I said the LATER amendments by which I (and everyone, I assume) don’t include the bill of rights.
What was perhaps unclear in my statement is that I meant the substance of the later amendments themselves, not the idea of them and the process by which they’d be added.
Did they see the 15th and 19th coming? Was it the intent of the framers that black people and white women be able to vote? Clearly it wasn’t or they’d have included them in the original. And yet, these are parts of the constitution and we all recognize them as such.
Law is opinion,politics,philosophy
Not science so you need an anchor of some sort…hence the constitution.
Every legal opinion is filtered threw a judges bias,politics,personal feeling, need to show pseudo intellect or make a name for themselves in important cases.
We could toss the constitution and close Hillsdale college and all the planets would align.
Of course they didn’t. If they did, they would have just included it in the original document and skipped the part about how to amend it.
The important part is that they had the foresight to recognize that it could and should be changed, if there was overwhelming support at both the Federal and State level. The amendment process handles this quite well.
You are correct that the Constitution was a deliberative process that required much compromise. However, being created by compromise does not mean the final rules therein were not meant to have specific meanings, i.e., a specific meaning, as defined by compromise and implemented by the use of specific words and phrases.
This is why I believe the Federalist Papers sand the letters between the Founders should be required reading in US civics classes. They go through the various debates and compromises made by the Founding Fathers and what the specific articles and sections therein meant in the final drafting.
As a stand alone document, the Constitution is fully understood in meaning by the average person because without knowing the historical context, the meaning would be lost on 99% of people. The Federalist Papers and the letters between the Founders provide that context, in quite some depth and fully explained.
As for application versus constitutional intent/meaning, Hillsdale’s approach is a logical one - the Constitution is applicable to issues of today, but only applicable as to what it meant when it was written. AND, and a big “and,” if there is place where the Constitution seems not to be applicable, then the amendment process is what is to be used to make it applicable.
However, something cannot be made law (legislatively or administratively) by ignoring the Constitution and by saying the Constitution does not apply simply because it does not mention X. The Founders were all of this weasel way of politicians operating and made it clear that if the Constitution does not speak on a issue or conditions make it seem not to apply appropriately, then that power to go outside the Constitution is reserved to the States and to the people and that requires actual votes and consent of the governed, not the Judiciary or politicians to institute those changes.
The fundamental point lost on many is that the Constitution was/is not meant to be an end or be all, the people were. And if the Constitution is wanting for something, then it is up to the people to change it, not anyone else - read as, it requires votes to change it and votes mean the consent of the governed, i.e, the people have the final word.
Let’s see. I’ve actually taken the Constitution class, and no I was never taught that the originalist was the correct way to interpret the Constitution. Instead the class looked at the constitution, looked at the writings that inspired the constitution and then included selected writings of great leaders in American government who quoted the constitution and/or referenced it in their decision-making processes and policies. It was more of a very academic look at American government that a hurr-durr indoctrination class. The online class serves a certain purpose, and that is to raise funding from non-college people.
About the dorms and the polices. I am an active member of the largest dormitory on campus, Simpson. Simpson is a very loud, raucous dormitory that has a house mother. Our house mother basically ensures that a bunch of rowdy 170 guys do not burn down the dorm (nearly has happened several times in the past years). I actually was talking with President Arnn today at lunch about dorms and visitation hours. When President Arnn became the president, he considered removing visitation hours. But, the students (namely the guys) protested because each male dormitories have very intense cultures. Alcohol usage is banned in all dormitories, but the college is no stranger to alcohol. It is present at every official college event, Heck, the student body jokes that our President, provost, and departmental heads are raging alcoholics. Every building besides the dorms has a liquor license. I’ve seen junior frat guys reading von Balthasar and doing shots of vodka on the second floor of the library. RA’s are kind of like Patrol leaders in boy scouts. They are more of the leaders, and planners of each hall.
And, the sciences are our largest department. Last year we sent over 20 people to medical school and another 10 or so went to get Ph.D.’s in biology, chemistry and physics. Very rigorous science program. Great placement all around. I think 12% of our class of 16’ went on to some science graduate program.
Republicans and politics are big on campus, but I’d confidentially say that we aren’t some political party stronghold. As a point of reference, I’m on the board of the college republicans of Hillsdale College, and we only have a 166 active members, which is about 12-14% of the entire campus. Only 300 people on all of campus are even on our email list. And, we are the biggest political club on campus.
From your description, it seems like Hillsdale has much more of a hard drinking campus culture closer to the large Big 10 schools with hard drinking/school spirit campus cultures my relatives attended in the '80s.
In contrast, alcohol/hard drinking didn’t have much of a presence at my alma mater(Oberlin) when I attended in the latter half of the '90s*. Our vices were weed and psychedelics though it was certainly not officially sanctioned/sold by the college and the users kept to themselves.
We did have one campus building which had a licensed bar, but it was mostly patronized by a much older crowd of Profs, admins, staff, and their same-aged guests.
This has changed somewhat since I graduated as I still am a bit stunned that craft beer has now gained some popularity among younger alums/current undergrads. Back when I attended, imbibing alcohol...especially beer meant you were suspected of being part of the "establishment of one's parents'/"old fogies"....the opposite of being "cool."
@cobrat Yeah. No one understands why we often get ranked as a stone-cold sober college on the Princeton Review. Though, I really couldn’t call us a party school. The student body, for the most part, just really enjoys alcohol.
I am on the mailing list for Hillsdale. They send out this publication called Imprimis which I just received a few days ago.
The article this month was “How and Why the Senate must reform the Filibuster” It was presented to Hillsdales center for constitutional studies and citizenship in Washington DC as part of the AWC family foundation lecture series.
The last paragraph reads as follows" Voters elected Republican majorities in both houses of congress and they expect action. They will get it from the President and from the House. But in order for the Senate to rise to the occasion it must reform its rules"
Is this consistent with the orignalist interpretation of the constitution and to help with “free thinking” ? Nope this is nothing more than partisan BS coming as policy directly from the leaders at Hillsdale
Part of their great lecture series also includes “How to investigate the IRS” “The second amendment as an expression of first principles” and “The EPA and private property” I really don’t believe they should be considered an institution of higher learning
I think your Cornell link exaggerates the extent of founding era disagreements on legal interpretation. They didn’t agree on everything, anymore than Justice Breyer and Justice Ginsburg did, but they did largely subscribe to the same basic premises.
There is clearly a great deal of interest and enthusiasm for Hillsdale among conservatives, as documented in the NYTimes story. But there is a seeming disconnect between this point and Hillsdale’s low application volume. According to the US Dept. of Education’s “College Navigator” website, Hillsdale only got 1,852 applications for fall 2015. For comparison, the best known liberal arts colleges generally get 5,000 to 10,000 applications per year.
Conservatives routinely complain about liberal bias at prominent private and public colleges, yet they don’t exactly seem to be flocking to a conservative alternative. If anything, the Hillsdale applicant pool may be shrinking. Hillsdale does not post Common Data Sets, which are normally the best source of historical info. However, a February 2014 story in the student paper notes that “Currently, the college averages 2,100 applications…”
Hillsdale’s test scores strike me as pretty good, considering the small size of the applicant pool. This is probably connected to their strong 40% yield, which is very good for a LAC. The small applicant pool and high yield are consistent with a “niche school”: i.e. one that has limited general appeal, but which appeals strongly to a certain subset of the population. Coincidentally, George Will refers to Hillsdale as a “niche success” in the NYTimes story.
The 2014 story cited above indicates that Hillsdale was hoping to overtake the University of Michigan as the most selective school in the state. That change does not appear to be imminent, as Hillsdale’s Fall 2015 acceptance rate was 50%, compared to 26% at Michigan.
I feel very confident the majority of people would agree with me. I am sure there are some people who want their schools to put on lectures about how to investigate the IRS ,The EPA and public property, and to have the lectures put on by white males only. By the way I am not one of them. I also encourage diversity
They are also big on giving out internships at Fox news and the Weekly Standard. One of their students interned on capitol hill The highlight of his internship in his own words:
“assisted staff in preparation to drill the IRS Commissioner” That is truly incredible. WOW
I will take your question at face value, as a serious one. However, I see you simply say “nope” and provide no evidence that it is just partisan BS. Thus, you give zero intellectual backing to your “nope.”
Additionally, I fail to understand how what Hillsdale wrote is different than any other school in existence today that decides to opine about something in the public square. Something schools do all the time.
Furthermore, the central problem with your question is it is a non-sequitur. Originalism and free thinking are distinct issues, and both can exist at the same time. One need not be present to allow the other to flourish.
The most instructive way to answer your question is by comparison. After all, the thread is essentially comparing Hillsdale’s originalism approach to other schools where a more progressive approach to interpreting the Constitution is taken.
Therefore, the following comparative questions are apt: In reference to originalism and free thinking, how is Hillsdale’s statement any different than when Penn put out a statement that it is now a sanctuary campus for illegal aliens? Is one statement anymore partisan BS than other? Or, are they equivalent in the level of partisan BS?
In terms of originalism, the Hillsdale statement comports with the fact that the Constitution is called the Constitution the United States, and it is the states which choose the peoples’ representatives to Congress. More importantly, it is the states that choose the president. And given that 30 out of 50 states (60%) voted for exactly what Hillsdale stated above, then it is originalist to say that if a majority of the states vote for something, then those states, and by proxy the people who voted in those states, “expect action” consistent with their vote.
The Hillsdale’s statement also acknowledges the originalist reading that the Senate sets its own rules; that is in the Constitution. Over a couple centuries, the Senate has changed its rules hundreds of times. Some rules have been in place for a long time and then, for all sorts of reasons, they get changed. All Hillsdale is acknowledging is the Senate determines its own fate in terms of delivering for the 60% (the majority) of states that voted for the president and for the congressional majorities. There is nothing in the Hillsdale statement says that goes against the Constitution in any way. It simply conforms to what giving power to all three branches mean to the people who made that happen. The statement also reminds the elected officials what they were voted in to do by this 60% of the states.
As for helping with free thinking, I do not even get what you mean here. Hillsdale is not telling students it must agree with it, and it is not telling students that they must endorse what Hillsdale says. However, what Hillsdale statement does teach is how to properly interpret results at the voting booth in the states to the results, as described in the Constitution. Students are free to think otherwise if they want, but there is nothing in the Hillsdale statement that goes against students thinking freely.
As for Penn’s statement that is now a sanctuary campus, it too is free to make that statement, just as Hillsdale is free to make the one that it did.
However, Penn’s statement, unlike Hillsdale’s, is actually promoting a policy that is not in the Constitution. Specifically, it is promoting a policy that is in contradiction to what the Constitution says about the powers of the President and Congress. While Penn can adopt this stance, it is true-to-form a non-originalist view and is reading something into the Constitution that is not there simply because the school feels it should be there.
As for free thinking, as far as I can tell Penn students are still free to believe what they want, just like Hillsdale students. So I see no free thinking conundrum in either situation. Penn is free to say this because it is a collection of admin people who collectively have the right express themselves. However. unless students are forced to follow this edict against their will, then there is no free thinking issue to be found anywhere.
Bottom line, both schools are free to say what they said, but Penn’s statement goes against originalism and the powers granted the federal government, as expressed in the Constitution and by statute, while Hillsdale’s statement is in line with the Constitution.
In terms of partisan BS, if you think schools should not be making public policy statements (which both Hillsdale and Penn statement are), then to be consistent, both statements should be considered partisan BS to you.
In contrast, if you are fine with Penn’s statement, then to be intellectually consistent, you should also be fine with Hillsdale’s as well. You may not agree with Hillsdale, but both statements rate the same on a partisan BS meter.
Under what rock have you been living? Exactly, what do you think liberal students are doing from other colleges? The exact same thing, just for the other side. Where do you think the liberal media gets its farm teams from? Answer - colleges other than Hillsdale.
I personally know five people who did internships on the Hill for the other party and they did very similar activities. And they all interned at NYT, ABC etc. One student had the reputation of being the “dirt digger.” Quite sure they were going head-to-head with Hillsdale students on the opposite side.
Two of my grad school professors were on call from the WH and capital Hill just to prepare arguments for certain bills and to draft legislation. Recently, much legislation has been written by professors at MIT, Penn, U of Chicago and Harvard. I do not recall anyone saying “Wow” to that.
Seriously, your “Wow” makes it seems you have not been keeping up with any news and the role of colleges and universities in government over the last 15 - 20 years.
EDIT: Just saw @Zinhead post #117. Beat me to the exact same point.
