Well, the bit about "three fifths of all other Persons" is certainly more troublesome than merely being un-PC.

I think this whole idea that there is some sort of leftist PC persecution going on all the time is just completely overblown by the right wing. Though I do hope that my saying so hasn't offended the delicate sensibilities of any redneck, whitebread, racist, homophobic, toothless, inbred libertarian hillbillies.

Also don't forget the reference to "merciless Indian Savages" in the D. of I. The above disclaimer offers solid parental advice. It should appear in many other books, starting with the Bible.

Most public schools get around the disclaimer by just never quoting or using actual original source documents. Much easier to teach by just "summarizing" without letting the kids ever read the actual words the founders wrote. I hear law schools are going that route as well with their ConLaw classes.

"The above disclaimer offers solid parental advice."

Yep, and can be used for Huck Finn and other objectionable content.

Harry,

In my law school con law class, we were assigned to read the Constitution for the first class. Most con law, however, really isn't very rooted in the actual text of the document. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment is 81 words, but it's been the textual basis for Supreme Court decisions striking down school segregation, sodomy laws, and a law regulating the hours that bakers could work in New York.

It's totally easy to reconcile ourselves to the past, if you imagine the following scenario: people of color were the ones that had all the luck- the agriculture, the climate, etc, and white people were not so lucky, and couldn't develop and benefit from the guns, germs, and steel that Jarred Diamond runs on endlessly about. Then imagine white people being trampled and strangled and abused for some centuries by people of color, resulting in societies with rifts, distrust, and discord.

Admittedly, it might be easier to be sanguine about it all when you happen to be white.

In my law school con law class, we were assigned to read the Constitution
Really? In my ConLaw class we just read Emanuel's Law Outline.

What's funny is that I know the editor in charge of these works, and I know exactly why he had to put that disclaimer in. Without fail, no matter what the work may be, you'll have some idiot helicopter parent who'll skim whatever it is, see a bad word or a bad concept, and then blow up. As silly as this sounds, it's better to take crap for this disclaimer than dealing with psychotic parents who start lawsuits because their little Schnookums was exposed to a bad word or an inconvenient attitude.

And to add to it, here's a link to the editor at Wilder Publications: http://www.warrenlapine.com He's been trying to explain that he had a damn good reason to put in that disclaimer. What's even worse is that Wilder is only a distributor for the books being printed elsewhere, and that printer is self-described as "very conservative". The gimps making a big deal out of this aren't wanting to hear that while it's currently a conservative outrage that this disclaimer was included, it was added because of liberal parents who were terrified of coming across bad words in reprints of Huckleberry Finn and the like.

The only bright side to it? While Warren has been getting threats against himself and his family over this, he's also been getting lots of screaming from know-nothings about how they're going to boycott his company. That's not a concern, because it's not like most of the critics would ever buy a copy of the US Constitution in the first place. Hell, it's not like half of them can read, judging by the bat frothings they call communication.