Constitutional Crisis in American Law Schools

DGS49

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
18,415
Reaction score
18,466
Points
2,415
Location
Pittsburgh

This is a good article, pointing out a serious problem with the education of tomorrow's lawyers, but the stark reality is that these law schools are not even teaching the facts that should be clarified in every HS Civics classroom...
  • Congressional power is LIMITED (see the 10th Amendment),
  • The Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary are co-equal branches of government,
  • Most governing power lies with the States,
  • The First Amendment DOES NOT create a "wall of separation" between Church & State,
  • and so on.
 
  • Congressional power is LIMITED (see the 10th Amendment),
Conservatives overstate the scope of the 10th Anendment. Only radical Conservatives consider it absolute
  • The Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary are co-equal branches of government,
In terms of Checks and Balances …Yes
In terms of overall power…No
  • Most governing power lies with the States,
By necessity, Yes
Most of our day to day living is controlled by the states
Supremacy Clause gives Federal power over states
  • The First Amendment DOES NOT create a "wall of separation" between Church & State,
For most purposes, the State stays out of church business and the church stays out of state business
 
Last edited:

This is a good article, pointing out a serious problem with the education of tomorrow's lawyers, but the stark reality is that these law schools are not even teaching the facts that should be clarified in every HS Civics classroom...
  • Congressional power is LIMITED (see the 10th Amendment),
  • The Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary are co-equal branches of government,
  • Most governing power lies with the States,
  • The First Amendment DOES NOT create a "wall of separation" between Church & State,
  • and so on.
I agree with you points except I would like to clarify that you understand "wall of separation" is a figure of speech. You do get that don't you? There is no wall, but the government is to remain neutral on all matters religious. There is freedom of religion, but it's to be practiced in the church-house, not the state-house.
 
I agree with you points except I would like to clarify that you understand "wall of separation" is a figure of speech. You do get that don't you? There is no wall, but the government is to remain neutral on all matters religious. There is freedom of religion, but it's to be practiced in the church-house, not the state-house.
The First Amendment simply prohibits the establishment of a federal religion.
 
The First Amendment simply prohibits the establishment of a federal religion.
Yes, and implies that the federal government remain neutral on all matters religious. It has no business at all in religion.

And in modern times the GOP flies the Israeli flag at its most recent convention. We've come a long way, eh?
 
Does this have anything to do with the US Constitution?
Not in my view, but it does clearly demonstrate a majority of the GOP serves at the pleasure of AIPAC. Could that possibly be a constitutional crisis?
 
Last edited:

This is a good article, pointing out a serious problem with the education of tomorrow's lawyers, but the stark reality is that these law schools are not even teaching the facts that should be clarified in every HS Civics classroom...
  • Congressional power is LIMITED (see the 10th Amendment),
  • The Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary are co-equal branches of government,
  • Most governing power lies with the States,
  • The First Amendment DOES NOT create a "wall of separation" between Church & State,
  • and so on.
Law students shouting down people against the rule of law? Seems predictable.
 
Yes, and implies that the federal government remain neutral on all matters religious. It has no business at all in religion.

And in modern times the GOP flies the Israeli flag at its most recent convention. We've come a long way, eh?
Yet there are chaplains and other clergy paid by the federal government in every armed service. That's proactive support of religion paid by the people. Nothing neutral about that.
 
Back
Top Bottom