Ronald Dworkin Interview on the Constitution (1987)

Ronald Dworkin discusses the meaning of the Constitution in an interview with Bill Moyers back in 1987.
00:00 Introduction
00:52 Meet Ronald Dworkin
03:34 British vs American Constitution
08:32 An Ongoing Story
12:25 Original Intent
17:24 Principle of Constitution
18:30 Rights
21:55 AIDS
24:57 Right to Order
26:42 Pornography
30:06 Affirmative Action
39:32 Ideal Judge
42:40 Limits on Court Power
43:49 Learned Hand vs New Conservatives
46:12 Court's Expanding Reach
51:11 History of Ignoring & Respecting Constitution
53:28 Legacy & Glory of Constitution
#Philosophy #PoliticalPhilosophy

[@CyberspacedLoner]

Thank you for making this content available to the public on TH-cam

[@bens5859]

Second this. Keep posting videos! Nearly every video you post piques my interest. When I don't watch, it's because I'm simply not in the mood for philosophy at that moment.

[@christopherwood9032]

Dworkin has inspired me to continue studying philosophy at university once i get my JD. He truly got the best of the both worlds of law and philosophy.

[@trevorcrowley5748]

Very impressive. My hope is that these days of wisdom will one day return

[@Self-Duality]

Excellent discussion!

[@BobQuigley]

Here in 2022 how quaint this discussion is! Unfortunately the justice system has been weaponized from the top down.

[@bens5859]

What do you make of the example given about the journalist at around 5:00?

[@jdsgotninelives]

@@bens5859 Yes, it's a powerful example. I think that the op was pointing out the overturning of Roe vs Wade. In itself, not very controversial, but the fact that it impacts a basic tenet of existence, that of the self, makes it a violation of the idea of political representation. In truth it is easier to corrupt the father of law than it is the many children of an imperfect parliament. I say this as an Australian, bound by the Westminster system of Democracy, and in total awe of the idea of a Republic. At around 18:30 we see how 'quaint' the discussion is when Dworkin points out that courts can protect us from fundamentalism in our parliaments. I doubt he could have envisaged the decendancy of Trumpism.

[@johnsimmons6637]

So true

[@terrytube5247]

By Trump.

[@hughmac13]

Weaponized how, precisely?

[@patheally]

Hahaha! "Couldn't be done in America". Tell that to James O'Keef at Project Veritas.

[@ohmy4275]

In my opinion one of the bigger theoretical problems with constitutions is why such an agreement be able to bind future generations.

[@4_free73]

I think that the shorthand answer is “its for the everyone’s own good.” constitutions are social contracts, so if they are democratic, they provide the framework for the masses to have political freedom, and if they are a rule of law based constitution that we in the us have adopted, this should ensure that people have rights to be left alone from gov’t interference. If we had no constitution at all, there wouldn’t even be a polity, it would be state of nature type stuff, if its a fluid, ever changing constitution that isn’t really a bind, the citizens don’t enjoy the kinds of guarantees to their individual rights or public freedoms they would otherwise enjoy, and there is a pretty significant risk of backsliding. Constitutions in themselves, don’t actually bind us, rather we choose to bind ourselves to them in order to prevent against our own destruction

[@5kehhn]

Human nature by any other name...would smell so sweet?

[@mileskeller5244]

This is very similar to Michael Sandels philosophy.

[@camorinbatchelder6514]

A near full hour of pure cope

[@jayslater7017]

Who’s coping?