I’ve just quickly read the New York Times Magazine piece by Jeffrey Rosen on “The Constitution in Exile.” (I have to finish some work before giving some lectures for univesity audiences and then a presentation on constitutionalism; see below for some of the documents I’ll be using.) Rosen’s essay is an attempt at a balanced treatment of the idea that — mirabile dictu! — the U.S. Constitution actually means something and that it both authorizes and at the same time limits government action. Cass Sunstein is brought forth as a critic; he’s about as radical an advocate of unlimited government as you could find in America, but is described as follows: “Sunstein, who describes himself as a moderate….” Good point! Still, although he may “describe himself as a moderate,” readers of his works know him as someone who holds extremist views about the supremacy and unlimited character of state power. But how many readers of the magazine have read his books? (See my reviews of two of them elsewhere on this site.)
(Note: The photographer managed to work extra hard to get Satanic or cadaverous photos of the people on the “wrong side” of the issue.)
I see where the country gets its “cult of personality” from. According to the NYT, the “Constitution in Exile” is about the radical views of a few individuals with guilt-by-association financial backing. One need not bother to read, much less understand, the Constitution itself. The actual ideas of Article I, Section 8 and Amendments 9 and 10 are no where near as important or interesting as which potential nominees are suspected sympathizers. Sad. Truly sad.
NYT Continues Its Offensive On GOP And Judicial Nominations
Jeffrey Rosen writes a long article in today’s New York Times magazine, which starts off by lambasting Justice Clarence Thomas and then paints a picture of Republican efforts over the years to create Supreme Courts that will give unfettered reign…
NYT Continues Its Offensive On GOP And Judicial Nominations
Jeffrey Rosen writes a long article in today’s New York Times magazine, which starts off by lambasting Justice Clarence Thomas and then paints a picture of Republican efforts over the years to create Supreme Courts that will give unfettered reign…
NYT Continues Its Offensive On GOP And Judicial Nominations
Jeffrey Rosen writes a long article in today’s New York Times magazine, which starts off by lambasting Justice Clarence Thomas and then paints a picture of Republican efforts over the years to create Supreme Courts that will give unfettered reign…
NYT Continues Its Offensive On GOP And Judicial Nominations
Jeffrey Rosen writes a long article in today’s New York Times magazine, which starts off by lambasting Justice Clarence Thomas and then paints a picture of Republican efforts over the years to create Supreme Courts that will give unfettered reign…
I had the same reaction — those photos of Epstein, Greve and Mellor make them look like three villians from the film noir era.
Rosen’s article got better (or less objectionable) the further I read into it, yet it was incredibly irritating to wade through the clumsy manner in which he set up the crux of the story: New Deal jurisprudence is wise beyond words while the libertarian-minded scholars discussed are well-intentioned, but inflexible ideolgoues.
I’ve read better from law students.
ideologues — sorry, I’ll run spell checker next time!
it sure looks like they posed for those photos…
…and we all know that the subject controls exactly how the photograph turns out. In fact, usually people being photographed for the New York Times get to choose which picture they want used, so that the most flattering and appealing picture is published!
that doesn’t change the fact that they posed for them, as much as you’d like it to.
that you people are actually complaining about real photos is an incredible joke. go ahead, whine about it some more, it’s freaking hilarious.
it’s also hilarious watch everyone get upset about “self-described moderate”. how the hell could anything have a bigger red flag than “self-described’? the way all of you simply can’t see those letters, like the word “fnord”, is again, an incredible source of mirth for me
so, um, thanks for my levity for the day. I appreciate it. so long
Ripping the Times
Andrew Sullivan rips into a NTY Magazine piece by Jeff Rosen:
I’m glad you had your dose of levity and mirth for the day. It apparently doesn’t take very much. Small minds…
Constitution in Exile
Yesterday the New York Times Magazine published a cover article by Jeffrey Rosen on the supposed “Constitution in Exile” movement, a group of libertarian legal thinkers who it seems have been working termite-like in the dark to undermine the Constituti…
Is it funny that the NYT seems to be giving support to the opposition to future judicial nominees based on an intentionally misleading article?
The odds that the GOP will nominate any “Constitution in Exile” adherents for judicial posts is just about zero, except perhaps as sacrificial lambs. The GOP legislature and GOP executive do not appear to be living under the Constitution in Exile; rather, they appear to seek to increase federal power and prerogatives without limit.
Rosen’s ignorant article (or perhaps it is intentionally dishonest) provides further evidence–as though more were needed–that those who would promote freedom from expansive government could do far worse than burn down Yale Law School.
What is so ignorant and dishonest about this article (recognizing that it’s written in the NYT, and not National Review)? Jeffrey Rosen, who has spoken at Cato, knows what he’s talking about. I thought it was pretty fair, excepting the paragraph about Sunstein and the final paragraph or two. But otherwise, there are a collection of groups and people that want to return us to a more strict understanding of the constitution, they include IJ, Cato, and AEI, Epstein and Barnett, and they do want to wipe way much if not all of the New Deal welfare state, and leave only a skeletal (if any) regulatory state. They do believe that, absent regulations, the market will mostly regulate itself, and the tort system will help out where it fails.
asdf,
What I find dishonest about the article is that it does nothing to advance the debate whatsoever. The presumption from the opening paragraph is “Clarence Thomas, bad”; “Joseph Biden, good” and it paints everyone on the Clarence Thomas side of the debate with the “bad” brush by association. Epstien is “notorious”, not “noted”, for just the first example. Biden is “prescient”, Epstein “extreme” and a “radical”.
There’s no discussion of the ideas here, not even the customary misrepresentation of their position. There’s no attempt at a ‘fair’ presentation or even an explanation of the basis for their beliefs. Shoot, you’d think in a article that basically is about those who believe in the doctrine of enumerated powers that there might be a reference to Article I, Section 8 or to the 9th and 10th Amendments. Actually explaining the “extreme” “radical” notion that the Constitution actually limits government doesn’t take more than a paragraph or two.
This “article” is a “hit piece”, pure and simple. It is an attempt to make it clear who is on the “wrong side” of the “government is god” question.
I have added a page on the topic of “The Constitution in Exile” at http://www.constitution.org/cons/exile/exile.htm . I also have a blog at http://constitutionalism.blogspot.com that you may enjoy visiting. Comments are welcome.