Con Law and Political discussions?

[Paul Finkelman]

I am sure Sandy is perfectly capable of defending himself, but it does seem odd to
pull a paranthetical out of a serious discussion of a constitutional issue, recopy
that one line into an e-mail, and then complain that it is turning this list into a
"political chat room."  Alternatively, since we are discussing constitutional law,
which as we all know, is inherently political, then we are all in a political chat
room.

As for comparing Clinton to Bush, in terms of experience  -- does that make Professor
Eastman part of a political chatroom?

-
Prof. Paul Finkelman
Visiting at Northwestern School of Law of Lewis & Clark College
July 5-August 3, 2000
10015 SW Terwilliger Blvd.
Portland, OR  97219
(503) 768-6863
(503) 768-6671 (fax)
finkelma at lclark.edu
After August 3, University of Tulsa (918) 631-3706



"John C. Eastman" wrote:

> Sanford Levinson wrote:
>
> > The reason no one names a 30-year-old as vice-president is not because of
> > constitutional fidelity, but because it would be so stupid to do so, given
> > general norms about "experience, etc."  (Though if we're willing to accept
> > W. as qualified to be president, then those norms are clearly being
> > modified.)
>
> Sandy,
> What is it about George W. Bush that makes him not qualified to be president, in
> your view?  That he is merely a state governor?  So was Clinton, and at least
> Texas is a large state.  That he has no foreign policy experience?  Neither did
> Clinton, and at least Bush has the benefit of drawing on his father's substantial
> experience in the field.  And although this is a Con Law list, I take it you are
> not actually taking issue with his constitutional qualifications to be president,
> so why the gratuitous slap and the nominee?  Is this a political chat room or a
> discussion list for issues of constitutional law?
> John Eastman
> Chapman University School of Law

-