Law Office History- Setting a higher bar to pass the bar

[David M Wagner]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion list for con law professors
> [mailto:CONLAWPROF at listserv.ucla.edu]On Behalf Of Stephen M. Feldman
> Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2001 6:00 PM
> To: CONLAWPROF at listserv.ucla.edu
> Subject: Re: Law Office History- Setting a higher bar to pass the bar
>
>
> I have not followed all the postings on the second amendment, but I would
> like to respond to Saul Cornell’s post on law office history.
>
> While I agree that most (but not all) law professors do lousy
> history, I am
> nonetheless disturbed by the common use of the derogatory label, “law
> office history.”  If a professor, whether in history or law, presents a
> poor historical account, then as I see matters, the appropriate response
> would be as follows:  Professor So-and-so is wrong for the following
> reasons.  Reason 1.  Reason 2.  Reason 3.  Saul gives a good example of
> this type of argument when he criticizes Eugene and Randy for
> insufficiently accounting for the context in which St. George
> Tucker wrote.
>


Does he?  Where were Reason 1, Reason 2, and Reason 3 as to how and wherein
Randy and Eugene were wrong about Tucker?  All I saw was a flat declaration
that they had misinterpreted Tucker, followed by an assertion that because
Tucker himself is not a principle part of their scholarly work, they are
irresponsible in expressing an opinion about him.  More appropriate, and
certainly more helpful, would have been for Prof. Cornell to enlighten us
based on his wider knowledge of Tucker.  The conclusion that he knows more
about Tucker than his interlocutors, or than law professors in general,
should have been left for us to make.

-- David Wagner