Another Yale dunce at The New York Times

Mark J. Fitzgibbons
Lincoln Caplan, formerly the Knight Senior Journalist at Yale Law School, now on the editorial board of The New York Times, explores the meaning of what it is to be a "constitutional conservative" by stating, "Constitutional conservatives have an ill-defined faith in the redeeming power of the founders' vision."

Let's try this as a start: The Constitution is the law that governs government. The vision begins with government abiding by the text of the Constitution.

That seems pretty well-defined even if people might disagree to degrees about the founders' vision or the precise meaning of some clauses, just as we can dispute the precise meaning of some laws yet know full well the precise meaning of others. But it means, at the very least, Congress makes laws, the President executes laws, and the judiciary adjudicates disputes.

That approach distinguishes constitutional conservatives from, at the very least, those who believe in a "living Constitution," those who violate willy-nilly the separation of powers, and those who refuse to follow checks and balances created by our three-branch system of government.

He then asserts, "The phrase [constitutional conservative] is connected to a radical vision." He concludes, "The anger felt by those who favor constitutional conservatism is potent. Call the slogan vague. Call it arrogant."

Call me arrogant, but I suppose we should forgive his ignorance. After all, he taught at Yale Law School and now works for The New York Times. Where else but Yale and The Times could one get paid for being so clueless?

Ah. Let's not forgive the pompous out-of-touch Caplan.

Call me angry too, I guess.
Lincoln Caplan, formerly the Knight Senior Journalist at Yale Law School, now on the editorial board of The New York Times, explores the meaning of what it is to be a "constitutional conservative" by stating, "Constitutional conservatives have an ill-defined faith in the redeeming power of the founders' vision."

Let's try this as a start: The Constitution is the law that governs government. The vision begins with government abiding by the text of the Constitution.

That seems pretty well-defined even if people might disagree to degrees about the founders' vision or the precise meaning of some clauses, just as we can dispute the precise meaning of some laws yet know full well the precise meaning of others. But it means, at the very least, Congress makes laws, the President executes laws, and the judiciary adjudicates disputes.

That approach distinguishes constitutional conservatives from, at the very least, those who believe in a "living Constitution," those who violate willy-nilly the separation of powers, and those who refuse to follow checks and balances created by our three-branch system of government.

He then asserts, "The phrase [constitutional conservative] is connected to a radical vision." He concludes, "The anger felt by those who favor constitutional conservatism is potent. Call the slogan vague. Call it arrogant."

Call me arrogant, but I suppose we should forgive his ignorance. After all, he taught at Yale Law School and now works for The New York Times. Where else but Yale and The Times could one get paid for being so clueless?

Ah. Let's not forgive the pompous out-of-touch Caplan.

Call me angry too, I guess.