[capitan_refugio]

In #1079, did I not state, "It is interesting to note, however, that the legal community has an appreciation for {Wood's] insight into the historical foundations of American jurisprudence."

And did you not take issue with that statement?

And doesn't my listing of Wood's recent academic achievements confirm what I said in #1079?

[nolu chan]

historical foundations

That is history.

Gordon Wood states his qualifications at history and lack of same at law.

This is very distinguished legal company, and I confess to wondering about my qualifications to be a commentator on Justice Scalia's paper. I do not seem to have too many of them. I have never been to law school, so I have not experienced that intellectual rebirth which Justice Scalia says every first-year law school student experiences. I am not a jurist. I am not a legal philosopher. I am not even a legal or constitutional historian. I am just a plain eighteenth-century American historian who happens to have written something on the origins of the Constitution. I am not sure that this suffices.

Source: Gordon Wood, from his essay which appears in A Matter of Interpretation, Federal Courts and the Law, by Antonin Scalia, 1997, p. 49.