Comments on: History of the Constitutional – Convention Episode 31 http://nedryun.com/2009/09/history-of-the-constitutional-convention-episode-31/ Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:56:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Bill Payne http://nedryun.com/2009/09/history-of-the-constitutional-convention-episode-31/comment-page-1/#comment-243 Bill Payne Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:56:47 +0000 http://nedryun.com/?p=154#comment-243 I can't access the Podcasts via iTunes from the Website. Any advice? Many thanks, Bill I can’t access the Podcasts via iTunes from the Website. Any advice?

Many thanks, Bill

]]> By: Joseph Steinberg http://nedryun.com/2009/09/history-of-the-constitutional-convention-episode-31/comment-page-1/#comment-161 Joseph Steinberg Tue, 15 Sep 2009 05:10:25 +0000 http://nedryun.com/?p=154#comment-161 I'm very sad your series has ended. I've awaited the next episode each week, and the podcast was usually the first I listened to that first morning. The accounts of the participants and the debates were always fascinating. One technical point: fade out the theme music in the beginning, and fade in at the end. The abrupt end sounds unprofessional. However, this last episode was uncharacteristically partisan, at least for the program itself. Instead of pitting the US Constitution against a progressive straw man, I would have stressed the sui generis origins of the document, that you have discussed. The experiences and erudition of these statesmen led to a new direction for political science, and modern schools of interpretation cannot claim any part of it. Progressivism is as alien to the Constitution as Burkean conservatism. Social contract theorists are equally wrong-footed. Simply pointing out the document's uniqueness would have been a great service. I hope you return, though, to point out the errors in the document, such as were revealed during the 1800 election. A series on the amendments would be illuminating. Thank you. I’m very sad your series has ended. I’ve awaited the next episode each week, and the podcast was usually the first I listened to that first morning. The accounts of the participants and the debates were always fascinating. One technical point: fade out the theme music in the beginning, and fade in at the end. The abrupt end sounds unprofessional.

However, this last episode was uncharacteristically partisan, at least for the program itself. Instead of pitting the US Constitution against a progressive straw man, I would have stressed the sui generis origins of the document, that you have discussed. The experiences and erudition of these statesmen led to a new direction for political science, and modern schools of interpretation cannot claim any part of it. Progressivism is as alien to the Constitution as Burkean conservatism. Social contract theorists are equally wrong-footed. Simply pointing out the document’s uniqueness would have been a great service.

I hope you return, though, to point out the errors in the document, such as were revealed during the 1800 election. A series on the amendments would be illuminating.

Thank you.

]]>