Your posts concerning Wood suggest you haven't actually read Scalia's book. Am I mistaken?
It is easy for you to sit back and carp about sources, resources, and authorities. That's what ignorant whiners do. It is a concession on its face. You make ad hominem attacks rather than logically or reasonably deal with the issues.
You have posted enough about your scientific background that I have a pretty good idea you are capable of rational discussion. Those who have been schooled in the sciences usually are analytical by nature. You also understand the importance of the scientific contributions of recognized authorities.
Read this and divine for me Wood's politics:
http://www.auroraforum.org/downloads/woodintro_natlpride.pdf
And I don't accept homework assignments any more, not since I wised up, anyway, to that particular eye-gouging technique. Read the essay, though, and it was interesting in the degree to which it diverged tonally from the quoted passages from his Pulitzer-winner of 1991, in which he sounds like a pretty full participant in what he now seems to be preparing to call a major historiographical stumble by post-Vietnam historians.
I suspect he is a liberal who feels challenged by George W. Bush's vision and is scrambling to answer and compete in terms and themes he knows from his training the People are responding to in Bush's ideational platform.