After twenty years of teaching political theory and constitutional law to Marlboro College undergraduates, Meg Mott has taken her love of argument to the general public.
Since its inception, the Constitution has been criticized for not doing enough to protect basic freedoms. Even with the addition of the Bill of Rights, slavery persisted. Abolitionists were divided on whether the highest law in the land could ever be redeemed. After William Lloyd Garrison publicly burned the Constitution at a rally in Framingham, Massachusetts, Frederick Douglass rebutted that political strategy. Why surrender these timeless words to the desires of wicked men?
Once again we are divided on the merits of the Constitution: can it redeem us or is it a convenient cloak for white supremacy? This presentation considers both arguments and then offers a third-way to consider the Constitution. Neither a divine document nor a tool of elites, the Constitution might also be seen as an invitation to develop the habits of political engagement through deliberation and adjudication.
Available in Correctional Facilities.
Projector with connector for Mac laptop
First, contact the speaker by clicking on their biography below to confirm their availability and discuss any special arrangements.
Then, click this “Book this Talk!” button to send a request form to Vermont Humanities. We’ll respond within one week.
We often are divided on the merits of the Constitution: can it redeem us or is it a convenient cloak for white supremacy? Meg Mott explains that the Constitution might be seen as an invitation to develop the habits of political engagement through deliberation and adjudication.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms has become one of the more contentious rights in American politics. Meg Mott focuses on the political theory behind the Second Amendment. How might pro-gun and anti-gun forces peaceably coexist? The goal of the talk is to take seriously an opposing point of view even if you can’t endorse it.
The First Amendment prevents Congress from passing any laws that abridge the freedom of speech. But what does that actually mean?