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.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Obama's Change: More Military Afghan Deaths in '09 than Ever Before
Gateway Pundit (h/t Larwyn) reports an ABC news story indicating that the military deaths in Afghanistan were more numerous since President Obama took office than ever before.
Poll Finds Flagging Obama Popularity--Dems Blame Poll
Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit quotes a politico.com article (h/t Bob Robbins) that states:
"Democrats are turning their fire on Scott Rasmussen, the prolific independent pollster whose surveys on elections, President Obama’s popularity and a host of other issues are surfacing in the media with increasing frequency.
"The pointed attacks reflect a hardening conventional wisdom among prominent liberal bloggers and many Democrats that Rasmussen Reports polls are, at best, the result of a flawed polling model and, at worst, designed to undermine Democratic politicians and the party’s national agenda."
The Democrats are used to having virtually every media outlet service their partisan propaganda needs and aim to suppress any alternative, especially when more accurate than their traditional propaganda outlets like the New York Times. Democrats much prefer the biases and distortions in the Times to the truth.
Rasmussen reported yesterday that Obama's popularity has severely flagged. The Democrats complain that assertion of facts like that is unfair. As Jules Crittenden points out:
"How much of an outlier is Rasmussen? Not much this morning. Realclearpolitics. Rasmussen gives Obama 46 percent approval, as does Quinnipiac, while NBC/WSJ gives him 47 percent. The diviation spikes in disapproval, however. 53 percent via Rasmussen, mid-40s elsewhere. Sounds like it depends what you think disapproval is. Based on what I’ve been hearing from some Dems in bluest Mass, especially in the wake of back-to-back health care and terrorism debacles, plus the hard left’s disapproval of the Afghan policy, sounds more like all the other pollsters are giving him the benefit of a doubt...Gateway notes that Rasmussen was the most accurate pollster of the 2008 election...
Rasmussen writes:
"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll, released Thursday, shows that 24% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -18".
The two graphs below tell Rasmussen's story:
"Democrats are turning their fire on Scott Rasmussen, the prolific independent pollster whose surveys on elections, President Obama’s popularity and a host of other issues are surfacing in the media with increasing frequency.
"The pointed attacks reflect a hardening conventional wisdom among prominent liberal bloggers and many Democrats that Rasmussen Reports polls are, at best, the result of a flawed polling model and, at worst, designed to undermine Democratic politicians and the party’s national agenda."
The Democrats are used to having virtually every media outlet service their partisan propaganda needs and aim to suppress any alternative, especially when more accurate than their traditional propaganda outlets like the New York Times. Democrats much prefer the biases and distortions in the Times to the truth.
Rasmussen reported yesterday that Obama's popularity has severely flagged. The Democrats complain that assertion of facts like that is unfair. As Jules Crittenden points out:
"How much of an outlier is Rasmussen? Not much this morning. Realclearpolitics. Rasmussen gives Obama 46 percent approval, as does Quinnipiac, while NBC/WSJ gives him 47 percent. The diviation spikes in disapproval, however. 53 percent via Rasmussen, mid-40s elsewhere. Sounds like it depends what you think disapproval is. Based on what I’ve been hearing from some Dems in bluest Mass, especially in the wake of back-to-back health care and terrorism debacles, plus the hard left’s disapproval of the Afghan policy, sounds more like all the other pollsters are giving him the benefit of a doubt...Gateway notes that Rasmussen was the most accurate pollster of the 2008 election...
Rasmussen writes:
"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll, released Thursday, shows that 24% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -18".
The two graphs below tell Rasmussen's story:
US ParksService's Alma Ripps on Maurice Hinchey's Hudson Valley Federal Park Proposal
Alma Ripps of the US Parks Service has responded to my inquiry concerning the implications of Congressman Maurice Hinchey's HR 4003, which would begin a process of federalizing the Hudson Valley, as follows:
Mr. Langbert,
Thank you for your recent inquiry regarding legislation introduced by Representative Maurice Hinchey, H.R. 4003, which would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of resources in the Hudson River Valley in the State of New York. I apologize for the tardiness in responding to your inquiry. As you can imagine, it is sometimes difficult to reach people during the holiday season to provide information.
The bill does not propose to establish a park in the Hudson River Valley, rather, it would (if enacted) initiate a study to determine whether any resources in the region meet the criteria for potential congressional designation. Such studies determine whether resources are nationally significant, suitable for inclusion into the National Park System, feasible to administer, and require management by the National Park Service versus being able to be managed by others. At the conclusion of a study (which normally takes two or more years), if resources in the region are found to meet these criteria, separate legislation would need to be enacted by Congress to establish a unit of the National Park System.
The Department of the Interior does not take an official position on pending legislation until a hearing by a congressional committee is conducted. To date, no hearing has been scheduled on this bill.
Since a study of the Hudson River Valley has not even been authorized, much less concluded, it would be premature to offer any conjecture on what the implications of establishing a unit of the National Park System in the region might entail. The first question, of course, is whether one or more resources would meet the criteria indicated above. Even when a study does determine that resources qualify for congressional consideration for establishment of a unit (although most do not), alternatives to National Park Service management must be explored and detailed in the study report.
Today, there are various models of units of the National Park System ranging from the traditional model where the National Park Service owns and manages a resource to those where we have limited or no ownership interest and work with partners for the continued protection of natural or cultural resources and to promote public understanding of their importance to the nation through education and interpretation. An example of the latter model is the Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area where we partner with state and nonprofit organizations and provide financial, technical and interpretive assistance. We also have affiliated areas of the National Park System which we do not manage, but provide financial and technical
assistance to those organizations that protect the resource. A study permits us to tailor the appropriate model to the resource(s), assuming that the criteria for potential designation have first been met.
Should a study of the Hudson River Valley be authorized by Congress, an extensive public involvement process would accompany the study since public support for any potential designation is a key aspect of the feasibility analysis. A study must also provide an analysis of environmental, cultural and socio-economic impacts of a unit of the National Park System should one be determined eligible for establishment.
Since you mentioned the Catskills and the Adirondacks, we assume you understand that the regulatory policies affecting those two regions were enacted by the New York State Legislature and are administered by agencies of the State, not the federal government. Currently, we have a cooperative relationship with the Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area which was established by Congress in 1996. No unique federal regulations apply to this area because of that designation, although the National Park Service provides financial and technical assistance to the heritage area.
We hope the above information has been helpful and that you will understand that we are not in a position to provide detailed answers to your questions since we have not commenced a study of the region to determine if a unit of the National Park System could be established in the Hudson River Valley.
Thank you for your interest in the National Park Service. Please contact me if you have further questions.
Alma
Mr. Langbert,
Thank you for your recent inquiry regarding legislation introduced by Representative Maurice Hinchey, H.R. 4003, which would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of resources in the Hudson River Valley in the State of New York. I apologize for the tardiness in responding to your inquiry. As you can imagine, it is sometimes difficult to reach people during the holiday season to provide information.
The bill does not propose to establish a park in the Hudson River Valley, rather, it would (if enacted) initiate a study to determine whether any resources in the region meet the criteria for potential congressional designation. Such studies determine whether resources are nationally significant, suitable for inclusion into the National Park System, feasible to administer, and require management by the National Park Service versus being able to be managed by others. At the conclusion of a study (which normally takes two or more years), if resources in the region are found to meet these criteria, separate legislation would need to be enacted by Congress to establish a unit of the National Park System.
The Department of the Interior does not take an official position on pending legislation until a hearing by a congressional committee is conducted. To date, no hearing has been scheduled on this bill.
Since a study of the Hudson River Valley has not even been authorized, much less concluded, it would be premature to offer any conjecture on what the implications of establishing a unit of the National Park System in the region might entail. The first question, of course, is whether one or more resources would meet the criteria indicated above. Even when a study does determine that resources qualify for congressional consideration for establishment of a unit (although most do not), alternatives to National Park Service management must be explored and detailed in the study report.
Today, there are various models of units of the National Park System ranging from the traditional model where the National Park Service owns and manages a resource to those where we have limited or no ownership interest and work with partners for the continued protection of natural or cultural resources and to promote public understanding of their importance to the nation through education and interpretation. An example of the latter model is the Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area where we partner with state and nonprofit organizations and provide financial, technical and interpretive assistance. We also have affiliated areas of the National Park System which we do not manage, but provide financial and technical
assistance to those organizations that protect the resource. A study permits us to tailor the appropriate model to the resource(s), assuming that the criteria for potential designation have first been met.
Should a study of the Hudson River Valley be authorized by Congress, an extensive public involvement process would accompany the study since public support for any potential designation is a key aspect of the feasibility analysis. A study must also provide an analysis of environmental, cultural and socio-economic impacts of a unit of the National Park System should one be determined eligible for establishment.
Since you mentioned the Catskills and the Adirondacks, we assume you understand that the regulatory policies affecting those two regions were enacted by the New York State Legislature and are administered by agencies of the State, not the federal government. Currently, we have a cooperative relationship with the Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area which was established by Congress in 1996. No unique federal regulations apply to this area because of that designation, although the National Park Service provides financial and technical assistance to the heritage area.
We hope the above information has been helpful and that you will understand that we are not in a position to provide detailed answers to your questions since we have not commenced a study of the region to determine if a unit of the National Park System could be established in the Hudson River Valley.
Thank you for your interest in the National Park Service. Please contact me if you have further questions.
Alma
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
