I'm fascinated by the following comment from JDS, which I assume was
written in reply to me:

>        Were Harry Jaffa the Chief Justice of the United States his
> interpretation might have some weight.  However, he isn't and Taney was.
> Case closed on that point as far as I can tell.

You would seem to be saying that Taney's interpretation of the Constitution
is the definitive one, because of the office that he held.  In your view,
if the Chief Justice were to affirm that, per his interpretation of the
Constitution, the moon is made of cheese (or some equally nonsensical
conclusion), would that make it, constitutinally speaking, true?

You really *must* read Jaffa.  Jaffa's argument is in part about the nature
of fundamental constitutional truths, which he thinks do exist.  You would
seem to be very much of precisely the turn of mind that Jaffa (and other
conservatives--Robert Bork comes to mind) think are the real problem in the
academy today.

Dismissal of higher law is quite common in America today.  The notion that
there is no link between power and truth is academically fashionable, and
has been for a long while.  But if that is the case, then the Constitution
is simply *an* arrangement of power, in the service or arbitrary ends.  Why
should I care one way or the other what it means then--its just, in the
most cynical fashion imaginable, about how the powerful legitimate their
power.

If you really believe that, then surely you see that you have no grounds at
all for criticizing Lincoln?

Warm regards,
Kevin

--
Kevin R. Hardwick, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of History, MSC 2001
James Madison University
Harrisonburg VA 22807
Phone:  540/568-6306
Email:  [log in to unmask]

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html