Great Moments in Higher Education (liberal professor doesn't know how the Constitution works)

WSJ.com Best of the Web Today ^ | 6/27/06 | James Taranto

[jimboster]

The U.S. Senate is considering an amendment to the Constitution that would exclude the desecration of the flag from the First Amendment's free-speech protections, effectively overturning the Supreme Court's ruling in Texas v. Johnson (1989) that held burning the flag to be a form of "symbolic speech." Weighing in against the proposed amendment, in an op-ed for the Charlotte Observer, is Dr. Susan Roberts:

In 1989 the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed an appellate court decision that the man was within his First Amendment rights. Wasting no time, Congress passed the Flag Protection Act just months after the ruling. Wasting no time, the Supreme Court ruled that the Flag Protection Act was inconsistent with First Amendment freedoms and thus unconstitutional. It seems unlikely that the Supreme Court would now uphold an amendment prohibiting flag burning, even with the change in the court's composition.

It may seem unlikely that the Supreme Court would uphold a statute prohibiting flag burning (and indeed, in 1990's U.S. v. Eichman it overturned the federal Flag Protection Act of 1989). That's why Congress is considering a constitutional amendment, which the court couldn't overturn. It's embarrassing enough that Dr. Roberts's error got past the editors of the Observer, but it's even worse that she made such a goof in the first place. For she is not a real doctor but a professor of political science, at North Carolina's Davidson College, where she teaches such courses as The Legislative Process (POL 211) and The Politics of Feminism (POL 215). It is troubling indeed to think that the political scientists of tomorrow are being taught by people who lack basic knowledge about the workings of American government.

[jimboster]

I love it. Liberal political science professor mocks Bush for pandering, but she has no idea how the Constitution works. Here's her email address: suroberts@davidson.edu.

[OmahaFields]

Auto HTML!

suroberts@davidson.edu

[God luvs America]

that whole piece is so fantastic....it just shows how stupid and hypocritical the libtards in this nation are....

[syriacus]

Liberals love to think things halfway through.

[true_blue_texican]

What a maroon!!

[Question_Assumptions]

I think you need to bear in mind that the liberal judges already ignore the clear text of the Constitution when it suits them. What makes you think they won't ignore a clearly worded amendment in favor of, say, international law, their mood, or the desires of the editors of the New York Times, all of which matter more to them than the text of the Constitution?

[aLurker]

Dr. Susan Roberts

Associate Professor of Political Science

[Southack]

"It is troubling indeed to think that the political scientists of tomorrow are being taught by people who lack basic knowledge about the workings of American government."

Such legal ignorance is commonplace in academia.

For instance, more than 150 of the top Ivy League law professors were just slapped down by a UNANIMOUS Supreme Court ruling against them regarding the right of Congress to cut off funds to universities that ban military recruiters.

Unanimous! From Justice Ginsberg on the Left to Justice Scalia on the Right, Harvard and Yale's top law professors were told that they didn't understand the law.

And that's pretty typical. The Left doesn't know and doesn't care about the law...except when they can abuse it for their own ends.

[Enchante]

"It seems unlikely that the Supreme Court would now uphold an amendment prohibiting flag burning"

No surprise that there are lib morons like this, but to be a Prof. of POLITICAL SCIENCE and to be so deeply ignorant of the US Constitution, now that's pathetic!! She's probably just expressing the deeply held lib desire, for the Supreme Court (at least while it was ruled by liberals) to be the ultimate dictators of everything (along with the liberal MSM). Sorry, Professor, when it's properly obeyed the Constitution does not work that way and lib judges do NOT get to decide whether to 'uphold' a Constitutional Amendment. Still, she is expressing the lib worldview perfectly of how the courts have behaved in so many cases.....

[jimboster]

I just love the idea she probably has no idea yet what a buffoon she made of herself. I bet she went to bed tonight congratulating herself on her snide, nasty little column. Oh, will she be embarrassed tomorrow. I love stuff like this.

[Kryptonite]

Open mouth, insert foot, *doctor*.

The priests and priestesses of your esteemed panel have no power to overturn such an amendment, but go ahead and tell the world that they do anyway.