Mad Minerva

Great Moments in Ivy League Monkeying with the U.S. Constitution

« H E email
posted Saturday, 9 April 2005

OK, maybe my title for this post sounds a little harsh.

But this sort of thing makes me wonder . . .

The Constitution in 2020

April 8-10, 2005 • Yale Law School

A conference bringing together leading figures in American law to catalyze debate among progressives about the Constitution's future.

It is time for progressives to set a constitutional agenda for the 21st Century. In 1987-88, the Reagan Justice Department produced a white paper known as “The Constitution in 2000” which, by taking a long view rather than focusing on the immediate issues of the day, was immensely successful in influencing the Constitution under which we now live. If progressives are to rehabilitate that Constitution, they must now, more than ever, articulate constitutional ideals capable of inspiring the next generation. The goal is to set forth a positive constitutional vision for tomorrow, rather than merely to respond to the crises of today. Accordingly the Yale chapter of the American Constitution Society, the Yale Law School, Yale's Arthur Liman Public Interest Program, the American Constitution Society, the Open Society Institute and the Center for American Progress invite you to a conference on “The Constitution in 2020.”

I'm not making this up.  I copied and pasted the announcement right from the Yale webpages, red ink and all.  Did any of you catch that bit implying that we need to fix the Constitution?  Here it is again: "In 1987-88, the Reagan Justice Department produced a white paper known as “The Constitution in 2000” which, by taking a long view rather than focusing on the immediate issues of the day, was immensely successful in influencing the Constitution under which we now live. If progressives are to rehabilitate that Constitution . . ."

I want to know:  What does "rehabilitating" the Constitution mean?  And who's supposed to do the rehabilitating?  What exactly does a "progressive constitutional agenda" really mean?  And do I want to know?

And no, I do not like the idea of any party, group, or faction setting out to monkey with the Constitution.  I do not like any of the aforesaid groups or whatever pontificating about what they think the Constitution should be.  Do I sound harsh?  Maybe I've just seen too much "progressive" venom and vitriol out here in Campus Land.  I like my Constitution as it is, thank you very much, though it seems First Amendment rights don't mean squat if folks happen to say anything other people don't like -- remember Harvard's Larry Summers?

links: digg this    del.icio.us    technorati    reddit


Questions, comments, snide remarks?