Constitutional Theory is Good for Nothing?

[RJLipkin at aol.com]

In the thread  on "Questioning Miers," several List members have stated or at 
least implied the  irrelevance of some kinds of work engaged in by 
constitutional  scholars.  Putting aside the conference referred to and Justice Breyer's 
 (?) reaction to it, I ask whether the position of these members is that  
constitutional theory and history are irrelevant, and if so to what? In  
particular, is the point that constitutional theory is good for nothing? If so,  I 
know I would benefit from serious explanations of why constitutional theory is  
so pointless.
 
            I  would reject such a view for at least two reasons: (1) 
constitutional  history and theory are part and parcel of constitutional adjudication 
and (2)  constitutional history and law are relevant to the responsive 
citizen's  understanding of American government.  Is that all a responsive citizen  
needs to know about American government?  Of course not. Is there much more  
to American constitutional government than judges and law professors emphasize? 
 Of course there is. But in suggesting questions appropriate to ask Ms. Miers 
is  there anything remotely inappropriate in asking her questions about  
constitutional history and theory as these function as integral elements in  
deciding cases?
 
        Back to the central  question in this post, and away from 
"Questioning Ms. Miers."  Is  constitutional theory good for nothing?  If yes, why? If 
no, what is it  good for?  Any and all replies will be appreciated.
 
Bobby
 
Robert Justin  Lipkin
Professor of Law
Widener University School of  Law
Delaware
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20051010/e51021d8/attachment.html