Akhil Reed Amar: "America's Unwritten Constitution"
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-09-13/akhil-reed-amar-americas-unwritten-constitution
This month marks the 225th anniversary of the U.S. Constitution. Considered the “Supreme Law of the Land,” this document established America’s national government and guaranteed certain basic rights for its citizens. In a new book, a leading scholar on constitutional law celebrates this venerated text but says we must go beyond it to fully understand it. He argues there are common values and practices absent from the Constitution that help govern today’s society. As part of our ongoing “Constitution Today” series, Diane talks with Akhil Reed Amar about the unwritten principles that guide the interpretation of our founding document.
Guests
Akhil Reed Amar
professor of law and political Science at Yale University, periodically a visiting professor at Harvard, Columbia and Pepperdine Law Schools and author of four books, including "America’s Constitution."
Read An Excerpt
Excerpted with permission from America’s Unwritten Constitution: The Precedents and Principles We Live By, by Akhil Reed Amar. Available from Basic Books, a member of The Perseus Books Group. Copyright © 2012.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Roe wrote:"WHEN did we equate free speech with not taking responsibility for WHAT we say?"
Never, but if your point is that we are responsible for the reaction to free speech from people that are extremists constantly looking for reasons to murder and cause mayhem, that is beyond the scope of personal responsibility of the speaker and to silence the speaker because of a possible over reaction would destroy free speech rights and this would be a victory for the extremists, and would do nothing to stop the violence it would only encourage it.
Your guest needs to stop writing books and read Which One Are You? by The Informer before he writes any more, or teaches any more of his nonsense. He obviously does not understand plain English. This is an example of why the University of Utah Law School is considered to be a much better one than Yale.
His first mistake in "interpreting" the Constitution, which is what he's doing, is not understanding what the words "We the people OF the United States" means. Error follows upon error in his thinking.
The framers of the Articles of Confederation and the subsequent Constitution, as well as the Justices of the Supreme Court, understood plain English and chose the words used in those documents for specific reasons - because most educated men knew what they meant or at least had recourse to well established and accepted opinions in both English and international law. They reasonably expected that educated people would continue to understand those words, not turn language and society upside down with words that can mean anything we want them to.
Your guest probably won't understand this concept, either: although I was born in California, of parents who were born in Kansas and Washington (state), I am not now, nor have I ever knowingly been, a citizen of the United States.
Nor will he understand this concept: Neither he nor I nor 99.999% of the inhabitants of "America" is one of "We the people" mentioned in the Preamble.
Interesting notion. I believe this comes from a controversial (at least at the time) interpretation of Lincoln. While I don't disagree that it is an important document to study, it didn't go through the same rigorous ratification process as the Constitution; therefore, in my opinion, it should carry less weight.
Did you have a point, or just being obnoxious?
Topic: Facts on the Ground
Who put Hamas on Israel's border?
President Bush or President Obama?
Answer: After the 2004 election, the Bush Administration insisted that there be elections in Gaza, to the consternation of Israel who knew Hamas would romp the elections in Gaza. Yes, after Prime Minister Sharon pulled Israel out of Gaza to show good faith in the negotiation process, the Bush Administration gave Hamas de facto the welcome mat to Israel's gates. Ask the children of S'derot, with bomb shelters next to their playgrounds how welcoming were the results of the Bush Administration's actions.
Who stopped Israel's Army in the last Lebanon War?
President Bush or President Obama?
Answer: When Israel's Army moved into Lebanon, the Jerusalem Post reported that the Israeli Generals said that they needed 5 days to get to the Litani River where Hezbollah amassed thousands of its katyusha rockets that they repeatedly fired into Israel. After two days of Israel's Army moving en mass into Lebanon, the Bush Administration capitulated to U.N. demands and voted for Israel to stop. No delay by the Bush Administration. 33 Israeli soldiers dead. Hezbollah injured, but its line of rockets intact.
Did President Obama say that Israel move back to pre-1967 borders, without emphasizing the need for direct negotiation between Palestinians and Israel? Yes. Has he changed his position? Yes. Has he helped Israel defend the children of S'derot? Yes.
It takes smarts to know when you're wrong, as did President Obama. As far as the Bush Administration,
where was their smarts, seychel? And the Bush advisors are advising Romney? Which are Israel's better friends?
Statman wrote:
"After two days of Israel's Army moving en mass into Lebanon, the Bush Administration capitulated to U.N. demands and voted for Israel to stop."
Alternative? WWIII. Theatre? Middle East.
"Did President Obama say that Israel move back to pre-1967 borders, without emphasizing the need for direct negotiation between Palestinians and Israel? Yes."
It doesn't matter. Sometimes you have to get it right the first time. "You never get a second chance to make a first impression". Between that and bowing and scraping to the Saudi King, the Emperor of Japan, and the President of Mexico (to name just three), Obama is seen as weak and the U.S. is seen as weak. When the world, especially militant muslims, hear that you are "leading from behind", how do you think they will react?
ecgberht:
Your pettifog that the Constitution is a tightly wound set of specifics and restrictive of either interpretation or expansion is woefully inaccurate. The very document you use to bash others, in fact, lucidly expresses the contrary. e.g. Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” That demonstrates the intent of the authors to recognize that there ARE “powers” NOT spelled out – i.e. NOT specific. You even contradict yourself - you spew your own interpretations, decry others’ so-called “misinterpretations”, and then try to inflict yours on others – interpretations are NOT specifics; we do NOT recognize your bogus credentials. Most illustrative of all, your posts are numerous and lengthy – your loquacity contradicts specificity.
Fellow cookie cutter conservatives often take the very activist role you abhor, suggesting all kinds of amendments - banning same sex marriage, defining personhood, blocking reproductive rights, banning Shariya law, ad infinitum. The “interpretations” you choose would seek to further bind us while the Constitution is designed to free us.
You say the rest of us are off base by proposing the Constitution’s flexibility. But then you shockingly announce that YOU know the minds and opinions of the founders – who have been dead for over 200 years.
Maybe you should change your screen name to Kreskin.
HA,
Thanks for that fact-filled response.
Let's start here ...
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Thanks for making my point! Do you understand what the 10th amendment says?! It says the powers of the FG are limited (the powers not delegated to the United States i.e. the FG, by the Constitution), and other than those specific powers that the Constitution prohibits (i.e., things the states can't do), all other powers are reserved to the states and the people! That is the definition of a small FG, strong state model. Duh. And I don't need to "interpret" anything. You just need to understand English. I've got news for you, bub. The 10th amendment is the "living" constitutionalist's worst nightmare. And that's why the Founders put it there. Read the history of the Bill of Rights and why it came to be.
A simpler version is this; The Constitution delegates certain specific powers to the FG - )they're mostly spelled out in article 1, section 8). It also prohbits the states from doing certain things and it spells them out. But all other powers are reserved to the states and the people.
What Madison wrote is both simple and elegant and not in need of "interpretation".
Part deux.
"Fellow cookie cutter conservatives often take the very activist role you abhor, suggesting all kinds of amendments - banning same sex marriage, defining personhood, blocking reproductive rights, banning Shariya law, ad infinitum. "
First, I don't care what other people say. If you can show me where I HAVE done that, you would have a point. But trust me, you won't be able to. Second, at least they're going through the right channels ... the amendment process. The amendment process is HARD. It's meant to be. Manipulating the legislature and the judiciary is much easier, though bogus ... that's why liberal progressives try to use them.
And I don't have to read anyone's mind who is dead. All I have to do is read what they wrote. You're not willing to do that.
Ask yourself this question, HA. Why is there an amendment process? If we can grow the Constitution by the legislature and the judiciary to meet passing fancy, why have an amendment process at all?
"Your pettifog that the Constitution is a tightly wound set of specifics and restrictive of either interpretation or expansion is woefully inaccurate. "
So how is that again?!
BBBBBBBBBWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Dear deceased King Ecgberht,
You wanted someone to point out where you cared about what others say.
YOU responded to many, many posts, INcluding mine. That's "caring"!
GOTCHA!
Dear deceased President Lincoln,
"You wanted someone to point out where you cared about what others say."
Suggest you stick to context. And you got Squat.
But thanks for that "substantive" reply re: issues at hand!