Reviving the Constitution from Hillsdale College

If like me, you didn’t see this the first time around and you have the time to listen, like I do while I clean house etc, this is definitely worth your time.

I know there’s a lot of mindless tripe on network tv that I refuse to watch and I’m sure there are a lot of you who feel the same way. Reviving the Constitution is a much better use of an hour of my day, than almost anything else I could be doing.

You just can’t ever learn enough. There aren’t enough hours in the day for all that we need to learn. The most educated are the best armed and that is how we prepare for the fight we will soon be facing.


5 responses to “Reviving the Constitution from Hillsdale College

  • Brad Anderson

    Forget the Constitution, it’s the CONTEXT that we need to revive– i.e. that every state is SOVEREIGN via its people, and that they can OVERRULE the federal government if they so choose.

    If one cares to READ the Constitution, notice that NOWHERE does it relinquish any state’s sovereignty. Now, I know that armchair-attorneys love to INFER this from their unresearched-readings of the Constitution (which are LIKEWISE devoid of context); they’ll say “THERE! That period, and that comma! THAT PROVES the states relinquished their sovereignty!
    And everyone KNOWS you can’t shout fire in a crowded theater, so that means they’re not sovereign either!”
    In other words, their opinions are nothing but a collage of baseless anecdotes and factoids.

    And the most hopeless among them, will say “well the Civil War settled that.”
    Great, by that logic Hitler didn’t conquer Poland, either, it was actually a domestic incident we should call “The German Civil War.”
    Ditto for Iraq in 1990. Throughout history, no sovereign nation EVER conquered any other– they were just “civil wars.”

    Otherwise, the fact remains that each state is legally a sovereign nation unto itself, and actual history has been suppressed by the quasi-totalitarian mainstream oligarchy.

  • roxannadanna

    I’ve heard of John Eastman and I’ll look him up.

    As for conservative values and the Constitution: the Constitution is a contract with the American people. It’s not a living document that can be changed at the whim of one generation or another, which is why the Founders made it difficult to change it. I don’t see this as a conservative value. It’s an American value, it’s the Founders value.

    It’s also a document of negative rights, deliberately written that way to protect the people from an over-reaching government and tyranny.

    One thing I’ve learned in all the reading I’ve done in the last 2 years is that no one has to be a constitutional attorney to understand this contract. That’s a fallacy that’s been deliberately propagated for too many years. If people are convinced that it’s simply beyond the average persons understanding and we have to have lawyers and judges to explain this contract to us, then how many steps away is it to tyranny and laws that we have no idea are unConstitutional? I do not believe that the Founders wrote this document to keep us all in the dark and the Federalist papers are proof that they did not intend that.

    I’m glad for your opinions and your advice regarding other information. I hope you come back and read again and offer more.


  • Jenny

    I think everyone should have a basic understanding of constitutional law, but it should be guided by legal and not political principles. I would strongly encourage you to read a variety of constitutional law professors. Let me tell you that discussing Roe v. Wade with a student of constitutional law is an entirely different animal than discussing it with someone in a political context. Google Jeffrey Rosen. He was my professor in law school and I think you would enjoy a lot of his writings. His perspective is not a liberal political one — his guiding philosophy is that in order to interpret laws, including the constitution, one needs to understand the drafter’s intent (through the drafter’s other writings, historical context, etc.). Enjoy.

    • roxannadanna

      This from here:

      Professor Rosen’s essays and commentaries have appeared in the New York Times Magazine, The Atlantic Monthly, on National Public Radio, and in The New Yorker, where he has been a staff writer. The Chicago Tribune named him one of the 10 best magazine journalists in America and the L.A. Times called him, “the nation’s most widely read and influential legal commentator.”

      So yes, I took your advice and read one of his articles in The New Republic (regarding Sotomayor.) I also googled him and found the above bio.

      He writes for leftist publications – every publication in the aforementioned paragraph is left leaning. And yet you say that I should read him because he’s NOT political?

      Jenny, I think you and I will be hard pressed to find anyone who is NOT political in their interpretation of the Constitution. Did you watch any of the Hillsdale videos? Those were all hosted by Constitutional doctorates. They all just happen to teach at a conservative institution (not GW University) and that is what I think, my friend, you are taking issue with.

      But thank you for reading here and I hope you continue to post your views and opinions. Opposing views that are as civil and polite as yours are always welcome here.

      As an aside, I hope your life is great and your son is doing well!


      • Jenny

        He’s also a member of the Federalist Society. Justice O’Connor officiated at his wedding! GW law school is not conservative or liberal. It’s just a law school. Whatever you think of undergraduate universities generally, law school is different. You learn to think like a lawyer. No one mentions Marx or Foucault.

        I don’t have a problem with conservative thinkers – I read them all the time. Having taken classes from a political science professor and at law school, there just isn’t a comparison. If you can’t stomach reading something printed in the NY Times, read John Eastman.

        But Rosen’s core argument about con law is just that one shouldn’t stray from the original text. He’s against the expansion of rights by judges if those rights are not there in the original document. That’s a conservative value! He thinks Roe v. Wade was a terrible decision, for example, as do plenty of constitutional law scholars who may have voted for Obama.

        Are these the bios:

        They look like accomplished political science and/or history professors, but they’re not lawyers, so the perspective is entirely different. I’m not saying it’s not worthwhile, but if you listen to the oral arguments at the Supreme Court (I listen to these on CSpan Radio, which might stream online at the website), the discussion is not issue x – right or wrong. It’s interpreting a lower court decision or state or federal law through the lens of the constitution, and all of the cases that came before that one that are on point.

        Anyway, glad to hear you are doing well. Thanks for the nice thoughts.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: