Letter to Sarah Lawrence College President Cristle Collins Judd in Support of Prof. Samuel Abrams

Dear President Judd:

I attended Sarah Lawrence College for two years, from 1973 to 1975, and I am increasingly ashamed of my association with it.  I read with dismay Professor Abrams’s op-ed in Minding the Campus.  Abrams writes that students are afraid to say not only that they support a Republican or Libertarian candidate but also that they support a left-wing candidate like Hillary Clinton who is not as extreme a leftist as campus bullies would like.  

When Professor Abrams wrote in the Times that the college needs better balance, he and his family received threats and suffered property damage from campus bigots who have been encouraged by a faculty that has apparently lost its way and an administration that apparently likes to run afoul of Section 501(c)(3).  My guess is that if a basic history examination is to be given to the Orwellian-named “Diaspora Coalition,” it would reveal that the majority do not know the basics of history.  Professor Abrams says that this coalition of bigots has intimidated and bullied those who support him.

I want to see such an examination given to the members of the Diaspora Coalition. The scores should be publicly posted.  My null hypothesis is that they are badly educated half literates. 

My question is this: Given that the college increasingly appears to be in the indoctrinating-and-dumbing-down business, exactly why should I offer financial support?

Sincerely,

Mitchell Langbert

Free Course on Constitutional Law

Netty Weisbaum just forwarded this e-mail. Brooklyn Law School professor Henry mark Holzer has announced that he will be teaching a rare course in constitutional law, free of charge, on eight evenings in February and March. Holzer represented Ayn Rand.

> AN N O U N C E M E N T: An Internet Course On AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Presented By Professor Emeritus HENRY MARK HOLZER rooklyn Law School

http://www.henrymarkholzer.com

Like many other Americans, I am deeply concerned about our nation’s future.

The Weekly Standard of December 21, 2009, reports that “a survey commissioned by the American Revolution Center” found that “when it came to a simple test of knowledge about the founding [of the United States of America], nearly 83 percent of . . . Americans failed.”

In the face of this woeful ignorance, the Constitution of the United States of America is under an unprecedented attack by Barack Obama and his runaway Democrat Party, aided and abetted by the complicit mainstream media.

Yet with a few notable exceptions there is hardly any knowledgeable defense of our founding document to be found anywhere.

Not on radio or television. Not in the press. Not at the grassroots. Certainly not in academia. Nor, sadly, among most Republicans, Conservatives and even Libertarians. Most of the Media’s “instant,” pontificating constitutional experts, especially those on national television, do more harm than good because they spread disinformation that is neither knowledgeable nor principled.

While many “tea party” activists and other patriots are valiantly trying to fight for core constitutional values, they’re disarmed because they have been taught little about American constitutional law. The fact is that everyone fighting for America today, in order to defend the Constitution, must know the answers to countless crucial questions.

Just a few examples:

· Can Congress constitutionally require Americans to buy medical insurance?

· Did Congress lack the constitutional power to give a lame-duck, unelected treasury secretary unchecked and unsupervised power to dispense a trillion dollars of taxpayer money?

· Does Obama have the constitutional power to appoint unaccountable “czars” to rule over virtually every aspect of our lives?

· How was a bare majority of the Supreme Court able to usurp constitutional control over America’s national security and the “War on Terrorism” from President George W. Bush?

· Why do even supporters of Roe v. Wade’s result admit that, as constitutional law, the decision is indefensible?

· What turned the Constitution into a “living” document that can mean anything Earl Warren, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor feel it should mean?

· Is the “fairness doctrine”—which could kill conservative talk radio programs, like Rush Limbaugh—a violation of the Constitution’s First Amendment?

· Are American citizens about to be stripped of their constitutional “right to bear arms”?

· What are “unenumerated” constitutional rights, and why have they never been recognized?

· Can racial quotas ever be eliminated entirely?

· Where does the Constitution say that convicts are entitled to law libraries?

The answers to these and scores of other questions about America’s Constitution will, for good or ill, determine much about the future of the United States of our nation.

Those who are committed to fighting for that future must acquire a basic understanding of the Constitution's origins and birth, its written text, the manner in which it has been deliberately violated, and the consequences of how it has been misinterpreted by collectivists and statists.

Because of the importance of this struggle, I have put aside most of my writing and legal work and early in 2010 will offer—strictly as a pro bono personal undertaking—an Internet course consisting of ten lectures on American constitutional law. You can learn about who I am, and understand why I’m doing this, simply by taking a look at my blog (www.henrymarkholzer.blogspot.com) and/or my website (www.henrymarkholzer.com).

Please help me get out the word about this course.

If you agree that it is essential today for laypersons--especially Conservatives, Libertarians and Independents--to understand basic American constitutional law ("Con Law 101," if you will), please forward the following Announcement to everyone you can, asking them to do the same. I am particularly interested in getting it to prominent Conservatives, Libertarians and Independents such as Palin, Paul and Independent teachers, clergy, columnists and others who have the public's attention. “Plugs” from leading talk show hosts and hostesses are most welcome.

Many years ago, one of my clients and friends—the author Ayn Rand— asked me a rhetorical question: “If we don’t fight for this country, who will?”

I gave the same answer to Rand as I do now: I will!

SYLLABUS

1. Formation of the American Republic

Events leading to the Declaration of Independence.
The text and meaning of the Declaration.
The Continental Congress.
The Constitutional Convention.
The Constitution’s structure and content.
The ratification battle in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere.
The achievement of the first Congress.
The Bill of Rights and debates over its ratification.

2. The American Constitutional System
A working definition of “constitutional law.”
How the Supreme Court came to be the Constitution’s final arbiter.

“Originalism” and other tools of constitutional interpretation.
Federalism: the relationship and tensions between the federal and state governments, with examples showing federal legislation affecting matters which should be within the powers of the states.

Separation of powers: the relationship and tensions between the three supposedly equal branches of government — legislative, executive and judicial — with examples of where the “more equal” branch, the Supreme Court, refereed battles between the other two branches and, in the bargain, expanded its own powers.

Judicial supremacy: primarily Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion in Marbury vs. Madison, which established the principle of Judicial Review.

Griswold v. Connecticut, illustrating federalism, separation of powers and judicial review.

3. Congress and Its Powers

The source, nature, and scope of Congress’s power.
Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce.
Congress’s war, foreign affairs, and related powers.
Congress’s other, miscellaneous powers.

4. The Presidency And Its Powers

The President's “chief executive” and “faithfully execute” power.
The President's power as Commander-in-Chief.

5. The Judiciary And Its Powers

The source, nature, and scope of judicial power. Limitations, if any, on judicial power.

6. Intergovernmental Relations

The “horizontal” relationship between the states, and the requirement of “full faith and credit.”

Constitutional Limitations on Congress's Power

Textual limitations on the power of Congress, including suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.
Constitutional Limitations On The Power Of The States
The few textual limitations of the power of the states, including the prohibition against impairment of contracts.

7. Prohibitions On Both Congress And The States: The Bill Of Rights

Introduction to the Bill of Rights.
Does the Bill of Rights apply against the federal government?
“Substantive” Due Process: contraception and abortion.


8. The First Amendment


Speech.
Religion.


9. The Eighth Amendment

Cruel and Unusual Punishment.
The Fourteenth Amendment
Genesis of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Procedural Due Process: Notice and opportunity to be heard.
Substantive Due Process, revisited.

10. The Fourteenth Amendment

Substantive due process, revisited.
Equal protection of the law:
Race.
Gender.
Sexuality.
Conclusion to lectures


GENERAL INFORMATION

Lectures/Schedule

The recorded course—ten two-hour lectures each week for ten consecutive weeks—will be available via (1) my website (www.henrymarkholzer.com) and (2) my blog page (www.henrymarkholzer.blogspot.com), from each of which the entire course can be downloaded free of charge.

It will available on those sites in the middle of the weeks beginning January 17, 24, 31; February 7, 14, 21, 28; and March 7, 14, 21 and will remain there indefinitely.

No Cost To Download Recorded Course

There is no cost to access this course in its recorded/downloaded form. (However, because listeners will be hearing a recording, they will not be able to ask questions.)

Cost To Participate In Live Course

The prerequisite to posting and maintaining the course on my website and blog at no cost is that the ten lectures first be recorded.

To do that, I will utilize the worldwide facilities of www.skype.com, an interactive computer-based communication system.

Using Skype, it will be possible for no more than 23 individuals to hear the course live, and ask questions, by downloading free software from Skype and using an inexpensive, off-the-shelf headset/microphone.

I will record by delivering the lectures live on Sunday evenings, from 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM Eastern Time on January 17, 24, 31; February 7, 14, 21, 28, March 7, 14, 21, 2010.

(To defray Skype, recording, posting, etc. expenses, I am charging $250 for this interactive participation. Persons interested in being among the 23 who listen to my lectures live should contact me at

http://www.henrymarkholzer.citymax.com/con_law_course_registration.html for full details).


Essential reading

There is no “homework” for this course. However, to benefit fully from it I recommend that prior to hearing the first lecture you obtain a hard copy of, and read, the Constitution of the United States of America. Also, the Supreme Court opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut, which can be found without cost at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=381&invol=479. You will find it helpful to have both available during the course.

Contact/Updates

Persons having questions about anything concerning the content of the course may submit them here. (Please, no questions about Skype!)

Persons wishing to receive additional information about this course, and future courses I may offer, must register to receive my blog (www.henrymarkholzer.blogspot.com). This will be my only way of communicating with you and the only place such information will be available.

This announcement appears in its entirety on my website http://www.henrymarkholzer.citymax.com/f/con_law_course.pdf

My Goal

Preparation of this course, and providing everything else that will allow it to remain posted and downloaded indefinitely, is my personal pro bono publico undertaking.

I am offering it in the hope that public education in American constitutional law will aid in our fight to rescue our nation from those who are destroying it.

(To guard against email changing the format, I have attached a Word version of this Announcement.)
____________________________________________________________________________

When I was in college I took a course called Civil Liberties taught by someone named John Nields who had helped represent a firm called Red Lion Broadcasting in a constitutional case that was brought before the Supreme Court. Mr. Nields had retired and was teaching full time at Sarah Lawrence College for $1 per year. I seem to recall he lived in Manhattan and made a short drive up there. I thought the course was one of the best I have taken. This one sounds just as good.

Sarah Lawrence College Says No to US News Rankings

I am working on a project involving college presidents' pay with my colleague Marc Fox at Brooklyn College. While going through data on the presidents' backgrounds I noticed that my alma mater, Sarah Lawrence College in Bronxville, New York, stopped requiring the SAT test and, at the same time, told US News that it would not participate in their rankings. Thus, the college appears as "unranked" in the all-important US News ranking system.

Sarah Lawrence is left wing and I haven't always agreed with their political correctness. I loved it there because of the high degree of autonomy they afforded me and the cool students. While I was there ('73-'75) I took two years of classical Greek, one year of German, two years of philosophy and a course in "legal studies" where I wrote papers on the history of slavery and the Dred Scott decision. The teaching was fine (as was the teaching at SUNY Binghamton, where I spent my first two years of college) and the breadth of the professors, their willingness to be outrageous and think outside the box, and intensely individualized instruction made it among the best academic experiences I ever had. In each course we were required to meet individually with the professor and to write a paper based on our own ideas.

Although I disagree with the ideologies of most university professors, and especially with those at Sarah Lawrence College, I concur with their decision to reject the US News rankings but not the SATs. I think that SATs are a useful measure of potential. IQ tests predict performance. But the US News rankings are ridiculous.

About two years ago I visited my old high school, the Bronx High School of Science. I was supposed to be giving career and college advice, but I realized that the students cared only about getting into a name college, not in developing a great life or a great career. Getting into college and developing a fruitful life and calling are barely related. The fixation on SATs and obsession with admittance to this or that college is a tragic social waste. The SATs should not be a fixation, and the fact that students do study for them and do raise their scores is an imperfection. However, I do not believe that there is no such thing as "G" or general intelligence. Naturally, different people have different strengths and weaknesses, but an approximate measure, while imperfect, correlates with ability.

I give two cheers to Sarah Lawrence College for having the intestinal fortitude to say "no" to the US News rankings. I disagree with their dropping the SAT scores. But I give them three cheers for taking risks and thinking outside the box. It was there that I first thought of becoming a Republican. I wrote a paper on "achievement" in my philosophy class, and although my professor disagreed with it, I am still thinking about that topic today. Although my professors were mostly "liberal" it was the encouragement to think in original ways that helped me reject the left wing ideology.

If you are a conservative and need advice about selecting a college, I would refer you to the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, which has an excellent college guide for conservatives. US News and World Report is a terrible magazine and its ranking system is a joke.

Rahm Emanuel's Hitler Youth Plan

Fausta Wertz of Fausta's Blog has forwarded this podcast of the Daily News's Ben Smith's interview with Rahm Emanuel about his plan to institute a mandatory, totalitarian-style (Red Guard, Hitler Youth, classical Spartan) youth camp training for all Americans aged 18-25. Rahm Emanuel went to the same college as I did (albeit a number of years later), Sarah Lawrence College in Bronxville, NY.

We see in this video the results of America's crumbled higher education system. Mr. Emanuel is ignorant of the liberal principles that underlie American history and philosophy: the principles of individual rights and freedom, of John Locke and of the dissent of Roger Williams. Louis Hartz has argued that the New Deal and subsequent liberal tradition in America reflected a deeper Lockean liberal tradition. He was wrong. If you have not read, understood and agreed with Locke's Second Treatise on Government I do not think that you can be a good American. I do not believe that today's college graduates know what the American way of life is.

It is a mistake to elect candidates who have graduated from or taught at northeastern higher educational institutions. Northeastern universities inculcate ignorance about essential American traditions. They are not critical. They are simply ignorant. With thugs like Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel in the White House, America is on a tragic path.

Enjoy:



Fausta writes:

>This "Civil Service Plan" is right out of Castro's Cuba, where you have to go work al campo in the countryside when you're twelve years old.

The Emanuel plan is for ages 18-25, so you don't have the outcry that using minors would generate. However, ages 18-25 are prime job-hunting ages. Anyone who doesn't comply with the "Civil Service Plan" can be blackballed from any future employment.

Notice how high schools across the country already have mandatory community service as a graduation requirement. Implementing a mandatory "Civil Service Plan" in colleges, considering how academia is sympathetic to Obama, would be the easiest thing in the world.

From that, to making the "Civil Service Plan" mandatory to future employment would only take nod from Congress.

Can't happen here?

Yes it can!