Political Science
PS 202 Law, Politics & the Constitution (CRN # 4672)
Winter, 2009
Paul Pavlich
Office: TA 133 (Hours: M 10-12, TuTh 12-1, W 11-12)
541.552.6130
http://www.sou.edu/polisci/pavlich.html
SYLLABUS
OBJECTIVES: The primary objectives of the class are (1) to enable students to recognize how law must be something more than a body of enforceable rules, (2) develop a nuanced understanding of authority which allows students to makes sense of the concept of law and (3) appreciate how people acting within a legal system rely upon multiple sources of authority. As a means for making these concepts more accessible to students we will examine how and when it is possible to make government (or more precisely government officials) subject to law; and when it no longer makes sense to say that a government official has legal limitation on his or her decision making or choices. This is in effect the idea or “problem” of constitutional law.
This idea is expressed in the platitude that no man”above’ the law? What does that mean? How are people “made subject to law?” What is law capable of doing to induce behavior changes in people?
In the process of examining those questions students will receive an overview of the participants in, and the processes of, the American legal system as well as the three branches of the
PEDAGOGY: The class will examine the political and the legal relationship among three branches of the
For the most part the class is conducted in “Socratic” style. While this will be developed more fully on the first day, it can be summarized as follows; Students (usually in groups of three or four) are called upon to answer a series of questions about the reading for the day, or perhaps to pick up a discussion form the previous class. The questions will explore an ethical or conceptual problem, a point of law or a policy question, in hopes of identifying the relevant criteria for analyzing the problem, a point of law or a policy question. This process is an essential component of the above stated class objective: to better understand the relationship between law and authority. Students are called upon in random fashion and can expect to be called upon two or three times during the term.
If a student is unprepared he may “pass” and another student will be selected. Each student gets one “free” pass per term. A second pass will result in a five point deduction from the total points accrued from exams. An inadequate or disruptive performance may cost a student up to ten points. Absences are treated as passes. Students should recognize that a major premise of the Socratic Method is that students are conversant the assigned reading in advance of class.
STUDENT EVALUATION: Students are evaluated based upon the following criteria:
(1)Four take home exercises. The first is worth 15 points, the second and third are worth 25 points each, and the fourth, 15 points. Exercises #2-4 will entail the analysis of a political, policy or legal problem and will require a two to four page typed response. All will resemble take home exams. These exercises will evaluate the student’s capacity to analyze a problem rather than search out a “correct” or “right” answer.
The first exercise (chronologically) is a “brief” of the Hamdan decision. A brief is a concise summary and analysis of an appellate court opinion (i.e. the court’s explanation of how is reached its decision). There is a link to the class website outlining the appropriate format for a brief and it will be developed more fully in class.
(2) The point total which students accrue on their exercises may be reduced, where appropriate, for inadequate classroom participation. This specifically refers to Socratic dialogues discussed above and other classroom activities such as simulations.
(3) Occasionally, small research projects may emerge from the flow of the class. That is, as the class moves through some analytical puzzle it may be useful to have some more facts. Student volunteers will be asked to identify some “authority” on a subject (i.e. the internet, a professor, book, or other source) and come prepared to the next class to enlighten us all. These presentations count as “extra credit”. There are likely to only be two or three of these in the term (if that) and arise spontaneously from the class discussion rather than any instructor planning.
(4) A more dependable form of extra credit is the legal brief. The reading assignments for the class will largely be decisions of the United States Supreme Court. Students may brief any of those decisions for extra credit. Again a brief is a formal outline of the content of the opinion. Each extra credit brief may be worth up to 5 points (maximum).
Here are some cautionary notes regarding grading for this class:
(A)Students should keep a copy of all written exercises. The burden of loss of any missing written work will rest entirely on the student.
(B) Class grades will be assigned based upon a rough curve comparing point totals accumulated by students over the entire term. NO individual exam will be assigned a letter grade. Rather you will be given the points which you earned on that particular exercise. After each exam, students will be shown two “curves” enabling them (1) to compare their score with others for the discrete exam and (2) compare their cumulative point totals for all required exercises given by that point in the term.
(C) Other than as discussed in connection with class participation, class attendance is not considered when evaluating students. You will be treated as mature individuals, capable of choosing responsibly whether to attend class on a given day. Students should recognize that class meetings also serve as a medium for communicating to them about the class. Information concerning the class, not contained in the syllabus, is generally communicated at one class meeting and noted on the class website, but no repeated elsewhere. This may include additional reading assignments, handouts, exercise information, modifications in the syllabus and “Socratic Dialogue” participation. Students bear the entire responsibility to ensure that they understand the requirements for the class by either attending regularly or making other arrangements to ascertain how the course is moving.
(D) The principles espoused in the SOU policy on academic dishonesty are applicable to this class.
If you are in need of academic support because of a documented disability (whether it is psychiatric, learning, mobility, health-related, or sensory), you may be eligible for academic accommodations through disability services for students. Contact Disability Services for Students; Director, DSS; 552-6213; or schedule an appointment in person at the
DAILY SCHEDULE
(Subject to change)
(For those confused by “legalese,” an online legal dictionary is available at http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/)
January 5: Course Overview
PART 1 (January 7-12): HAMDAN V RUMSFELD. We will examine the controversial June, 2006 decision of the United States Supreme Court known as Hamdan V Rumsfeld. In the Hamdan decision, the court wrestled with the nature of the constitutional relationship between the president, congress, and the judicial branches in the context of the rights of military detainees from the “war on terror.” We will read and brief the case and it will become a reference point for future exploration of political and legal institutions.
(READ: Hamdan v Rumsfeld; Edited opinion of Justice Stevens (For the Court). We will read the edited opinion of Justice Thomas (dissenting) later in the term)
January 14 First Exercise due at the beginning of class (Brief of Hamdan v Rumsfeld) Format for Brief
PART II (January 14-28): AUTHORITY AND POLITICS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
In this part of the class we will examine the theoretical foundations of the United States Constitution. Central to this theoretical foundation are the ideas of federalism and separation of powers. Both of these concepts have a superficial accessibility, but while relatively easy to describe, are difficult to apply to actual political problems. Ultimately the goal of the class is to be able to do just that. Before we get there however, we need to have some historical and theoretical sense of what is meant by federalism and separation of powers. How do they create checks and balances and more precisely what exactly are checks and balances?
January 14-21: THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE CONSTITUTION. What are the limits on government created by the Constitution or put somewhat differently, how does the Constitution supply those limits? How does the Constitution “govern the governing?”
(READ: Federalist 10 for January 14 and Federalist 51 for January 21)
January 26-February 4: THE SEPARATION OF POWERS IN PRACTICE. While it may be possible to discuss in general terms, the ideas of separation of powers and federalism as advanced by the constitution, translating them into practice is another matter altogether. Here we examine a situation where the President and Congress wrestle with a policy problem which arose since the inception of the Republic: How to manage the foreign policy of the
(READ:
February 2 SECOND EXERCISE DISTRIBUTED, due February 4.
PART III (February 4-25) SEPARATION OF POWERS; DIPLOMACY, FOREIGN POLICY AND NATIONAL SECURITY. In this section, we take a second look at the power and authority of the President relative to that of Congress and the Courts with respect to problems arising from the relationship of the
February 4-16: What role does the President have in making public policy? Can the President “make law?” Does it matter what kind of problem he is trying to influence? What does it mean to make law?
(READ:
February 16-23: What can the President do pursuant to Article II of the Constitution to make foreign policy? Are their limits on his authority to speak or act on behalf of the
(READ: Hamdi v Rumsfeld), 5th Amendment of US Constitution
February 23 THIRD EXERCISE DISTRIBUTED, due February 25.
PART IV HAMDAN V RUMSFELD (March 2-11) in the last section, we put all the Constitutional pieces together and revisit Hamdan v Rumsfeld. In its opinion, the Supreme Court wrestled with the nature of the constitutional relationship between the president, congress and the judicial branches in the context of the rights of military detainees from the “war on terror.” Many of the constitutional issues examined earlier will be revisited in the context of a specific dispute and the majority opinion and a leading dissent will be reread and reanalyzed.
(READ: Hamdan v Rumsfeld; Edited opinions of Justice Stevens (for the court), and Justice Thomas (dissenting)
Optional reading:
March 11, Exercise #4 distributed, March 16th at 1 pm. The linked document asserts that the paper is due at 10 am on Monday but that is incorrect. Other (correct) instructions for turning in your final paper are included with instructions for the assignment on the linked page.
