March 24, 2013 at 1:19 am #20564
I have only listened to the following so far, lectures 24, 25, and as much of 26 that would work for me.
I like the work of both Dr. Gutzman and Dr. McLanahan, and I agree with most of their conclusions & characterizations, so I hope this critique will be taken in the positive sense in which it is intended, but so far I am a bit disapoint. In general the classes on this site have been good but I think here there has, in the lectures I have heard, been a bit too much interpretation and not enough direct quotation.
For example, don’t *tell* people progressive policies were/are crazy (which they are), quote the fellows and let people react “that’s crazy.” Indeed, that is part of what the purpose of this site’s courses are; it’s so that we can go beyond saying such-and-such is crazy, or so-and-so-says-such-and-such is crazy, but have the facts to support that conclusion.
The words of early Progressives (for example) are an absolute gold mine, I was disappointed there were not more direct quotations.
In New Deal I West Coast Hotel is mentioned, but the most important aspect of that case was left out. The most important aspect was not the case itself or the perfectly reasonable (remarkable enough for the Court, I must concede) decision, but it’s famous Footnote 4. This Footnote was not mentioned in the lecture at all (unless Dr. Gutzman goes back to it at the end of the lecture; again, that part was damaged for me): this Footnote is critical because it marks the full shift to the “Fourth Constitution,” or, if you prefer, the full theoretical elaboration & incorporation into Constitutional Jurisprudence of the “Hamiltonian” theory of the Federal Government & Constitution; – it makes explicit the transformation from a Constitution of limited, enumerated Federal powers and expansive liberty to a constitution (small-c) of expansive Federal powers and limited, enumerated liberties (the government has wide latitude of action – plenary presumption of constitutionality – except for things specifically listed in the Footnote that the Court will devote stricter scrutiny towards).
Perhaps this is explained in a later lecture I haven’t had the chance to listen to, in which case I apologize for my haste. But if it isn’t, and if that file needs to be re-recorded because of the damage, hopefully this aspect of West Coast Hotel will be given the attention IMO it deserves.March 24, 2013 at 1:48 am #20565gborrego1991Member
Brion Mcclanahan provides links in his PowerPoints’ to a lot of primary sources throughout different lectures. Although, I haven’t seen some of the later lectures.March 24, 2013 at 2:03 pm #20566
West Coast Hotel v. Parrish has two footnotes. That’s why Footnote 4 isn’t mentioned.March 25, 2013 at 8:53 am #20567
I’m an idiot who confused it with Caroline Products; which does bring up the question of why that case isn’t mentioned.
Sorry for being a confused idiot.March 25, 2013 at 8:57 am #20568
It is mentioned.March 25, 2013 at 10:30 am #20569
It might be in the part that didn’t play for me, then. As I mentioned I couldn’t get the last 5 min or so to run; I just tried again now and same problem, both the audio & visual versions, both the online and download versions.April 11, 2013 at 12:35 pm #20570phdhfranklinMember
My question has to do with the recommended readings for the Constitution course. Is there a particular order in which the recommended books should be read?
Derek H. FranklinApril 13, 2013 at 6:29 pm #20571
Born to the Purple, I hope you’ve been able to use all of Lecture 26 by now.April 13, 2013 at 6:59 pm #20572
Yes I have, thank you very much, and it does cover the ground on U.S. v Caroline/Footnote 4, I was missing and does so well. Thanks. ^_^
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.