Eugene, I respectfully disagree with the your last posting. The notion that a discussion of constitutional law can be separated from the facts underlying the constitutional claim is, if not simply wrong, at least not one of general approbation. To cite only one source, Judge Posner's recent book on Law, Pragmatisim, & Democracy surely suggests a contrary view. How can one be pragmatic in the application of constitutional principle without a deep awareness of the relevant facts? Thus, under this view, whether a particular gun control measure is effective is intimately related to whether that measure is unconstitutional. I'm not saying that Posner is right, but only suggesting that your polite remonstrance may not reflect the views of all participants on this list.
Allan Ides ----- Original Message ----- From: "Volokh, Eugene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Saturday, June 7, 2003 4:18 pm Subject: From the list custodian > Folks: Constitutional law questions related to when a > President may be > impeached are of course entirely on-topic for this list. But I > think that > once the discussions starts focusing on purely factual questions > related to > international events, then it seems to me that it's no longer > within list > members' primary expertise. (The same, of course, goes for > factual issues > underlying a wide variety of other constitutional topics, such as the > developmental stage of fetuses, or the practical issues underlying > whethercertain gun controls are effective, or economic questions > related to the > effectiveness of various tax policies.) > > So let me suggest again a rule of thumb: If a post is tied pretty > directly to a constitutional question, please include some > language in the > post that indeed does so. On the other hand, if you find that the > languageseems forced and not really well-connected to the post, > then that might be a > signal that the post is best handled off-list, or on some other list. > Thanks, > > Eugene >
