Do you REALLY want to assert that it means only the right to keep your horse on the village green, say? (An actual case, by the way).

Pitney seems as upset at Seidman as you are; he even invokes St. Thomas More against him!

I guess theology, philosophy, and sociology aren’t the only subjects where Georgetown hires scholars that dismiss their disciplines.

Also contra Cheeks someone like Seidman is precisely what you need to carry on and sharpen the dialectic against the “living constiution”. In my own reading of the law, it is certainly my opinion that the thinking of J. Skelly Wright is the right place to ground the critique. That Seidman claims some measure of authority by virtue of having clerked for Wright is interesting.

I think we can absolutely agree with Seidman given the way he has framed the question presented that the answer he wants us to give and the answer we should give if such “mere copyright” or persuasive writting represents fact is a resounding: Absolutely Not!

i.e. “Is it even remotely rational that the official should change his or her mind because of this divination?”

No it is not.

“And will you commit today to demand that the next Democratic Party platform contain a sentence repudiating the views of Dr. Seidman?”

Absolutely not! I will in fact request that the next Democratic Party platform contain a sentence endorsing and embracing the courageous and well written views of Judge Skelly Wright.

In fact Judge Skelly Wright is the founder of many concepts which have probably saved the country from a quasi-Marxist triumph of Capital. I like Hobson v. Hansen, I like his handling of unconscionability in Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. and I like the implied warranty of Habitability in Jarvins. While he may have had some faults he also had uncommon moral sense and feel.

I actually don’t really care what Seidman himself says, albeit perhaps he has some wisdom. Because he is not a judge Seidman’s views and opinions do not represent constitutional law. Within the framework of Georgetown law they represent constitutional law, but this is only in so far as such views help advance the alienation of a specific body of knowledge, fixed in a tangible medium of expression and authenticated in some measure by the policies and procedures Georgetown has decided upon for handing out grades(authenticating knowledge). There is no real possibility that Seidman or any other professor of Constitutional law could be possessed of knowledge the like of which they could alienate to me which would ensure a genuinely right or wrong answer as to whether or not something is constitutional (albeit they could do so within the closed confines and parameters of a class itself(since in this market they are judges, and absent grade disputing mechanisms essentially the court of last appeal.)

The same applies to the study aids peddled by corporations such as the Washington Post et al. They sell right and wrong answers within the confines of a particular bar examination test, not the right answer in the actual venue of the Supreme Court itself at some future date, and with a real and non hypothetical issue in controversy. Failure to understand such contractual relationships and the qualities of the property being alienated are in fact foundational elements of the jurisprudence of Judge Skelly Wright, and go to an understanding of unconscionability.

And the mere fact that all of us repeatedly, loudly, and clearly disagree with one particular judgement or another is also irrelevant to what we actually do about the constitution.

I certainly don’t agree with Mr. Seidman, but I see no reason to “denounce” him. The constitution is certainly in no danger from him nor from anybody else who is willing to accept the decision of the courts until such time as they review the matter again. If any “liberals” have failed to do that in any way beyond mere expression of opinion, I have yet to hear of it.

If you happen to be so worked up over him, you can do all the denouncing that’s required. I am content merely to disagree with him, much as I might disagree with you, and obey the law as the courts have determined it, without, however, relinquishing my right to disagree with the courts as well.

I seriously doubt the constitution needs more support than that.

While the so-called ‘radicals’ of the left (Chairman Obama’s mentors, for example) plan to either convert people like you or systematically destroy you in the concentration camps and gulags of the not so distant future, it will be but a short time when the vast Democrat middle, already attuned and accepting of systemic slaughter, will take up the call for extermination. It’s inevitable.

Re-read Dostoyeski, Bukofsky.