Hi Sandy. I begin my con law course with the Glorious Revolution. (But it's actually con development). Let me offer these thoughts about the relevance of being a lawyer versus an academic for discussions about "constitutional law." Academics are more likely to be free of what I call a "bent perspective." What I mean by this is NOT that academics don't have goofy beliefs (for surely some do). But rather that they will have been attentive to the pitfalls of whatever belief systems they adopt. And if they haven't been sufficiently attentive, it is usually owed to neglect rather than poor character -- meaning they'll go back to deal with it when shown. In fact, good academics will be embarrassed to find that a pitfall in his or her beliefs is overlooked. You don't get the same behavior (as a general rule) among people who do not take on as a life career the pursuit of truth and meaning. As such, you shouldn't find among professors the sort of behaviors in opinion-making that you do on the A.M. radio. The way the mind maneuvers is different. It isn't debate; it's discussion. It isn't a sword or a contest; it's like a food or a wine. You come to appreciate the working of minds and the integrity of thought. All professors have this in them to some degree, merely because of what their work consists of. We're so insulated from the world. It's like living life in a bottle. Your job, 24/7, is to make sense of things (one way or another). It is because of this that a discussion group devoted to topic X might want to favorably indulge those whose life's work involves thinking properly of things concerning X. (P.S. Sent to Law and Meta Perspective) Regards and thanks. Dr. Sean Wilson, Esq. Assistant Professor Wright State University Personal Website: http://seanwilson.org (Subscribe: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/sworg-subscribe/ ) SSRN papers: http://ssrn.com/author=596860 New Discussion Groups! http://ludwig.squarespace.com/discussionfora/ ________________________________ From: Sanford Levinson <SLevinson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@xxxxxxxxx>; "CONLAWPROF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <CONLAWPROF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Fri, September 24, 2010 4:58:37 PM Subject: RE: union cards I begin my constitutional law courses with "the case of the United States Bank," which, of course, for me is decidedly not the same as beginning with McCulloch, since the initial debate is that among Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton, and Randolph and the decision by Washington. The reason I mention this is that I always ask students how it is, exactly, that the non-lawyer Washington was supposed to decide who had the better argument (not to mention that two of the three lawyers, Jefferson and Randolph, believed the bill was unconstitutional, as against Hamilton, of couse). Does one not have to be a lawyer to understand constitutional law (which, of course, is my own position)? If, on the other hand, professional expertise is required, then why shouldn't Washington have simply said, the anti's, one of whom is my Attorney General, explicitly to give his opinon as to constituitonality of legislation, have it? Obviously, I see no reason to believe that law professors, any more than certified lawyers, have a monopoly on useful discussions of the United States Constitution. I suspect it is highly desirable to be a lawyer to be a district judge, since one must know the rules of evidence (which almost no law professor who does not teach teh subject does). Does anyone really believe that every one of the members of the United States Supreme Court really needs to be a lawyer? (And does this mean being a member of the Bar or only graduating from law school? I suspect that all of us know distinguished law professors who have never taken a bar exam.) sandy