Subscribe Subscribe   Find us on Twitter Follow POL on Twitter  



Our legal academy

| No Comments

Drew Singer and Terry Baynes of Reuters purport to quote a law professor complaining about the activity/inactivity Commerce Clause ruling in NFIB v. Sebelius:

In a slightly more fanciful scenario, [name omitted], a liberal law professor at [Top-14 law school], posited an example of a deadbeat dad who could mount a creative legal argument to dodge child-support payments under interstate enforcement laws. The dad could challenge the federal enforcement laws on grounds that they penalize him for failing to pay for something.

So, if we're to believe Reuters, a Yale JD/Ph.D. tenured law professor (who blogs on perhaps the best liberal law professor blog) doesn't know the difference between the Commerce Clause and the Full Faith and Credit Clause. I'd make a remark about how biased the legal academy has become and how divorced from the Constitutional text "mainstream legal thought" has become that the Con Law professors don't know basic structural clauses relating to the enumerated powers in the Constitution—except that I just refuse to be that cynical, and have to think that this is a misunderstanding or other mistake by the reporter rather than a stunning display of elite ignorance and epistemic closure. Thus, I omit the professor's name in this post, though you can find it in the Reuters story. Or am I being too generous?

Leave a comment

Once submitted, the comment will first be reviewed by our editors and is not guaranteed to be published. Point of Law editors reserve the right to edit, delete, move, or mark as spam any and all comments. They also have the right to block access to any one or group from commenting or from the entire blog. A comment which does not add to the conversation, runs of on an inappropriate tangent, or kills the conversation may be edited, moved, or deleted.

The views and opinions of those providing comments are those of the author of the comment alone, and even if allowed onto the site do not reflect the opinions of Point of Law bloggers or the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research or any employee thereof. Comments submitted to Point of Law are the sole responsibility of their authors, and the author will take full responsibility for the comment, including any asserted liability for defamation or any other cause of action, and neither the Manhattan Institute nor its insurance carriers will assume responsibility for the comment merely because the Institute has provided the forum for its posting.

Related Entries:



Rafael Mangual
Project Manager,
Legal Policy

Manhattan Institute


Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.