revolution that reinforced it from a historic perspective. Admittedly, this belief leaves me just as confused over the practical ramifications as anyone else. We don't want it to be too easy to overthrow our government (chaos), and in theory you could expand that view to say that people should be allowed to bear any arms - like nuclear weapons (some clear problems there). So, I accept that even my view requires some subjective delineation between acceptable "arms" and unacceptable "arms". But as someone who loves liberty, I am willing to err on the side of protecting it. I certainly don't think that makes me uncivilized.
John wrote: "I think the best case for "bearing arms" is that ultimately, the only final defense against tyranny is for the people to have the ability to overthrow their government. I've reluctantly come to th..."As I said in my post 16, above: "I do not, of course, support any alleged right to own a gun in order to resist the government. Any such approach is, among other things, purely illusory given the mismatch between the government and the individual from the perspective of available force." The only way to control the government is to vote--and to vote on the basis of well-informed opinion (as distinguished from being influenced by demagogues, of which there are many preaching their wares today). Unfortunately, gerrymandering and other political tricks dilute the power to vote, but still the only way to affect government is by working through the political process. The days of revolution are over, unless one wants the United States to become present-day Iraq, Syria, etc.
I'll agree to disagree. I don't see any need for revolution now or in the foreseeable future, and reform from within is almost always preferable. But I'm not willing to take the option off the table.
John wrote: "I'll agree to disagree. I don't see any need for revolution now or in the foreseeable future, and reform from within is almost always preferable. But I'm not willing to take the option off the table."Questions:
1. What kind of military equipment would be necessary to achieve a successful revolt against the US Government?
2. What kind of military organization would be necessary to achieve a successful revolt against the US Government?
3. Would such military equipment/military organization be legal for private individuals to obtain/organize under current law?
4. If not, do you support such legalization?
5. Do you agree with the anarchocapitalist position (e.g., Murray Rothbard) that the government's monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force should be discarded in favor of competing private militias backed by insurance companies (or other private entities)?
6. In a revolution against the US Government, how many innocent civilians would be killed/injured/displaced? Would this be acceptable "collateral damage" in your opinion?
7. Was the North in the Civil War an unacceptable "tyrannical government" in your opinion, as the South maintained?
8. Do you believe the current right-wing conspiracy theory that the US Government is preparing to conquer Texas by military force?
9. Do you believe the current right-wing conspiracy theory that President Obama will use the military force of the federal government to overthrow the Constitution and rule as a dictator when his term expires?
Questions 1-7 are legitimate, although I think they presume some false choices. But 8 and 9 suggest that you are just making fun of me. I'll pass.
I will add that while I don't envision a new American Revolution in my or grandsons lifetime ; and think that Jefferson was irresponsible in condoning the benefits of one; John is free to make s point. Liberty is a hot word today . As someone who has made it his priority to study its meaning , origins and responsibilities ; I take his statements at face value notwithstanding my own beliefs. Revolutions, including our own; were not begun with adequate resources or even the presumption of victory, that's the point of it. Any consideration of conspiracies does not do justice to the wider point; there is a sense; however misplaced and illogical , that the U.S. Government is out of control . I submit that this opinion is not just located on the right. The Snowden episode and all its repercussions brings the progressive left into the conversation. Remember that it was not that long ago that boomers lived thru the Weathermen, etc who believed ; however romantically , in an American Revolution . That the Founders found it important enough to name gun rights as the 2nd Amendment suggests how important a point it was to them and the political society they were creating.
Lest you gentlemen think I am merely joking, there are substantial numbers of people, including Texas Governor Gregg Abbott, Senator Ted Cruz, and many conservative media personalities who take the Jade Helm 15 conspiracy theory quite seriously. See the Wikipedia article here. The following is a quotation from this article:"According to the Hartford Courant's Jim Shea, the conspiracy theories about Jade Helm 15 include: a 'psychological operation aimed at getting people used to seeing military forces on the streets' so they do not realize when an invasion actually takes place; an international operation aimed to seize people's guns; recently closed Walmarts used by the military to 'stockpile supplies for Chinese troops who will be arriving to disarm Americans'; and a military plan to 'round up political dissidents' and 'remove key political figures' who may be against the imposition of martial law.[14] Other theories by right-wing bloggers and activists have described Jade Helm 15 as a 'secret plot' to impose martial law, confiscate firearms, invade Texas, and institute 'total population control.'[15]
"The conspiracy theories also include concern about the name of the exercise, with the jade in Jade Helm 15 possibly referring to China,[16][17] and JADE possibly an acronym for artificial intelligence developed by the U.S. military.[18] Alex Jones, a conspiracy theorist and Texan radio show host, said that helm is an acronym for "Homeland Eradication of Local Militants'.[15]"
(See the linked article for the endnotes.)
This is part of the mantra we have heard since the January 2009 inauguration of President Obama that Obama is out to get our guns. It is a part of the current manifestation of anti-gun control hysteria and one of the reasons Congress will do nothing notwithstanding incident after incident of mass shootings.
Under these circumstances, I think my question # 8 was quite valid. Additionally, many people believe fervently in the content of my question # 9. I am not myself afraid to admit or deny that I agree or disagree with a particular political position that seems connected to my political beliefs. Why is this a problem for you? I would like to know what underlying ideology and belief system may or may not be behind a particular position.
More importantly, however, neither of you has answered questions 1-7. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that you found it necessary to participate in a revolution against the US Government, how could you possibly hope to succeed given the overwhelming amount of force at the Government's disposal? This is not 1776, when the Redcoats and the American Patriots had basically the same types of weapons and when the Americans had the advantage of a home terrain while the British had a very long supply chain. And the Civil War was no cake walk (to coin a phrase). It was instead the most destructive war in American history. How would you propose to have any chance of winning a war against the Government in this day and age, and what evidence would be sufficient for you to engage in it? The Left is not threatening revolution over the NSA. Indeed, the political process is addressing it (whether adequately or not is another question). But the Right is threatening revolutionary violence over imaginary Jade Helm 15 conspiracies. What happened to the party of Law and Order?
Finally, I have said for a long time that the threat of revolutionary violence during the late 1960s and early 1970s was from the Left, while the current threat of revolutionary violence is from the Right. I opposed the New Left's political program in the late 1960s and early 1970s and currently oppose the Right's political program today for exactly the same reason. The current threat to American democracy and liberty is from right-wing demagogues, including but not limited to the guy who is currently leading the polls in the Republican primary race. I voted against McGovern in 1972 because I thought at that time that Nixon was the lesser of two evils. In retrospect, I probably underrated McGovern and certainly overrated Nixon. But I mention this fact so that you will understand that I do not approach this from a preconceived ideological perspective.
I don't think we are indulging in any conspiracy theories here. Your examples are true but I believe irrelevant in the political and social context do the US today. Fringe elements don't a country or society make. The threat to our liberty does not come via crazy right wingers; they are essentially marginalized and a sorry and pathetic distraction. I have said for years, that the greatest threat to the liberty that the Founders risked their lives and fortunes for, lies in the surveillance state created post 9/11. The so-called Patriot Act was the single greatest curb on our liberty since Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the civil war. My right wing friends have come along to my side after arguing that I was a liberal, terrorist loving Obamaite. Well, Snowden, etc put paid to that. This country faces far greater threats to its freedoms from the uncontrolled march of technology than it does from archaic Muslims and right wingers. If there is a revolution to be had in this country it will be caused by the government taking its right to collect data a steps too far and the revolutionaries will,have as many tools as the government to fight back. In a flat world, the utility of most military hardware is limited. Events of the past two years have proven that. Your questions 1-8 therefore may be of limited applicability. Warfare in the 21st century, and that's included revolutionary activity, will be cyber dominant, military and political structures may be virtual, threats asymmetrical. John may have concerns about his freedoms as might you Alan, but they are not coming from the places either of you have described.
I agree that the post-9/11 surveillance and security state is a huge problem--actual (especially in the George W. Bush administration with its torture regime and disregard of constitutional protections) and potential (as shown in the NSA revelations; I doubt that Obama himself is deliberately misusing such information, though he may be naive about what is going on in his administration). As you indicate, however, gun control really has nothing to do with these developments, and guns are certainly no defense against them. My recent posts have been addressing the gun control issues that were first raised in Randal's post 15 and later by John.Although I generally eschew conspiracy theories, I read many books a few years ago about the JFK and RFK assassinations. Most of the books I read were researched and written by responsible, sane authors, not by kooks. I concluded that it is quite possible that CIA elements (perhaps rogue elements) were involved in these assassinations. Although this hypothesis cannot perhaps be currently proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, it is strange that the US Government still will not release documents that were created more than 50 years ago about these matters. However this may be, it is certainly the case that many of these people had motive, opportunity, and means. The motive was to destroy the threat (seen as posed by JFK) to the security and military state when JFK resolved to change the CIA after the Bay of Pigs fiasco and later decided to withdraw from Vietnam after his 1964 reelection (both are well corroborated in primary-source documents). RFK (who was was defanged as Attorney General after LBJ became president) would have done a complete investigation if he had been elected president in 1968, which is why he was assassinated. The CIA manipulation of Oswald and Sirhan was consistent with its well-developed spy trade practices. There were, of course, many complicated historical circumstances surrounding these and related events, and we will probably never know all the answers. In any event, the security state was with us even then, as Ike well understood when he warned of the danger of the military-industrial complex. We could now update the reference by referring to the military-industrial-security-surveillance state complex.
I don't really want to get into a long discussion about these assassinations, but the interested reader can check my book list here for the books I read on this subject. There have been some books published since, though I think that some of these, which I have not read, may go into blind alleys. I had to stop reading about these historical developments, because they were too depressing.
Tom Donnelly, counsel at the Constitutional Accountability Center, has written an excellent article on the history of the Fourteenth Amendment citizenship clause here.
Excellent! It's great to have the facts about our past thrown at us so we don't forget that real thought went into much of our constitutional development . The statement by the immigrant senator from California is the kind of unequivocal call for decency that we wish more supposed leaders made, Rubio and Bush included.
I have just posted an essay entitled "Some Historical Background Relevant to the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment to the US Constitution" here.
Americans are already woefully ignorant about early American history, especially about the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They often get all their "information" (i.e., "misinformation") from the Internet and TV--sources that often specialize in distorting history for ideological purposes. One has to wonder whether a recent development in South Dakota (which I believe also has occurred in other states) is part of a deliberate effort to suppress historical facts in favor of ideological preconceptions.One is reminded of the party slogan in George Orwell's 1984: “Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past."
This past Independence Day a friend of mine asked his 16 yr. old nephew from whom it was that we gained our independence. His answer: "Uhh...the French." Really? Is that why we speak French here in America?But this teenager was dead serious and attends a high school with a good reputation for academic excellence. Shocked by the answer he received, my friend asked four other teens from other schools and received the same response from two of them!
Of concern is not only the lack of basic American history propagated in our schools today, but too many high schoolers don't pay any attention to current events either. Another disturbing trend is the general apathy toward anything occurring in the wide world outside of the US. I fear for an entire generation of people so ignorant and indifferent that they will be blindly led by the most charismatic voice and the prettiest face, oblivious to the dangerous places (socially and politically) that will lead (or is leading?).
How do you control a population? You distort and/or erase history and inhibit the development of critical thinking skills. It seems the public schools are doing a good job with the former and the entertainment-rich "media" is taking care of the latter.
I agree. With regard to the public schools, I'm not sure it's the teachers' fault. Their political bosses (elected school boards, etc.) are calling the shots. But I don't really know what goes on in public schools these days. Many private schools may be even worse. Right-wing or (in rare cases) left-wing ideological groups tend to have control of such schools and distort whatever history, government, and economics is being taught there according to their respective political or religious agendas.Welcome to President Trump. Although he is far from "the prettiest face," he is probably the current favorite of the "low-information voter." For that reason, he may obtain the votes not only of Republicans but also of many Democrats if he ends up being the Republican candidate.
I try to stay away from commenting on current events, but occasionally the current events assume historical significance.
Historical ignorance has been a feature of young people for a long time ; I am 60 and I am sure that must of my peers had little or no understanding or appreciation of history of any kind. As I have described here before , one of my goals has been to rectify my own gaps in classical history and philosophy. As a history major I was among the few of my boomer group who, notwithstanding the raging war in Vietnam, bothered to inquire about our own history and priorities . The situation has only gotten worse as was described. The faults lie in many places; the rushed curriculum, teaching to the test, poor teaching skills ; an inability to connect history to students lives today. My own son; a successful 40 year old corporate attorney has limited historical knowledge ; at least compared to where I think someone with his level of education should be . It's a travesty and a tragedy; I for one (and I know it's old fashioned to say so) believe we need less "social studies" and more Thuycididies, less micro histories and more constitutional focus ; bringing back lessons on civics updated for the 21st century ; the purpose of an education , especially a liberal education is to create an engaged citizen , one able to make informed decisions about his or her political leadership and the policies they pursue. We have not had this in a long while.
Alan wrote: "Tom Donnelly, counsel at the Constitutional Accountability Center, has written an excellent article on the history of the Fourteenth Amendment citizenship clause here."Alan,
Thanks so much for posting the link to this very interesting article. I, myself, was pretty foggy about the 14th, which comes to the fore these days as half of the Republican clown car talk about doing away with "birthright citizenship." How many of their audience (How many of them?) know that this is as much a part of the US constitution as their misunderstood 2nd?
As we are discussing lack of historical knowledge among the wide swaths of the current American public (I love the phrase "low information voter.") I noticed in a review of a biography of Joan Didion by Louis Menand in a recent New Yorker the story Didion told in Slouching Towards Bethlehem about talking to a Haight Ashbury resident migrant who wanted to go to New York. Didion told the person that she didn't know of anyone going (driving) to New York, but that she knew someone who was going to Chicago. The person answered, "Where is Chicago?"
So, general ignorance is not a new thing in the USA. Menand is careful to point out that this is not so much a case of lost souls becoming unstuck from reality, but of a society itself becoming unstuck. But what does he know, eh? One of those uppity Harvard nattering nabobs.
Cheers,
Randal
Randal wrote: "I noticed in review of a biography of Joan Didion by Louis Menand in a recent New Yorker the story about Didion talking to a Haight Ashbury resident migrant who wanted to go to New York. Didion told the person that she didn't know of anyone going (driving) to New York, but that she knew someone who was going to Chicago. The person answered, "Where is Chicago?""This dates us, but there's tripping and then there's "tripping." The Haight Ashbury resident was likely engaging in the latter form of recreation when asking that question.
On the other hand, I knew quite a few New Yorkers at the University of Chicago who had only the haziest notion of American geography west of New York. They were at Chicago, I guess, because they couldn't get into the Ivy League. It is my understanding that in those days it was difficult if not impossible for Jews to get admitted into Ivy League schools. Not so at Chicago. It was a great cultural change for me to move from rural Minnesota to the University of Chicago at the tender age of 18.
One can almost (but not quite) forgive Spiro Agnew for his clever turns-of-phrase ("nattering nabobs of negativism"), though I understand that these gems were given to him by Pat Buchanan or some such person. At that time, one of my friends (attending the University of Chicago Business School, which was then and now a citadel of the Chicago School of Economics) said to me about Agnew, "I agree with what he says, but I don't like the way he says it." I responded, "I don't agree with what he says, but I like the way he says it."
One can almost (but not quite) forgive Spiro Agnew for his clever turns-of-phrase ("nattering nabobs of negativism"), though I understand that these gems were given to him by Pat Buchanan or some such personA Bing search revealed that the author was William Safire, not Pat Buchanan. How could I forget?
Charles wrote: "Historical ignorance has been a feature of young people for a long time ; I am 60 and I am sure that must of my peers had little or no understanding or appreciation of history of any kind. As I hav..."Well said. I am nearing 70 years old and have a son about the age of your son. I was shocked when the State of Ohio did not require him to take an American history course in senior high school. The only course he had in American history was in seventh grade. I tried to tutor him, but I'm not sure how much of it "took." These days, he asks me a lot of questions about history as well as about current political and economic issues, so all is not lost. But most of his peers have not had the advantage of a father who was well-versed in these subjects. When I went to high school in Minnesota, we were required to take American history in tenth grade (as well as in seventh grade). Although it certainly was nowhere near the level of my subsequent studies, I did learn the basic facts, including about the Revolutionary War, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were also covered in ninth-grade civics and twelfth-grade government. I assumed that my high school contemporaries also got something out of these courses. However, when I look at some of their current Facebook posts, I'm not too sure.
Well, there's always the third generation Alan. My grandson's bed at my home used to be my office and now is my library. While his books are tucked in a basket, mine line 3 walls and hopefully he will become curious as to why his "Boo" has all these books and what they say. My local bookstore has a bunch of non fiction titles that he will hopefully take on as I read on. In this small way, step by step perhaps he will see the value and enchantment that comes from reading and understanding our past. I am not placing all my bets on his schools.
January 19, 2020 Note:
INTERNET LOCATIONS OF U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
The official versions of U.S. Supreme Court cases are contained in the U.S. Reports, which can be accessed online at the Library of Congress site: https://www.loc.gov/collections/unite.... To locate a particular Supreme Court decision on this webpage, enter the abbreviated title of the case (e.g., Roe v. Wade) or its official citation (e.g., 410 U.S. 113) in the box at the upper right after “This Collection.” Then click “View Enlarged Image.” At that point, you will have the official version of the case in the U.S. Reports, which you can download on your computer and/or print.
The foregoing does not apply to recent cases that have not yet been reported in the U.S. Reports. The U.S. Reports lags in its reporting of cases by a number of years. However, you can access those recent “slip opinions” or “preliminary prints” on the U.S. Supreme Court website: see https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions.... After accessing that webpage, click the appropriate section (e.g., “Opinions of the Court”) on the left.