Reasoned Argument: Counter to Cancel Culture, Session 6
REASONED ARGUMENT: COUNTER TO CANCEL CULTURE
American Argument Prior to, During, and Following the Federalist-Antifederalist Debate
Session 6: Rights, Ratification, and Revolution
Topics and Readings:
- Patrick Henry versus James Madison - The Climax of the Federalist-Anti-Federalist Debate (June 1788)
- Madison on the Bill of Rights in the first Congress (1789)
- Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790) versus Thomas Paine, Rights of Man (1791)
Featuring:
John S. Baker, Jr., Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus, Louisiana State University Law Center
Reasoned Argument Book Club will run weekly on Tuesday evenings for 13 one-hour sessions, beginning Tuesday, August 24th at 8:00 p.m. Eastern. The class is now full, but you can watch the live streams on our website and YouTube.
To counter cancel culture, we will be taking excerpts from these three books as well as others:
Our Republican Constitution, Professor Randy Barnett
Novus Ordo Seclorum, Forrest McDonald
The Ethics of Rhetoric, Richard Weaver
Law and Liberty’s Lifeblood: Reasoned, Persuasive Argument
The Republicanism of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is the product of reasoned, persuasive argument. Over time, however, the republican rhetoric of law and liberty has been pushed aside by the language of regulation and federal power. More recently, Marxist rhetoric condemning America has erupted into the public square. The different worlds of sports, entertainment, education, media, as well as big law and large corporations seem to be singing from the same hymnal.
Condemning America and commanding—not arguing—that we should all think and speak as directed is the way of Cancel Culture. Rather than responding in kind, this Book Club offers an opportunity to refresh our understanding of the Republicanism that fueled the Founding and the Post-Civil War Amendments.
The audience for this Book Club includes not only law students and lawyers, but anyone concerned about disorder in our constitutional order. This Book Club is closer to a collection of essays, largely drawing from two books: Our Republican Constitution by Professor Randy Barnett; Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution by Professor Forrest McDonald; and The Ethics of Rhetoric by Richard Weaver.
Professor Barnett’s book is aimed at a general, non-scholarly audience. Professor McDonald’s book goes more deeply into the intellectual richness of the Founding. Dr. Weaver's book addresses ethical and persuasive speaking and argument by analyzing particular arguments, including those of Lincoln.
Persuasive Speech—aka Rhetoric
Justice Scalia proved the power of rhetoric, classically understood. He defended the Rule of Law and Originalism, through much more than pure reason. He used, of course, analogies and memorable metaphors, e.g., “this wolf comes as a wolf.” It was his passion for truth, however, that powered his persuasiveness. The challenge, which he relished, was addressing written and oral arguments aimed at audiences steeped in relativism. For readers and listeners ranging from fans to sneering cynics, he employed humor, sarcasm, hyperbole, and (from the bench and in speeches) especially facial expressions. His purpose: to shatter their un-reflected acceptance of Progressive constitutional truisms.
Professor Baker co-taught with Justice Scalia over the entire period of the Justice’s tenure on the Supreme Court. Besides arguing constitutional cases, including twice in the Supreme Court, Baker tried over 40 felony, jury trials and countless misdemeanors as a state prosecutor prior to entering law teaching.
Baker emphasizes that one need not have the personality of a Justice Scalia in order to understand Rhetoric and to argue more persuasively. One need not even ever make formal arguments in order to realize its benefit in the most informal of exchanges with others. But everyone needs an understanding of Rhetoric in order to protect against Woke’s “Condemn and Command” rhetoric.
READING ASSIGNMENTS FOR SESSION 7:
Excerpts from Burkes Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790)
http://individual.utoronto.ca/dftaylor/Burke.pdf
The Ethics of Rhetoric
Ch. 3 Edmund Burke and the Argument from Circumstance — p. 55 - first paragraph of p77
Excerpts from Thomas Paine's Rights of Man
http://www.columbia.edu/~iw6/docs/paine.html
Transcript of President George Washington's Farewell Address (1796)
https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=15&page=transcript
Novus Ordo Seclorum: the Intellectual Origins of the Constitution, Chapter 6, p185- 199 (first quarter of the page)
Letters from Jefferson and Hamilton to Washington (1792)
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-24-02-0330
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-12-02-0267
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Видео Reasoned Argument: Counter to Cancel Culture, Session 6 канала The Federalist Society
American Argument Prior to, During, and Following the Federalist-Antifederalist Debate
Session 6: Rights, Ratification, and Revolution
Topics and Readings:
- Patrick Henry versus James Madison - The Climax of the Federalist-Anti-Federalist Debate (June 1788)
- Madison on the Bill of Rights in the first Congress (1789)
- Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790) versus Thomas Paine, Rights of Man (1791)
Featuring:
John S. Baker, Jr., Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus, Louisiana State University Law Center
Reasoned Argument Book Club will run weekly on Tuesday evenings for 13 one-hour sessions, beginning Tuesday, August 24th at 8:00 p.m. Eastern. The class is now full, but you can watch the live streams on our website and YouTube.
To counter cancel culture, we will be taking excerpts from these three books as well as others:
Our Republican Constitution, Professor Randy Barnett
Novus Ordo Seclorum, Forrest McDonald
The Ethics of Rhetoric, Richard Weaver
Law and Liberty’s Lifeblood: Reasoned, Persuasive Argument
The Republicanism of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is the product of reasoned, persuasive argument. Over time, however, the republican rhetoric of law and liberty has been pushed aside by the language of regulation and federal power. More recently, Marxist rhetoric condemning America has erupted into the public square. The different worlds of sports, entertainment, education, media, as well as big law and large corporations seem to be singing from the same hymnal.
Condemning America and commanding—not arguing—that we should all think and speak as directed is the way of Cancel Culture. Rather than responding in kind, this Book Club offers an opportunity to refresh our understanding of the Republicanism that fueled the Founding and the Post-Civil War Amendments.
The audience for this Book Club includes not only law students and lawyers, but anyone concerned about disorder in our constitutional order. This Book Club is closer to a collection of essays, largely drawing from two books: Our Republican Constitution by Professor Randy Barnett; Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution by Professor Forrest McDonald; and The Ethics of Rhetoric by Richard Weaver.
Professor Barnett’s book is aimed at a general, non-scholarly audience. Professor McDonald’s book goes more deeply into the intellectual richness of the Founding. Dr. Weaver's book addresses ethical and persuasive speaking and argument by analyzing particular arguments, including those of Lincoln.
Persuasive Speech—aka Rhetoric
Justice Scalia proved the power of rhetoric, classically understood. He defended the Rule of Law and Originalism, through much more than pure reason. He used, of course, analogies and memorable metaphors, e.g., “this wolf comes as a wolf.” It was his passion for truth, however, that powered his persuasiveness. The challenge, which he relished, was addressing written and oral arguments aimed at audiences steeped in relativism. For readers and listeners ranging from fans to sneering cynics, he employed humor, sarcasm, hyperbole, and (from the bench and in speeches) especially facial expressions. His purpose: to shatter their un-reflected acceptance of Progressive constitutional truisms.
Professor Baker co-taught with Justice Scalia over the entire period of the Justice’s tenure on the Supreme Court. Besides arguing constitutional cases, including twice in the Supreme Court, Baker tried over 40 felony, jury trials and countless misdemeanors as a state prosecutor prior to entering law teaching.
Baker emphasizes that one need not have the personality of a Justice Scalia in order to understand Rhetoric and to argue more persuasively. One need not even ever make formal arguments in order to realize its benefit in the most informal of exchanges with others. But everyone needs an understanding of Rhetoric in order to protect against Woke’s “Condemn and Command” rhetoric.
READING ASSIGNMENTS FOR SESSION 7:
Excerpts from Burkes Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790)
http://individual.utoronto.ca/dftaylor/Burke.pdf
The Ethics of Rhetoric
Ch. 3 Edmund Burke and the Argument from Circumstance — p. 55 - first paragraph of p77
Excerpts from Thomas Paine's Rights of Man
http://www.columbia.edu/~iw6/docs/paine.html
Transcript of President George Washington's Farewell Address (1796)
https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=15&page=transcript
Novus Ordo Seclorum: the Intellectual Origins of the Constitution, Chapter 6, p185- 199 (first quarter of the page)
Letters from Jefferson and Hamilton to Washington (1792)
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-24-02-0330
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-12-02-0267
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Видео Reasoned Argument: Counter to Cancel Culture, Session 6 канала The Federalist Society
Показать
Комментарии отсутствуют
Информация о видео
29 сентября 2021 г. 6:02:44
00:57:36
Другие видео канала
How Does Federalism Result in More Competent and Competitive Governance? [No. 86]The Flexibility of Contracts [No. 86]How Does the Difficulty of Legislating Protect Federalism? [No. 86]Do Professors at Public Universities Have Free Speech Rights? [Briefly: The FedSoc Review]Do you need to be a classicist to understand Roman Law? [No. 86]Ortiz v. United States [SCOTUSbrief]Are You Bound by a Form You Didn’t Read? [No. 86]Supreme Court Roundup October Term 2021 [SCOTUSbrief]Significant Regulations and OIRA Review [No. 86]Is Originalism Internal or External to the Constitution? [No. 86]Kelo v. City of New London [SCOTUSbrief]How are Natural Rights Related to Just Laws? [No. 86]Hemphill v. New York [SCOTUSbrief]The Financial Frontier: Financial Freedom, Payday Lending, & “Operation Choke Point”Welcome & Plenary Session: Regulatory Review Reset? [EBR Conference]Medical Malpractice in Tort Law: Ordinary Negligence and Recklessness [No. 86]Feddie Night Fights: Criminal (In)Justice?: Is the Push for Decarceration & Depolicing Backfiring?What Makes a Contract Enforceable? [No. 86]A Global Energy Crisis and the FERC: A Discussion of Challenges and Opportunities [Panel Discussion]The Evolution of Antitrust Laws Relating to College AthleticsDoes Property Class Always Start with a Fox Hunt? [No. 86]