tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6361005139810303893.post5013147703912322722..comments2023-09-27T07:02:54.283-05:00Comments on Pocket Jacks: The Most Offensive Thing I've Ever ReadJay W.http://www.blogger.com/profile/14641404051461719678noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6361005139810303893.post-49494322635540503952012-02-08T16:36:53.091-06:002012-02-08T16:36:53.091-06:001. Congratulations. I orginally being from the Sou...1. Congratulations. I orginally being from the South, I have heard of FAMU, but didn't know it was a law school.<br /><br />2. It's not a hatchet job because I disagree with the author's views. It's a hatchet job because he starts from a perception -- the Constitution's influence on constitutional documents in other countries is waning (which may or may not be true) -- and talks to sources who back up that assertion without quoting anyone who might disagree with his viewpoint. Note that none of these sources is a "constitutional scholar".<br /><br />3. The country is young but the document is old. That makes no sense whatsoever, and is exactly the sort of tortured logic the NYT author uses.<br /><br />3a. True. Please read my reply to the first commenter.<br /><br />3b. There are none, per se and never claimed it did. Here is what I wrote:<br /><br />"The Constitution may not say 'in so many words' that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. The law does say that however. And, as we'll see shortly, the author is very enamored with the idea of a judiciary expanding rights that aren't explicitly spelled out in a constitution, at least when Canadians do it." Later I described the author's sudden reversal on the idea that constitutions needs to spell these things out when it came to the Canadian Chaarter. That's another example of that twisted logic.<br /><br />3c. The idea that women should have equal rights to men is not universally accespted either. What is your point? <br /><br />3d. See a.<br /><br />3e. See a. And also note that while you use that against me, the author's issues (and he a *professional journalist* and all) don't faze you.<br /><br />3f. In another words, the author was using Scalia's words in a different context than was intended to prop up his thesis. I already knew this, but I'm glad you saw it too.<br /><br />3g. See 3f.Jay W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14641404051461719678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6361005139810303893.post-86790163132377851762012-02-08T16:20:56.533-06:002012-02-08T16:20:56.533-06:001. I'm in law school, taking my third semester...1. I'm in law school, taking my third semester of con law. We discussed this article at length yesterday. The overwhelming majority of my classmates--as well as my professor, who is, ya know, a constitutional scholar--agreed.<br /><br />2. Disagreement with the article does not a hatchet job make. And the authors of the peer-reviewed article that this Times piece is in reference to are scholars.<br /><br />3. While we are a relatively young country, our Constitution is the oldest in operation in the world. So while we are young, the Constitution is not. <br /> a. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. <br /> b. Where are the guarantees of a speedy and public trial in the Constitution? <br /> c. That the right to protect oneself with arms is "fundamental" is not universally accepted.<br /> d. "We hold these truths to be self-evident. That all men are created equal." (see, (a))<br /> e. It should be noted that Jay W. is conflating the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution.<br /> f. Scalia made the comment about the Soviet Union, not the author. And he was being ironic.<br /> g. Scalia made the comment about "just a piece of paper." Again: irony.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6361005139810303893.post-3596190396773109562012-02-08T13:55:57.993-06:002012-02-08T13:55:57.993-06:001. What is yours?
2. A lack of legal training did...1. What is yours?<br /><br />2. A lack of legal training didn't affect the author of the NYT piece, who spent a lot of time interviewing non legal-scholars to write a hatchet job on the U.S. Constitution.<br /><br />3. How do you know what I know about the Constitution? Are you able to refute anything I've said, or are you just going to drop a snide remark as "Anonymous" and slip back into the aether?Jay W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14641404051461719678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6361005139810303893.post-18048584284771261822012-02-08T11:49:42.831-06:002012-02-08T11:49:42.831-06:00What is your legal training? You seem to think you...What is your legal training? You seem to think you know a lot about the Constitution.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6361005139810303893.post-32834893879934648582012-02-07T13:17:28.470-06:002012-02-07T13:17:28.470-06:00True enough. But the Constitution was written on t...True enough. But the Constitution was written on the basis that those sentiments were self-evidently true. Plus, when I originally read the article, I couldn't believe how angry it made me. So I can also plead temporary fugue.Jay W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14641404051461719678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6361005139810303893.post-4456630306547372132012-02-07T12:25:03.932-06:002012-02-07T12:25:03.932-06:00Not to nitpick, but "We hold these truths to ...Not to nitpick, but "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." and "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are both from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.<br /><br />--DAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com