Con Law and Political discussions?

[Larry Tribe]

I agree with Paul Finkelman in part and respect Sandy Levinson enormously,
but wasn't John Eastman "telling it like it is" when he called Sandy's
remark about W's inexperience -- which I think would've been entirely
reasonable in a context dealing with who "ought" to be the next President
independent of constitutional considerations -- precisely a "gratuitous
slap" at the nominee? I'm guilty of them myself from time to time, but
opportunity-seizing swipes at one's political opponents (whether in the form
of people or in the form of policies) that don't advance understanding of
the constitutional issues at hand seem to me to detract from our discourse.
I would contrast that with Sandy's political speculation in answer to my
question about the preemption cases and their seeming divergence from the
clear statement rule. I haven't thought about that speculation hard enough
yet to see how much I agree or disagree with it, but it -- unlike the remark
about W -- seems to me to lie at just the place where politics and
constitutional law intersect. -- Larry Tribe

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Finkelman [mailto:paul-finkelman at UTULSA.EDU]
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 6:08 PM
To: CONLAWPROF at listserv.ucla.edu
Subject: Con Law and Political discussions?


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

-