By Spike Kopee
JOTR Copy Editor
Normally, we copy editors like to stay anonymous. We glower under our green eye shades, slash the copy of hireling writers and toss insults at those reporters brave enough to object to the lavish censorship we bring to the field of journalism.
As I say, anonymous is our normal mode.
But now and then something will draw us — or at least me — away from our hunt for misplaced commas and misappropriated apostrophes.
Such is the case with a recent Detroit public radio station’s report about Wayne State University law Professor Robert Sedler.
The good professor himself must be glowering about WDET-FM’s confusion about legal matters.
I can hardly believe that the professor would have mixed up the concepts of “constitution” and “statute.”
Only a reporter could be expected to goof up something as fundamental as this.
Certainly not a professor.
Maybe he meant to say “illegal,” not “unconstitutional”?
Apparently not.
According to the radio station, Sedler, “a Wayne State University law expert,” told a talk show host that “the plan to build a new bridge south of the Ambassador Bridge is unconstitutional.”
At this point, a copy editor such as myself expects to read references to the U.S. Constitution, or maybe — since the proposed new bridge would be built partly in Michigan — a citation from that state’s Constitution.
What I would not expect is to hear in one breath a claim that something is unconstitutional and in the next breath, a reference to laws.
As any first-year law student can tell you, laws, sometimes known as statutes, are not the same thing as constitutions. A constitution is fundamental and very hard to change. Constitutions create legislatures, and legislatures create laws. Legislatures do not create constitutions. Legislatures and courts are the creative product of constitutions. Constitutions are hard to change. Laws get changed every day. Courts interpret them. Legislatures enact, amend and repeal them.
And yet, according to the radio station, the professor based his claim that this proposed bridge is “unconstitutional” on mere statutes. He did not cite a constitutional argument.
According to WDET, “Professor Robert Sedler says his opinion is based on several laws related to ownership and rights of the Ambassador Bridge. He says a 1921 Congressional act spelling out the building of the bridge also gave the owners an exclusive right to such a crossing over the Detroit River.”
See what I mean?
“Laws.”
“Act.”
This is the kind of conceptual mess that drives a copy editor bananas.
Something is wrong here. Either the radio station misquoted the professor, or…
Could it be he’s not a professor at all?
Professors don’t commit doozies like this, do they?
According to the professor, the bridge company, under the law, has an exclusive right to have a bridge over the Detroit River.
“It’s exclusive,” the professor said, “Because under the law there’s only one company that’s authorized to do that and now that’s the Detroit International Bridge Company. It is perpetual simply because Congress did not provide that it would expire after a period of time.”
How is any of this an argument that building a second bridge is unconstitutional?
It is not an argument that a professor would make.
There’s more gobbledygook: According to the radio, the professor “also says the State of Michigan cannot enter into negotiations to build a new bridge with Canada… only the Federal government can do so under U.S. law.”
Now this is approaching the constitutional level. However, I’d like the professor to re-write this brief after reviewing a good Constitutional Law textbook.
Right now, I’d have to give the prof a big fat F.
Wait a minute. Now I get it.
“Sedler recently gave his opinion before the State Senate which is weighing the bridge issue,” according to WDET.
“Sedler says he was hired by the Detroit International Bridge Company’s attorneys to give his professional opinion on the matter.”
Jeez. What a dummie am I. This prof is a hired gun for Manuel “Matty” Moroun, the Grosse Pointe billionaire who owns the Ambassador Bridge and wants to keep his monopoly.
Hmmm. Hired gun for Matty. Where have I heard that before?
Oh yes, right here on JOTR: “shotgun-totin’ goon.”
Can a university prof be a lawbook-totin’ goof?
That radio story was a bit misleading. Gotta correct that.
Okay, here’s what we do: Send this story over to Ned Deadloin in Re-write and have him put a new lead on it:
Thanks, Ned. Wish they’d put your lead on their story:
A legal mouthpiece paid by Matty Moroun says the plan to build a new span south of Matty’s Ambassador Bridge is unconstitutional because it would compete with Matty’s god-given, fundamental right to make big money and tell people who don’t like it to go to hell.
As someone considered a legal expert, Sedler should of course be free to state his opinion on the bridge situation. But when he is retained by Moroun, he is no longer a disinterested observer and his analysis of the situation becomes open to question. It is very difficult not to feel that Sedler has sold his soul to the devil.
I hope someone will correct me if I’m wrong, but it is my understanding that permission to build a bridge across the Detroit River is granted only as far as the United States has jurisdiction over the waters of such river, and is subject to the approval of the proper authorities in Canada.
To my knowledge, the U.S. does not have jurisdiction reaching across the entire river into Canadian waters; also, it’s obvious that the Canadian authorities have NOT given approval to Moroun’s proposed twinned bridge.
Opposition to Mr. Sedler’s conclusions will undoubtedly only harden his conclusions, especially when he must now defend them in the persona of a highly paid gunslinger-for-hire.
I have no objections to his believing whatever he concludes from his reading of the 1921 Act; what I DO object to is his breaching the bounds of objectivity, which I feel that he did in his WJR interview.
An objective “expert” states the facts and allows — indeed enables — listeners to draw their own conclusions. But to speak as if his opinion ipso facto constituted a fait accompli (Rome has spoken; case closed) for Moroun’s desires is neither objective nor judicial.
Sedler of all people should know that legal terminology and text too often leaves itself open to disagreement — hence the saying “the experts are in dispute” And judges and juries have been forced to listen ad nauseam to opposing “experts” testify on behalf of one side and then the other.
Sorry to go on like this, but it disgusted me that once Sedler finished giving his analysis on WJR, he then proceeded to inveigh on DIBC’s behalf. Presumably he would have ruled against Dred Scott had he been on the Supreme Court of that era.
Edit | Delete
It seems Professor Sedler is on staff at Wayne State and has even published two books on law. Perhaps he needs a refresher?
http://www.law.wayne.edu/faculty/bio.php?id=43020
Fantastic commentary, Mr. Copy Editor.
Not one word saying that the opinion that the Bridge Company has exclusivity is wrong. Just ad hominem attack and playing with words.
So the Professor must be right eh.
Oh and had you actually read his opinion, you might understand why the Constitution of both countries comes into play
@JoeBlog,
By using the term ‘ad hominem’ I believe you are implying that the Copy Editor’s argument is fallacious.
FYI: ad hominem attacks are not always fallacious, and this is particularly true when questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue. This is most definitely the case here, since the ‘professor’ presented himself as an impartial authority on law, when in fact he is most definitely on Maroon’s payroll. He was using his title as professor, when in reality in this case he wasn’t acting as a professor, he was acting as a legal representative of Maroon. I don’t think we can question what his motives were, and the neglect to mention his position on Maroon’s payroll calls into question his character and personal conduct. Which is exactly when an ad hominem attack is called for.
p.s. I intentionally spelled Matty Moroun’s name as Maroon, and yes that, in contrast to the above, is an example of an irrelevant ad hominem attack.
Oh, and @JoeBlog, speaking of ad hominem attacks:
“Oh and had you actually read his opinion, you might understand why the Constitution of both countries comes into play”
Really? Putting aside for a moment the fact that you completely fail to explain what the hell you’re talking about, isn’t this an ad hominem attack? Yes, it is.
Maybe you should stop using big words, like ‘ad hominem’, and think a little bit before you post a comment. You may find that you actually have a valid argument.
Then again, probably not.
JoeBlog is the same guy paid by Moroun to write on the DIBC’s behalf on the Windsor City Blog…
Having finally obtained and read a copy of the professor’s remarks, I can understand why they weren’t widely distributed. He bases all his arguments on one unsupported assumption, that the authorizing legislation for the bridge granted an exclusive franchise, something that a little research proves is totally false.
On top of that, the professor also includes remarks in his statement that the federal courts have ruled is improper for the Ambassador Bridge or its representatives to use in public.