It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
It is ignorant to the nth-degree for a federal judge to say that studying the Constitution is a waste of time. And for you to imply that 'getting the drift of the Constitution in high school' is plenty of understanding for a professional lawyer is absurdity at its finest.
I guess that economists don't need to study different economic theories since high school econ covers that enough to get the gist.
I guess my high school art classes negated my need to go to art school--I should have gotten the gist of my profession from that.
I suppose that tractor-trailer drivers don't need to go to truck-driving school, since they got the gist of driving when they received their license in high school.
Firefighters shouldn't really have to train and pass any sort of course to become a firefighter--they got the gist of how to put out a fire by blowing out candles on their birthday as kids.
Why did I have to train for marksmanship in the military when I and nearly everyone else has shot a water pistol or fake gun before--I had the gist of how to shoot.
Why does journalism school even exist when everyone gets the gist of how to talk by the time that they're 5 years old.
Need I go on?
Getting "the drift" of something does not make you an expert. Lawyers and judges both need to be experts on the laws that govern their profession, and that includes the Constitution at the crux of it all.
I pity the fool that hires a lawyer or has to go in front of a judge who is not a relative expert on the Constitution.
Do you agree or disagree: the Supreme court is forging a body of common law based on current concerns, rather than 18th Century ones?
I know that this was not directed at me, but I do agree with that assessment, but not with the noted problem. The reason that this is happening is not because of a lack of practical experience or that these judges may have spent too much time studying the Constitution and the intent of the writer(s) who drafted it--it's ideology, pure and simple.
Many, if not most, of our modern-day judges and justices lack the impartiality with which they are mandated to sit on the bench. If our judges would just see every case as an individual challenge to the Constitution (or whatever other laws that govern the case at hand) and absolve their concern over a broader ideological agenda, I'm quite certain that all concerns over "forging a common law based on current concerns" would be negated.
...Skousen ...supporters believe that their fundamental values are under attack. ... “the world is watching as the United States crumbles from within, enemies maneuver beyond our borders and the cornerstone of the country — the Constitution — is subverted in a political quagmire.”....advocates of foreign, anti - American ideas have taken over the federal government, threatening to displace true American values, and the fate of the nation hangs in the balance. ....argue that the Obama Administration is “attacking” America, that he is “anti - American,” and that he is seeking to undermine basic American values. The vehemence which Tea Party members characterize the Obama Administration’s agenda as “un - American,” “socialist,” or “communist” — or, perhaps even worse, “European” — easily matches Skousen’s own anti - communism.
Skousen explain[s] contemporary history through a common narrative in which the Founding Fathers adopted a Constitution that embodies a set of sacred and eternal principles for American government. The principles adopted at the time of national creation encompass what Skousen understand to be the central values and characteristics of American national culture—devotion to God, limited government, free markets, personal property, and individualism.
In recent years, these fundamental principles have come under attack by forces deeply antagonistic to American values, and the nation has lost sight of its foundational principles..... solution to this perceived crisis...a return to the wisdom of the Founding Fathers
The narrative that lies at the heart of Skousen’s books ... bears a strong resemblance to the narratives propounded by religious fundamentalists. Although use of the term “fundamentalist” can be controversial because it is sometimes used pejoratively or dismissively, sociologists of religion have generally embraced the term to describe religious movements that arise in opposition to elements of modernity that believers perceive threaten their core identities. Notwithstanding the many differences that exist among movements characterized as fundamentalist — Sunni fundamentalists, the Haredim, Shiite fundamentalists, and Protestant fundamentalists — they bear common traits, including:
(1) the identification of a set of fundamental values that adherents believe are under attack or have been abandoned;
(2) the belief that these fundamental values originated in a mythic era and are embodied in a sacred text or tradition;
(3) the perception that the current attack on the group’s fundamental values represents an existential crisis for the community of believers;
(4) a commitment to restoring the fundamental values as the movement’s central goal; and
(5) a Manichean world view that pits supporters of the fundamental principles against demonized enemies.
originally posted by: xuenchen
Deluxe comments coming from a U.S. Federal Judge about the U.S. Constitution.
Judge Richard Posner (7th Circuit) says he sees no reason for judges to study the Constitution !!
He claims it's too old and not up with today's culture.
He sees no value in studying any of it.
Sounds like he's really out of touch if you ask me.
I bet Obama agrees 100%.
Federal Judge: U.S. Constitution Is Outdated, Judges Should Stop Studying It
According to 7th Circuit Judge Richard Posner in a post published to Slate, U.S. judges should stop studying the Constitution.
“I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, day, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation,” Posner argued.