Learning About Constitutional Law With Star Wars 121
An anonymous reader writes: In an upcoming paper (PDF) for the Michigan Law Review, scholar Cass Sunstein draws on Star Wars to make a couple key points about how constitutional law evolves. He writes, "Human beings often see coherence and planned design when neither exists. This is so in movies, literature, history, economics, and psychoanalysis—and constitutional law. Contrary to the repeated claims of George Lucas, its principal author, the Star Wars series was hardly planned in advance; it involved a great deal of improvisation and surprise, even to Lucas himself. Serendipity and happenstance, sometimes in the forms of eruptions of new thinking, play a pervasive and overlooked role in the creative imagination, certainly in single-authored works, and even more in multi-authored ones extending over time. ... The misdescription appears to respond to a serious human need for sense-making and pattern-finding, but it is a significant obstacle to understanding and critical reflection. Whether Jedi or Sith, many authors of constitutional law are a lot like the author of Star Wars, disguising the essential nature of their own creative processes."
So what do we learn... (Score:2)
Re:So what do we learn... (Score:4, Funny)
The importance of having air support for a military conquest.
Re:So what do we learn... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
+5 Funny if I had mod points...
Re: (Score:2)
Lucas is a closet Furry [memecdn.com]? (NSFW if you have stuck-up co-workers)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That the 2nd Amendment should really include crew served weapons?
Re:So what do we learn... (Score:5, Insightful)
I know that the Ewoks are controversial among the original, older crowd of Star Wars fans. I watched the movies as a kid and I thought that anything with spaceships and lasers was awesome. However I also thought that the furry buggers actually make sense in the context of the story.
Emperor Palpatine could foresee almost everything, he does claim so a couple of times himself. But the furry little natives of Endor probably seemed so insignificant to him that they didn't even register on his radar. Which ultimately tipped the balance of power to the Rebels and led to his doom.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
As for Ewoks and Gungans, if there had been a desire to do so they could have been a lot more realistic. Gremlins came out in 1984, so the technology both for character design and for the animation of the characters was clearly there already had they wanted to make the Ewoks look more physically spry and less stuffed and awkward. The Gungans ability to hide from the surface-dwelling Naboo should have indicated mu
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Well the bad guys were... Being that it was created 32 years after World War 2.
The Nazis are still considered the group of people who are at their worst, and could have won.
Sure we had Communists and Terrorist but they are seen as less of a Evil or Major Threat.
The Terrorists are considered an Evil group. However they are are just a bunch of bullies, who haven't (compared to the military actions in the past) gained much foothold.
The Communists were less Evil, but more a solid threat, the Soviets had taken
Re:What? (Score:4, Insightful)
The Communists were less Evil...
Tens of millions of Chinese & Russians along with other eastern European & Asian countries might disagree [wikipedia.org]. I wonder why communists always seem to get a free pass on the tyranny train?
Re: (Score:2)
"less" being the operative word.
Nobody said they weren't evil. I'm not even sure I agree on the "less", although american history education certainly villain-izes the nazis more than the commies.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Villainized, sure.
But the hard facts are Communists make the Nazi's look like punters.
Mao: 70 Million
Pol Pot: 3 Million
North Korea: 1.5 Million
Stalin/Russia: 61 Million
Nazi's? 20 million in the various Concentration Camps and starvation campaigns. They do get "points" for being so efficient and doing it in such a short time I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice attempt to move the goalposts.
The number includes those killed in the years between the Revolution and Stalin coming to power, and deaths after he left, which is why it says Stalin/Russia. But he owns the lion's share for the starvation and deaths cause by deportations, gulag, systematic political purges. etc.
I did not include deaths by war, soldiers take that risk.
And yes, the numbers swing wildly. The holocaust is estimated at 6 to 12 million. That is a lot of margin, and it exists for other events a
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you, it was early morning and I couldn't think of the actual word.
Re: (Score:2)
why communists always seem to get a free pass on the tyranny train?
They were ever so slightly less bad than the Nazis.
Well, maybe, we're not really all that sure. But they won the Second World War for us so we give them the benefit of the doubt.
Re: (Score:1)
One can argue that the communists were more evil, but the Nazi threat was more immediate.
Re: (Score:1)
The Russians *started* WWII when they and their Nazi allies invaded Poland.
Re: (Score:2)
Germany invaded Poland, France and Britain declared war on Germany...and, after a little while, the Soviets moved into Poland. What they started in WWII was the Winter War with Finland.
Also, the reason the Soviets were allied with Germany was that their negotiations with France and Britain foundered, the British envoy in particular having about enough authority to ask for a pee break. Had France and Britain been actually interested in a Soviet alliance, they likely would have had one (I'm not guarantee
Re: (Score:2)
why communists always seem to get a free pass on the tyranny train?
They were ever so slightly less bad than the Nazis.
...
When communists murder people, it's treated more like an industrial accident than a crime. At least by some people.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
I wonder why communists always seem to get a free pass on the tyranny train?
They don't.
But here's a hint for you. The "Communists" in those countries also claimed to be Democratic, Republics, and a lot more.
Might be they weren't a Holy Roman Empire either.
Irony, captcha is fascism.
They made their claims too, BTW.
The Nazis are interesting because (Score:2)
they were voted into power, by folks who had a democratic, constitutionally chartered government. Anytime a fictional work needs to show the evil of people giving over to "the dark side", either out of fear, demoralizing shame, or for some other reason, "The Nazis" provide a good model to emulate. Authors, screenwriters, and other artists are who understand this history can be forgiven for copying the concept. The excesses of Communism, while often "evil" are not nearly as interesting, from a creative poi
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder why communists always seem to get a free pass on the tyranny train?
Because they lost and are no longer the major threat in the world. Rose colored glasses and such...
Re: (Score:3)
The Terrorists are considered an Evil group. However they are are just a bunch of bullies, who haven't (compared to the military actions in the past) gained much foothold.
The Communists were less Evil, but more a solid threat, the Soviets had taken control of many countries, and having a Nuclear Arsenal as well made them really scarry.
There is some disagreement about those people being evil, especially the communists. One could easily say that the capitalists are the greater evil, especially the owners big corporations, because they pollute the Earth, are utterly greedy, etc and have no concern for the distribution of resources among those who need them. The CIA, on behalf of a capitalist state, participated in coups d'état in various countries, the US invaded Nicaragua, Panama, Hawaii, just to name a few countries. Thus, capitalism
Re: (Score:3)
The Nazis, on the other hand, are held as the embodiment of evil, almost unanimously.
Because the Communists won the PR war. Literally. When Stalin decided to denounce someone he called them Fascist.
It boggles the mind that any former Communist, an ideology that killed over 60 million people can be accepted just fine today and any former Nazi is forever considered the worst creature to have walked the Earth.
This is not to cry over some perceived unfairness to the Nazi, but rather to stand astounded that all Communists aren't being rounded up today with the same fervor. You claim to want ju
Re: (Score:2)
This is not to cry over some perceived unfairness to the Nazi, but rather to stand astounded that all Communists aren't being rounded up today with the same fervor. You claim to want justice for totalitarian perpetrators of genocide? Great, just don't pick and choose.
Not all Communists are genocidal, only their leaders. In the same way, not all Nazis deserved to go on trial (IFAIK, 10% went), nor the ones who faced trial should ben condemned, (again, AFAIK, 10% were). I've heard people say that it is a shame that it went that way and that all Nazis should have been prosecuted and hung. However most of then had no say on the fate of the inmates of concentration camps, nor had important roles in the party, nor have anything to do with the Nazi party besides being affiliat
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/17/... [cnn.com]
http://www.theguardian.com/wor... [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Intentions matter more so than just raw numbers. If you kill 10 people by accident, even negligence, that is generally considered as not being as bad as killing one person on purpose. The vast majority of deaths attributed to communist regimes come from incompetence and mismanagement resulting in mass famines.
Furthermore, the reason the Nazis are so hated is not because they killed a lot of people but because they targeted people based on racism and prejudice. Communists killed people they saw as threats (r
Re: (Score:2)
I think some of the Nazi fascination comes from their very successful PR as badasses, as well as their application of modern industrial techniques to mass murder.
Re: (Score:3)
" One could easily say that the capitalists are the greater evil, especially the owners big corporations, because they pollute the Earth, are utterly greedy, etc and have no concern for the distribution of resources among those who need them."
Really?
Wow I guess you have not seen what the old USSR did in the areas that controlled as far as the environment, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... [wikipedia.org].
Or the quality of air in China...
"and have no concern for the distribution of resources among those who need
Re: (Score:2)
The Communists were less Evil, but more a solid threat, the Soviets had taken control of many countries, and having a Nuclear Arsenal as well made them really scarry.
The reason communists get a pass is because most of the media and the current president have so much common cause with Marxism.
Re: What? (Score:4, Funny)
I don't agree with Lord Vader, but I support the Stormtroopers.
Re: What? (Score:1)
I find your lack of faith disturbing.
How the executive wipes away democratic power? (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought the political message of Star Wars was clear: a powerful executive gradually demonizes, marginalizes, ignores and then disbands a representative body, while using force to intimidate and even kill anyone who resists or speaks against the central government.
Now where could we find a parallel....hmmm...
Re: (Score:2)
The process that saw the rise of Senator Palpatine to Emperor cannot really be compared to anything you might have seen in any western democracy any time recently. It's more the sort of thing that you saw give rise to the Kim dynasty in North Korea but even that, I can't think of anything comparable.
1) Senator Palpatine becomes Chancellor by capitalizing on Trade Federation's aggression on his home planet
2) Chancellor Palpatine invokes extraordinary powers to take action against separatists, to fight a war.
Re: (Score:1)
Shit, does Nazi Germany not count as "recently" anymore? There are still plenty of people alive who lived through it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The French Revolution didn't keep one person in power very long. I think Hitler's rise (get appointed Chancellor, get emergency powers, take over in full) is closer to Palpatine's.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the political message of Star Wars was clear: a powerful executive gradually demonizes, marginalizes, ignores and then disbands a representative body...
Whatever their faults, the prequels make it plain that a decadent Republic and Jedi Order were ready to be shoved over a cliff before Palpatine came along.
The signs of sterility and paralysis can be seen everywhere you look.
Re: (Score:2)
>> Whatever their faults, the prequels make it plain that a decadent Republic and Jedi Order were ready to be shoved over a cliff
They also make it plain that a decadent Republic and Jedi Order were better than the alternative. :)
Re: (Score:2)
The one thing I want to point out is that you should recognize the name "Cass Sunstein"; he's not some random academic, he was part of the Obama administration, and has a bunch of ideas that you will find either kooky or great, depending on how you align politically:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]
He's also good about co-opting terms he disagrees with as a way to try and attack intellectual opposition. He calls a bunch of things libertarian that are flagrantly NOT libertarian, for instance.
Perhaps they should have studied Roman Law? (Score:5, Insightful)
It isn't like the partial law from Star Wars isn't based on the well documented Roman System of governance.
You know the idea that there was a Republic system of government with a constitutional rule that will grant someone emergancy full authority in times of war. Which was abused by Julius Caesar to allow him to create the Roman Empire. Or was it Senator Palpatine who created the Galactic empire?
Huh... (Score:3)
Does Cass Sunstein write Vogon poetry too?
Episode 3 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A henious enough event can be exploited to the point where you can essentially invalidate an entire constitution and, instead of condemnation, you will hear only cheering.
9/11 = Patriot Act
Re:Episode 3 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
And the NSA has not and will never spy on Americans, be they business execs, military brass, or congressman. Nope, never has happened, and never will.
Re: (Score:3)
Both were acts of terrorism committed by fringe lunatic outsiders, and both were immediately and skilfully exploited by politicians who had the goal all along of subverting the rule of law.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Whereas the USA PATRIOT Act had, what, one dissenting vote? (Or maybe I'm thinking of the authorization of the use of military force?)
Seriously? Slow day or what? (Score:2)
How on earth did this get enough votes to make it into the Slashdot pool... Our founding fathers and George Lucas being compared?
Where it's not very deep, Even Slashdot isn't usually this shallow.... Or is it?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Star Wars *is* a global phenomenon and a staple of US culture loved and adored by millions across the globe. So, now that you draw the comparison to the founding fathers, in our modern times George Lucas has probably been more significant to most people than the founding fathers have.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh for Pete's sake... GEORGE LUCAS has had more significance than our founding fathers to the current generation?!?
What kind of history are they (not) teaching in public schools these days? If what you say is true, this is sad. It means we are abandoning our founding principles and putting principles in place from fictional stories, and between Star Wars, The Hunger Games and the like we get our ideas of government? Lord help us.
I dare say that MOST of us are way more impacted by our founders than by S
Don't bring up that "e" word (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The 17th Amendment was a response to some seriously corrupt shenanigans, but I'm not sure it was the right response.
The worst things that have happened to our federal system have come through the 14th, 16th, and 17th Amendments.
Individual Americans were never supposed to have a direct relationship with the Federal government; it was formed as a union of states, not of people.
I don't know how to fix this, but I think it should be fixed.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't know how to fix this, but I think it should be fixed.
Washington is simply incapable of fixing itself. The only way to put the genie back in the bottle is an Article 5 convention of the states. That would over rule congress, the president, and SCOTUS. Mark Levin wrote a book about this called "The Liberty Amendments". Well researched and highly recommended. Levin makes Sunstein look like a kindergartener.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, because the liberal majority here on slashdot just loves the evolving constitution... like the Citizens United ruling.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously No True Scots' constitution would have evolved that way.
conservatives (Score:1)
Isn't it in their nature to resist change, isn't the very definition of a conservative one who resists change? I believe everyone should live according to their nature.
Conservatives should do their thing, and if they find the world changing around them too rapidly, they should construct a mountain of bullshit and live safely on top of Bullshit Mountain.
Progressives and other communist sympathizer should live according to their nature as well, their family should get a fraction of resources equivalent to the
Han fired first (Score:2)
He didn't need no constitutional law.
Re: (Score:1)
He was being threatened with deadly force. The fact that he defended himself doesn't even make him a scoundrel or criminal.
Making Greedo even more pathetic than he needed to be (by missing that first shot at close range) didn't make Han seem any more noble.
Money (Score:2)
The less is that a person with enough money and influence can force everyone to accept something obviously false, like Han shooting first or dollars having more rights than citizens.
There's an order of magnitude difference here... (Score:2)
No doubt humans are great at seeing and inventing patterns, its built in our brains at a deep level, for good and for ill. Certainly this ability plays a significant role in creativity. There's a missing bit here though, in that we build a pattern that is in some sense deeply meaningful. "Luke, I am your Uncle, " would have made as much sense and filled in pretty much all the similar spots, but doesn't have the same punch.
When the courts go to try and understand a new, real life situation against the bac
analogy how Rome lost the Republic (Score:2)
Cass "Cognitive Infiltration" Sunstein (Score:2)
This is the same man who proposed infiltrating and attacking any groups that dared think something of which his government didn't approve [salon.com].
Although as a deeply-connected member of the Obama Administration, I'd have to agree that, at least when it comes to his own efforts at governance, "Human beings often see coherence and planned design when neither exists."
Anyone who's ever worked for George understands George himself was, however unconsciously, the model for both Darth Vader and the Emperor. Frightening b
Re:Seriously? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
...could be worse still: Slashdot could be teaching Constitutional Law, which means you'd start with a car analogy.
Re: (Score:2)
...could be worse still: Slashdot could be teaching Constitutional Law, which means you'd start with a car analogy.
Unfortunately, someone ripped out all the wire for the copper, jacked the stereo, and left the car up on blocks with no wheels.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I can't take seriously a paper on the development of constitutional law which starts with an analogy to Star Wars.
Neither can I. Just skimmed the article.
TL;DR: This is a rant/metaphor about Originalism [wikipedia.org]. The author argues that both narratives and process of creating narratives have surprises. Constitutional law has many "I am your father" moments (yes, that's what the author in TFA calls them) when previous information in a narrative/legal principle is reinterpreted. But Originalism (according to TFA) wants to claim that these narrative/legal surprises were ALL planned and intended by George Lucas/the Founders al
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps protection of commercial advertising is constitutional law's The Phantom Menace.
Re: (Score:3)
And the best quote from the Ars comment section was "Darth Vader" is pretty much a Germanic version of "Dark Father"... so for all of Lucas's failings, that " I am your father" moment that the paper is largely based on was likely not one of the serendipitous ones that the paper hopes it to be.
"Han shot first", OTOH, we see cropping up in law ALL THE TIME.
Re:Seriously? (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course it is not all thought out!
That is why we have Amendments and the Supreme Court.
The other side of the coin is "living document" where we change the meaning of the words to fit the current times.
I am much more in favor of using the tools given to us to change the Constitution vrs changing it's meaning based on current interpretation.
That "precedence" concept of common law should not apply to the Constitution, which is not "written in stone" but should be difficult to change to avoid repeats of Prohibition. The fact that Prohibition is one of the few "flip flops" in the Constitution shows that it works pretty well.
Re: (Score:3)
The other side of the coin is "living document" where we change the meaning of the words to fit the current times.
I am much more in favor of using the tools given to us to change the Constitution vrs changing it's meaning based on current interpretation.
That's exactly the problem. Nobody wants to amend the Constitution, they want to "interpret" it, as if the meaning of it weren't clear enough as is. You mentioned Prohibition, which I think is one of the best examples. Nobody so far has been able to explain to me why we had to pass a constitutional amendment to outlaw alcohol, but the same thing is not necessary for any other drug. The entire war on drugs is an unconstitutional sham.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody so far has been able to explain to me why we had to pass a constitutional amendment to outlaw alcohol, but the same thing is not necessary for any other drug.
Because the Constitution "changed" (at least in its interpretation) in 1937. Long story [wikipedia.org] short: from 1789 to 1937, the Supreme Court believed that enumerated powers [wikipedia.org] existed, thus putting rather restrictive and fundamental limits on the powers of the federal government.
For some reason in 1937, one of the justices on the Supreme Court switched sides. And ever since, the Supreme Court has basically interpreted certain sections of the Constitution (e.g., "interstate commerce," "general welfare," etc.) to mea
Re: (Score:2)
I call it the Humpty Dumpty argument:
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
Re: (Score:2)
We interpret things routinely. You will read this and try to figure out what I tried to say, respond to it and I will then post that you misinterpreted everything I wrote and start a flame warâ¦
The same is true with law, the defendant and the claimant interpret the law to be in their favor, the judge adjudicates the case based on his interpretation of what the law says and what was demonstrated by each party.
Some parts of the law are straightforward, if after a violent incident between people the
Re: (Score:3)
TBH, I don't even get why the TFA author's idea was necessary. The US Constitution was built out of a long series of debates, compromises, and not a little effort towards future-proofing (and let's be honest, idiot-proofing). That, and they included mechanisms to modify it as needed.
Sure, the process was arduous and it involved a lot of potential inclusions that would quite frankly scare many folks today. That said, once finalized and ratified, it's in place and should be treated as the original document. I
Re: (Score:2)
TBH, I don't even get why the TFA author's idea was necessary. The US Constitution was built out of a long series of debates, compromises, and not a little effort towards future-proofing (and let's be honest, idiot-proofing). That, and they included mechanisms to modify it as needed.
Sure, the process was arduous and it involved a lot of potential inclusions that would quite frankly scare many folks today. That said, once finalized and ratified, it's in place and should be treated as the original document. If you (or anyone) want it changed, then use the mechanisms included to do just that. We've managed to do so for a couple of centuries now without violating the thing, so why get all creative about it now?
The complaints: It's too hard to get 66% of Congress and 75% of the States to agree to change it, so politically it's just easier to get SCOTUS to allow the Federal government to do what is desired by "reinterpreting" the meaning you want into what was already written.
It's primarily a complaint by those in favor of Big Government; though many in favor of Small Government have turned to it as well in order to try to roll back the Progressive movements of the last 100 years. So both sides are now guilty o
Re: (Score:2)
Consider the internal improvements bill of 1817 (also known as the Bonus Bill of 1817). It would have established a fund for a system of internal improvements (road
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I can't take seriously a paper on the development of constitutional law which starts with an analogy to Star Wars.
Why not? The point seems to be that a people's view of their constitution is a myth-making process. This idea is of course anathema to Americans, although clearly long-held interpretations of the US Constitution certainly color what we see as the "plain meaning" of the document.
But you can see see this consensus myth thing clearly over in Britain, which doesn't have a written constitution. That doesn't mean they don't have a constitution; it's in what nearly everyone agrees traditionally can or cannot b
Re: (Score:1)
The Queen can't veto a law by withholding her assent, because it's just not done.
And, just to remind her of this, there is a statue of Oliver Cromwell just outside the house of Commons.
Re: (Score:2)
It only says bear arms. It doesn't specify which kind of bear arms. Grizzly, polar, you name it; its arms are up for grabs!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If all you see of that universe is the military, it does kinda look that way.
Re: (Score:1)
If you think about it a bit more, ST is kind of a metaphor for US interventionism, AKA the Monroe Doctrine: Let's all look as if we were doing something on behalf of eve
Re: (Score:2)
The Monroe Doctrine is dead. You're thinking the US as the world's police force and try to feel good about ourselves while we kill brown people (and Obama is trying to get us out of that role too, see Syria and Ukraine).
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, that's like saying Canada is a militaristic society - because your entire gained knowledge of Canada involved hanging around the bridge of a Canadian warship, with the occasional excursion to foreign shores.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I can't take seriously a paper on the development of constitutional law which starts with an analogy to Star Wars.
I don't blame you, but (just by skimming it) the thesis base its used analogy on Star Wars as a way to criticize... (unplanned) "non-sense"!