Political Processes & Rhetoric – Page 78 – Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog

Law and Theology – Who Says It’s Not Practical ???

Post author:Richard M. Esenberg
Post published:August 30, 2010
Post category:Political Processes & Rhetoric Religion & Law

I was glad to see that Bruce linked to the fascinating debate on the nature of legal education prompted by Brent Newton’s article claiming that law professors “preach” what they don’t “practice.” I’ll comment later, although my general view, as someone who has much more practice experience than the typical full time legal academic, I think its an issue that is often drawn too starkly and that requires a nuanced response.

But today I want to talk about Law & Theology (10 am on Friday mornings in 204 for anyone who wants to add a seminar) and Glen Beck. Newton argues that law schools overemphasize “theoretical, increasingly interdisciplinary scholarship” and courses. But Glen Beck has put law (0r at least politics) and theology smack into the middle of the public debate. In this fallen world, we may have to take that where we can find it.

We Have Met the Other and He Is Us (Law Professors)

Post author:Jessica E. Slavin
Post published:August 21, 2010
Post category:Civil Rights Constitutional Interpretation Federal Law & Legal System Human Rights Immigration Law Political Processes & Rhetoric

In the latest development in what is starting to feel like a trip “through the looking glass” to some bizarre version of the legal world as I understood it in law school, actual, important politicians have raised the spectre of repealing or amending or re-interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment, specifically, its provision that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” It seems especially sad that those who want to abolish or change the long-standing, post-Civil-War principle of birthright citizenship in the United States are, mainly, Republicans: one might call the Fourteenth Amendment “one of the [Republican] party’s greatest feats,” as did the Economist in the article linked above. In any event, the Economist article does a pretty fair job, I think, of discussing the various perspectives on the issue (including pointing out that the so-called “anchor baby” idea is almost completely a fallacy, since a child cannot petition to make his parent a citizen until after the child is 21).

Crescents and Crosses at Ground Zero

Post author:Richard M. Esenberg
Post published:August 18, 2010
Post category:Political Processes & Rhetoric

I have two principal reactions to the Park 51 Islamic Center controversy. The first is that the legal issues are pretty clear cut. The government cannot deny approval t0 – or move to block construction of – the center because its Muslim character would be seen as offensive or insensitive. This would apply, I think, to any effort to transparently manipulate historical preservation laws to block or restrict the project.

The second is that those who are concerned about the project ought not to be dismissed as nativists or bigots. One can acknowledge that the attackers on 9-11 represent a small slice of a huge religion and remember that Muslims died that day as well and still think that a prominent Islamic Center that close to Ground Zero is insensitive and subject to misinterpretation,. One can wish it wouldn’t be built without unmooring oneself from our traditions of tolerance and religious liberty. (To be clear, I, like the President, take no position on the matter and, for reasons, set forth below. worry that not going forward at this point would be problematic.)

I wonder if the controversy represents a larger problem in our interconnected society – one that the law is ill prepared to address. We generally believe that the state cannot restrict speech in deference to a heckler’s veto. But should we be concerned about the private consequences of public outrage?