MALPRACTICE AT LAW SCHOOLS: Jennifer Rubin, legal eagle over at the Washington Post, nails it in this blog post, commenting on Peter Berkowitz’s observation in the WSJ that colleges and grad schools don’t teach the Federalist Papers. Rubin observes:
But the idea that the Constitution has objective meaning that can be ascertained, in part by studying works like “The Federalist,” is still resisted by the vast majority of elite law school faculty. . . . Students study precedent and view newer decisions as either departures from or natural consequences of earlier cases. But assess that a decision, and maybe a great number before that, are just plain wrong because they misunderstood an aspect of the Framers’ intent or the structure of the Constitution? Perish the thought.
As one of those law school faculty members, I can vouch for the utter correctness of Rubin’s observation. Living constitutionalism has no patience whatsoever for what a bunch of old, dead (white) guys thought about the meaning of the Constitution they wrote and ratified. It’s so late 1700s (*yawn*).