Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Star Wars Prequels

Learning About Constitutional Law With Star Wars 121

Posted by Soulskill from the scalia-shot-first dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Learning About Constitutional Law With Star Wars More

Learning About Constitutional Law With Star Wars

Comments Filter:
  • ...from Ewoks: The Battle for Endor?

    • Re:So what do we learn... (Score:4, Funny)

      by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Monday May 18, 2015 @09:27AM (#49718013)

      The importance of having air support for a military conquest.

    • Lucas is a closet Furry [memecdn.com]? (NSFW if you have stuck-up co-workers)

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by TWX ( 665546 )
        I don't think that's a representation of a Furry. I think that's a representation of a girl trying to look cute by wearing ears and a tail. Furries tend to cover up to attempt make it not obvious they're humans.

    • That the 2nd Amendment should really include crew served weapons?

    • Re:So what do we learn... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by allcoolnameswheretak ( 1102727 ) on Monday May 18, 2015 @10:25AM (#49718561)

      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.

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by TWX ( 665546 )
          Well, fortunately for us, just about the entire Expanded Universe has been ruled non-canon.

          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)

        by rezme ( 1677208 )
        I think the Ewoks were supposed to be an allegory to the Mujahadin in Afghanistan (because we liked them back then), that were fighting the evil Russians at the time with small arms and rocks.

  • How the executive wipes away democratic power? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by xxxJonBoyxxx ( 565205 ) on Monday May 18, 2015 @09:34AM (#49718093)

    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...

    • 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)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Shit, does Nazi Germany not count as "recently" anymore? There are still plenty of people alive who lived through it.

        • I would say that Revolutionary and Napoleonic France would be another (possibly better) parallel, as well as the classical Roman Republic/Empire.

          • 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.

    • From what I saw, the representative body disbanded themselves.

    • 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.

      • >> 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)

      by bmajik ( 96670 )

      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)

    by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Monday May 18, 2015 @09:36AM (#49718119)

    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)

    by the_skywise ( 189793 ) on Monday May 18, 2015 @09:40AM (#49718155)

    Does Cass Sunstein write Vogon poetry too?

  • All you need to know about constitutional law is in Episode 3. 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.

    • 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)

        by Nidi62 ( 1525137 ) on Monday May 18, 2015 @10:03AM (#49718341)
        I was thinking more inline with the Reichstag fire. Especially since both events were fabricated by those who sought to gain power (and no, for anyone who is thinking it, 9/11 was not done by the US government). While most of the prequel trilogy is laughable, the one line Natalie Portman says about liberty dying to thunderous applause is probably one of the stronger lines of all 3 movies.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          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)

          by Livius ( 318358 )

          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.

        • Comment removed based on user account deletion

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Livius ( 318358 )

            Whereas the USA PATRIOT Act had, what, one dissenting vote? (Or maybe I'm thinking of the authorization of the use of military force?)

  • 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?

    • 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.

      • 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

  • To the conservative majority here on slashdot, few things are scarier than the notion of something evolving. They are extremely selective about acknowledging changes to the constitution as being valid at all - notice their new war on the 17th amendment as one example - even when they are ratified by congress through the proscribed methods for amending the constitution. The idea that the constitution could itself evolve is nothing short of heresy for them.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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.

      • 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)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Yeah, because the liberal majority here on slashdot just loves the evolving constitution... like the Citizens United ruling.

    • conservatives (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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

  • He didn't need no constitutional law.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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.

  • 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.

  • 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

  • Rome replaced its monarchy with a Republic early on. But several centuries later ambitious generals took over the republic with a neo-monarchy called the Imperium.

  • 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

Slashdot Top Deals

Avoid strange women and temporary variables.

Close