I began my Constitutional Law 101: Basic Course lectures on January 17, 2010. Although the numbers of downloads have been substantial, I have received little feedback to indicate that my intention of educating laypersons about the history and current status of American constitutional law has been realized. The few comments I've received have been mostly from friends and former students.
I mention this not to solicit positive reviews, but because of the underlying premise of an email I received this morning.
It reads, in its subtle entirety: "I for one am glad you have suspended your blog so we don't have to see your racist, white supremacist rantings on this site anymore."
For decades, especially during the twenty-one years I taught law, I've encountered this kind of irrational, knee-jerk reaction every time I discussed the constitutional aspects of race. The best antidote to this pathology is even more discussion about the constitutional aspects of race, and shining an even brighter spotlight on who the real racists are: those who seek to morph minorities into victims who are entitled to the undeserved, at the expense of the real victims of shameful altruism, collectivism and statism-- productive, law-abiding Americans.
As to suspending my blog, my "fan" is quite mistaken. I have already posted the first Worst Supreme Court Decision" in my new Constitutional Law 102 course, the second will appear in a few days, and more will show up about every three weeks. (Notification is via this blog.)
And now, my "fan" has motivated me to spend more time than I had planned on the constitutional aspects of race (and entitlements).
Monday, April 5, 2010
The Wall Street Journal editorial at this link is an excellent summary of material I explained in my early "Constitutional Law 101: Basic Course" lectures and in my "Worst Supreme Court Cases" analysis of M'Culloch v. Maryland. I highly recommend the editorial as a snapshot of the constitutional problems inherent in Obamacare.