Perhaps there's an optimal distance one should try to take. If anyone knows what it is, I'm all ears...
Aha! "Pointillism" Stand at the right distance and the separate dots turn into figures! Malla Pollack Visiting, Univ. of Oregon, Law 541-346-1599 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Sheridan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 7:10 PM Subject: Re: The term "Shadow Constitution" > The idea that some thinkers on American constitutional law have in mind a > 'shadow' constitution alternative to the one that can be pointed to on > paper is the thesis of a book by John E. Semonche of the U. of N. Carolina, > called 'Keeping the Faith, A Cultural History of the U. S. Supreme Court, ' > (Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, MD, 1998, 2000). > > His idea, elucidated via a review of the leading cases, is that regardless > of the deviations taken by individual decisions, they surround a central > core of beliefs he calls the American civil religion, which he says is a > faith structure, a creed or public religion. (p. 5) By religion, Semonche > offers as a definition a 'comprehensive interpretive scheme' that > "structures human experience and understanding of self and the world." > > 'Civil religion' as he uses the term further means "a public perception of > our national experience"..."a set of universal and transcendant claims upon > human experience," and "a set of values, symbols, and rituals > institutionalized as the cohesive force and center of meaning uniting our > many peoples." p. 6. > > It's not surprising that conservatives, liberals, and I suppose other > categories of believers should find themselves entwined in different > strands of the hawser that binds. > > Call it what you will, Constitution-in-exile, shadow this, phantom that, > civil religion, or whatnot, the Constitution does seem to be a moving > target with a certain amount of blur about it. If it were otherwise, we'd > be able to make accurate predictions of the outcome of the cases, wouldn't > we. The closer one looks, it seems, the greater the circle of confusion > becomes. Perhaps there's an optimal distance one should try to take. If > anyone knows what it is, I'm all ears... > > Robert Sheridan > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > [Original Message] > > From: Mark Graber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: 6/23/2003 4:43:28 PM > > Subject: Re: The term "Shadow Constitution" > > > > I thought I was borrowing the phrase from Jack Balkin. My sense of the > > universe is that the phrase is such that a great many people might think > > of it independently. > > > > Mark A. Graber > > > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/23/03 18:01 PM >>> > > In Sunday's New York Times, Linda Greenhouse refers to liberal legal > > scholars' attempts to promote a "Shadow Constitution." > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/22/weekinreview/22GREE.html > > > > Greenhouse has used this term before, in a 1995 post-Lopez NYT piece > > contrasting liberals' shadow constitution with conservatives' > > "constitution-in-exile." > > > > Does anyone know where the phrase "Shadow Constitution" originated? > > > > (I understand the metaphor of the shadow cabinet, and a Lexis-Nexis > > search shows that Mark Graber (2002) and Jack Balkin (1997) have used > > the phrase when criticizing the tendency on the part of some progressive > > scholars to focus on elaborating and defending the unfashionable > > constitutional doctrines that make up a shadow constitution. Neither, > > however, explains the origins of the phrase.) > > > > Because Greenhouse referred to this phrase before Balkin did, I am also > > left to wonder who were the scholars that fell within this tradition. > > Scholars whose views often fell quite far to the left of the Warren > > Court, such as Charles Black, Charles Reich, or Arthur Miller? Or, is > > this term referring to post-Warren Court era scholars? > > > > Any help off-list would be very much appreciated. > > > > Lynda Dodd > >
