The Cornell Daily Sun (https://cornellsun.com/tag/constitution/)
Two Cornell professors, Prof. Michael Dorf, law, and Prof. Sarah Kreps, government, took to the stage on Wednesday night to debate the legal and political concerns surrounding the third-ever impeachment.
As President Trump announced the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh as Associate Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court this past July 9, protesters gathered at the Supreme Court with placards communicating their opposition to the nominee. But because the announcement had not yet been made, these placards included all but the name of the actual nominee, which was left blank. Markers in hand, the protesters waited. Then, slightly after 9:00 p.m., as Trump uttered the name “Brett Kavanaugh,” they promptly filled it in and began their demonstration. It raises an interesting question: what would they have done if the President had nominated Merrick Garland?
“Democracies used to die at the hands of men with guns,” Ziblatt said. “Today, democracies die at the hands of presidents and prime ministers.”
To the Editor:
We the people made our Constitution and have the right to amend it. The Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, says: “A well regulated militia being necessary to a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Article V of the Constitution says in part: “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, . . . which, .
The forum — aptly titled “Are We in a Constitutional Crisis?” — was hosted by the University’s American Studies department the day after Constitution Day, the day in which the founding fathers first signed the document in 1787.
Throughout the week, law students have been signing the backs of the puzzle pieces and writing messages on them. They are attaching letters imploring President Trump to follow the Constitution during his presidency.
When Michael Moore responded to the deaths of 12 innocent high school students with Bowling for Columbine, no one could have argued against the film’s political significance. A fiery critique of congressional negligence to curb gun violence, Moore’s impassioned documentary was so charged with a palpable, collective anger that many still refer to it as one of the most compelling political statements made by any documentarian. Even watching Bowling for Columbine nearly a decade after its initial release as an Australian high school student did little to weaken my appreciation of its persuasive fury. And the fact that U.S. legislators have failed to account for the thousands of victims of gun violence and have written off their deaths as an acceptable cost for the preservation of a 200-year-old constitutional amendment has only strengthened the contemporary legacy of Moore’s most important work. Moore’s latest film, Where to Invade Next — despite being deceptively titled to suggest a censure of American foreign policy — focuses on social welfare offered by other countries that Moore believes America ought to imitate.