Via Glenn Reynolds:
Here's what you should really know about law school.Meanwhile, Cornell lawprof William Jacobson comments: “A literal reading of O’Donnell’s comments reflects that she was correct, but of course, the press and the blogosphere don’t want a literal reading, they want a living, breathing reading which comports with their preconceived notions.”
The Constitution stands for things that are good. The things that we want are good. Therefore, the Constitution stands for what we want. QED. How can those dumb wingnuts not understand this simple logic?
Meanwhile, I agree that the O’Donnell focus is a deliberate distraction. But I also think it’s important to use this opportunity — like the Sarah Palin “1773″ brouhaha — to point out that the credentialed gentry class isn’t nearly as smart, and certainly isn’t as well-educated, as it thinks it is. Because, you know, it isn’t.
Perhaps Widener law students can’t be expected to understand constitutional doctrine like Wisconsin or Cornell law professors. But they can be expected to avoid showing their ignorance through ill-mannered displays. One of the underappreciated virtues of good manners is that they help you to avoid making an ass of yourself when you are not as smart as you think you are.
3 comments:
The Widener students were correct to be stunned by Ms. O'Donnell's comment. There is a world of difference between language not being in the text of the Constitution and the principle being absent from the Constitution. For example, the Constitution provides Congress with the power "to raise and support Armies" and "to provide and maintain a Navy," but there is nothing about an Air Force, or VA Hospitals or military pensions. Does the absence of specific language on these subjects mean that it is unconstitutional to have an United States Air Force? Ms. O'Donnell needs to move past her reductionist reading of the First Amendment and accept that by prohibiting the government from infringing free exercise and from establishing religion, the First Amendment does create boundaries between church and state, and that the absence of the magic words "separation of church and state" are not required. The argument is about where those boundaries lie, and that is an argument that Ms. O'Donnell could have won, had she chosen to make it. She could have pointed out that the notion of a wall between church and state is merely a metaphor, and probably not an apt one at that, because it implies that there can be no relationship whatsoever between religion and the public sphere. This leads to the 3rd graders at public school not being able to sing "Silent Night" at the Holiday concert, and lawsuits over a Christmas tree at the public library, where common sense and mutual respect could easily win the day. She could have pointed out that at times over the past decades, the Supreme Court has reformulated the issue of the establishment clause as whether the government is endorsing a particular religion or coercing certain religious behavior. As a Widener graduate who just passed the Delaware Bar, I can tell you that in order to get full credit on an Establishment question, you are going to have to know not only the rule in Lemon v. Kurtzman but also the endorsement and coercion tests. What you can't do is say that since there is no language saying "separation of church and state" in the First Amendment, that the state has no limits, declare "checkmate," and walk off smugly into the sunset. That may play to O'Donnell's cheerleaders, but she can't expect to get it past any law school audience.
Can someone help me with this: "The Constitution stands for things that are good. The things that we want are good. Therefore, the Constitution stands for what we want." Is this really simple logic, or is he being sarcastic? I know this is silly and I may be dumb wingnut, but I cant figure it out. Simple logic tells me the statement isn't necessarily true because it doesn't say "we want everything that is good." Is this expression used to reflect a party's sentiment toward the topic? I know my questions are off subject, but I just started studying for the lsat and this is going to bother me.
Anon 2:Yes, he is being sarcastic.
Anon 1: Of course, I should not be surprised that the Widener students were stunned because the study of the law these days is – like a lot of research – the study of secondary sources. To be an effective lawyer you have to understand how the courts interpret the law now, not as it was originally written. So it makes perfect sense for the Widener students to have been taught that “separation of church and state” is a perfectly fine substitute (or metaphor as some would have it) for the actual words in the constitution. O’Donnell was making a more fundamental point: the way the courts have been interpreting the metaphor has become detached from the actual constitution. Unfortunately for her, the sound-bite structure of a debate like this does not give anyone the time to expound on this the way it deserves to be. Bottom line, the Widener students are wrong, but it’s not their fault. It’s Widener’s fault.
Post a Comment