LP in the News

[crimresearch]

Badnarik Debates Constitutional Law
April 15, 2005
By Vanessa Hoffman
Sun Senior Writer

Constitutional dilemma. Michael Badnarik (left), the 2004 Libertarian candidate for president, debates Prof. Robert Hockett (right), law, and Prof. Roger Cramton, law, about the Constitution's continued relevance.

A debate on the Constitution's relevancy brought together Roger Cramton, the former Robert S. Stevens Professor of Law, Prof. Robert Hockett, law, and 2004 Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik. The three discussed the viability of the Constitution to modern American society yesterday in McGraw Hall, each giving their views and proposing changes or amendments if necessary in the debate, which was co-sponsored by the Cornell Political Coalition, Cornell Libertarians and Society for Individualists. Afterwards, audience members asked questions and made comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More at:

http://www.cornellsun.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/04/15/425f431014642

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Jonathan Waldor '06, president of Cornell Libertarians, said that Badnarik received a good turnout when he came to Cornell in October and that his being an expert on the Constitution was appropriate for the debate.

 

[Kerberos]

Jonathan Waldor '06, president of Cornell Libertarians, said that Badnarik received a good turnout when he came to Cornell in October and that his being an expert on the Constitution was appropriate for the debate.

Ahh, yes we all know that Badnarik is a "proclaimed" constitutional scholar though exactly who did the proclaiming is still in doubt. Also I'm sure that Shanek is going to explain exactly what he meant by saying that badnarik is "a highly respected Constitutional Law instructor" any day now.

 

[username]

Ahh, yes we all know that Badnarik is a "proclaimed" constitutional scholar though exactly who did the proclaiming is still in doubt. Also I'm sure that Shanek is going to explain exactly what he meant by saying that badnarik is "a highly respected Constitutional Law instructor" any day now.

Hey, if Ann Coulter can be billed as a constitutional scholar, why not Badnarik?

For that matter if Scalia can be considered a constitutional scholar, why not Badnarik?

There is a big difference in one having a wealth of knowledge of the constitution, it's history, it's interpretation etc. and one reaching sensible conclusions.

If Badnarik has a weakness I think it is in the conclusions he reaches(which is a highly debateable point, based upon subjective valuations), not the degree of his knowledge or understanding of all things constitutional(which can be objectively measured).

 

[ceo_esq]

I would not go so far as to call Badnarik a crank - he seems perfectly sensible in many respects - but his notions of constitutional jurisprudence are, well, cranky. A number of his views in this area do not, generally speaking, inspire great respect among knowledgeable jurists.

 

[Kerberos]

Hey, if Ann Coulter can be billed as a constitutional scholar, why not Badnarik?

For that matter if Scalia can be considered a constitutional scholar, why not Badnarik?

I'm not familiar with either Coulters or Scalias credentials as constitutional scholars, or even that either of them had been called it, but if people have falsly tried to paint them as "highly respected Constitutional scholars" then that is dishonest too.

There is a big difference in one having a wealth of knowledge of the constitution, it's history, it's interpretation etc. and one reaching sensible conclusions.

If Badnarik has a weakness I think it is in the conclusions he reaches(which is a highly debateable point, based upon subjective valuations), not the degree of his knowledge or understanding of all things constitutional(which can be objectively measured).

I don't agree that his opinions are more important then his actual qualifications, but I don’t think that makes it OK to try to pass him of as an actual authority on the field, which is what Shanek and apparently also a number of other Libertarians attempt.

 

[varwoche]

Hey, if Ann Coulter can be billed as a constitutional scholar, why not Badnarik?

For that matter if Scalia can be considered a constitutional scholar, why not Badnarik?

At least they are both lawyers.

Badnarik dropped out of college (where he studied chemistry), became a low-level IT worker, then a telephone solicitor, and was unemployed when he began his campaign. None of which is proof that he's not a constitutional scholar.

 

[Kerberos]

At least they are both lawyers.

Quick question, is lawyers only attorneys and similar or does the word cover everybody with an education in law?

 

[varwoche]

Quick question, is lawyers only attorneys and similar or does the word cover everybody with an education in law?

Lawyer and attorney are synonymous so far as I know.

 

[crimresearch]

Quick question, is lawyers only attorneys and similar or does the word cover everybody with an education in law?

In the US, lawyer and attorney both typically refer to someone who is allowed to practice at the bar...'barrister' is archaic over here, and we don't really have the barrister/solicitor distinction that Britain does, although many lawyers never try a case.

It used to be the case that anyone could 'read for the law', but nowadays a law degree is the norm before getting licensed.

On the issue of Constitutional knowledge, there are degrees in 'philosophy of law' criminal justice, and criminology wherein one could focus on the the courts, or the Consitution.

Again, as a rule, all of these folks are aware of a standard body of knowledge and terminology, and tend to build their conclusions and interpretations on past court rulings, etc....unlike some self appointed Constitutional experts.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Technically, anyone authorized to act on the behalf of another is an attorney- hence the phrase "power of attorney". Usually, though, it's taken to mean "lawyer".

 

[Kerberos]

Thanks.

 

[Suddenly]

I would not go so far as to call Badnarik a crank - he seems perfectly sensible in many respects - but his notions of constitutional jurisprudence are, well, cranky. A number of his views in this area do not, generally speaking, inspire great respect among knowledgeable jurists.

That is pretty much on the mark. I'd say that Badnarik is right on the line of being a crank, but he is missing the over the top incoherance of the true crank.

I was somewhat of a Badnarik "scholar" during the election in that I closely researched his doings and posted much of it in a thread over at SC. Since then, I've done some more looking into his positions and have concluded that what makes his positions scary is not the libertarian aspect, as much as the aspect that draws from what is known as "common law theory," a vague set of principles that differ among proponents but share at the core a general claim that the law we live under at present is somehow illegitimate, and that there is a "real" law, usually called by them "the common law" that is as part of some malfeasence (again, ranging from sloth to full blown conspiracy depending on who you ask) is not being used...

The Libertarian Party seems to be suffering from an influx of this sort of thinking. The main sign is someone who wants to make radical changes (like Badnarik with the IRS), not because it would be a good idea, rather because that is what the law really was all along but nobody would enforce it. That alone isn't sufficent, as non-enforcement of law can and does happen... so it isn't quite that simple...

Sad really. As a politcal philosophy, libertarianism is taking some unfair criticism for Libertarians for positions that seem to be more from "common law theory" than libertarian ideas...