Just what do (did) those 27 words in the constitution really mean?
by Charlie Leck
Part III of my blog on Minority Education (Schools that Work)
is in process and coming along all right; however, it is the most difficult of the three parts and it needs more research and fact checking. I'll continue work on it and I hope to post it in the next week or two. In the meantime, I'd like to point you to one of my favorite blogs and to which I've pointed you before.
The Supreme Court isn't always correct, you know. That's very important to bear in mind. And, my friends, it is one of the most important considerations to keep in mind when you vote for a person to be President of the United States. George Bush's personal impression will be left upon this nation for many generations because of the appointments he made to the Supreme Court.
For instance, the recent Washington, D.C. gun issue decision of the biggest court will have an extraordinary effect on this nation for ages. I was shocked to hear Barack Obama so lightly say that it was the proper decision. He may be an expert in constitutional law, but I'm not sure he was straightforward about this issue at all.
What shocked me most, when I read the decision, is that these 5 guys consider themselves strict constructionists. Stan Smith will help you understand those 27 words.
Stan Fish writes a blog in the NY Times that he calls Think Again. Fish is an astute thinker and an extraordinary wordsmith.
"Stanley Fish is the Davidson-Kahn Distinguished University Professor and a professor of law at Florida International University, in Miami, and dean emeritus of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He has also taught at the University of California at Berkeley, Johns Hopkins and Duke University. He is the author of 10 books. His new book on higher education, "Save the World On Your Own Time," will be published in 2008." NY Times sidebar on the Fish Blog
Fish deals with those 27 words over which the Supreme Court ruled very recently – in a 5-4 split decision. I hope you'll take the time to read it – especially if constitutional issues interest you.
Come on back on Wednesday, when we'll have something original posted.