Skip to main content

View Diary: Today in Congress/Viewing notes on Kucinich's hearing (170 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Teaching ConLaw with or without JD (0+ / 0-)

    Interesting. Jeremy A. Rabkin is a Constitutional Law professor who doesn't appear to have a law degree. It's by no means impossible to teach ConLaw without one. But I wouldn't necessarily recommend it. GMU Law. Gee, I wonder who suggested him?

    Actually, a lot of ConLaw instructors are professors with PhDs in polisci.  ConLaw courses, the ones of which I know at least, explore the dynamics of decisions and their impact upon the polity, and not necessarily the legal and philosophical rationale.  Unless you're talking ConLaw courses in a Law School...but that's a whole different ball of wax.

    •  I am. (0+ / 0-)

      Talking ConLaw in Law School, that is. The George Mason University School of Law, in particular.

      •  RE: GMU LAW (0+ / 0-)

        Rabkin doesn't actually teach the Constitutional Law course that many are probably thinking of when they think about Con law in law schools.  That required course is taught by other professors at the school who do hold JDs.  Rabkin teaches International Law, War and  Law and a course called Founder's Constitution which is more of a historical look at the drafting of the constitution, federalist papers and such.  

        So he isn't teaching nuts and bolts constitutional law which as a recent law school graduate I would say should require a professor who has studied the law and read the case law.  He teaches more of history type classes (international law doesn't really have any body of "case law" so to speak and founder's constitution is clearly just a historical analysis course).  

        •  Is that right? (0+ / 0-)

          I was going by his bio page at GMU, which states flatly that he teaches Constitutional Law.

          But I suppose there's wiggle room there. He could teach in the general subject area, but not actually teach LAW 121 or 158, as GMUSL designates its traditional ConLaw classes.

          •  Its general (0+ / 0-)

            Yeah its just a general "topic".  While he does teach a class called "Founder's Constitution" it doesn't cover any constitutional case law (Madison v. Marbury, Roe v. Wade etc. etc.) and just does a historical analysis of the federal convention and federalist papers to try and analyze the ideas that went into the drafting and ratification of the constitution which a PhD in Government would certainly qualify him for.  

            The label is definitely misleading but he does not teach any law course which involves extensive case law analysis which would require a law background.  

            •  How much you want to bet... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              he doesn't do much to make that clear today?

              He'll likely be introduced in such a way that leaves viewers with the impression that he's "Constitutional Law" professor at GMUSL, which most people will probably take just the way I did.

              •  probably right (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                It will be interesting to see how he is introduced and I'm sure he won't make that distinction himself. Being a constitutional law professor holds a lot more sway then being a professor of history/government which is exactly what he is, just at a law school.

                That being said, if he is just arguing what impeachment meant to the founders he has just as much a basis as anyone with a JD.  There is not much case law on the subject of impeachment obviously and what is in the constitution itself and the founder's notes pretty much is the extent of the information on it.  

                Sadly, impeachment is rarely used.

              •  "Renowned Scholar in International Law" (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                No mention of Constitutional law cred.  Damn, should have taken that bet? Ha.

                Wow - he just said that if we think it was a premeditated attempt to take us to war in Iraq then we shouldn't be worried about all the other constitutional violations of the administration (i.e. FISA).  Wow.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (115)
  • Community (49)
  • Environment (33)
  • Republicans (33)
  • Memorial Day (30)
  • 2016 (30)
  • Culture (30)
  • Bernie Sanders (24)
  • Elections (23)
  • Media (22)
  • Spam (21)
  • GOP (20)
  • Climate Change (20)
  • Education (20)
  • Labor (19)
  • Civil Rights (19)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (16)
  • Science (16)
  • Law (16)
  • Economy (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site