Prerequisite: Sophomore standing.

Course Content and Objectives

In an effort to promote self-government and prevent abuses of power, the framers of the U.S. Constitution created a complex system of representative elections and fragmented authority. They hoped that their design would generally allow the people themselves to direct the nation's affairs, but would also prevent either the people or their elected representatives from violating certain fundamental principles of limited government.

In this course and its sequel, Constitutional Law II (PSC 325), we will examine the evolution of this design over time and assess how well it has worked overall. In doing so, we will focus on three related strategies adopted by the framers to empower democratic government while also limiting it. The framers sought to limit governmental power by (a) dividing it among many hands, (b) subjecting it to the regular check of democratic elections, and (c) authorizing the judicial protection of certain fundamental rights. Moving chronologically from the founding to the present, we will focus primarily on the first strategy this semester, but we will make regular reference to the other two as well.

In addition to being a principal concern of the framers, the division of governmental power among multiple institutions has been a source of a number of prominent political conflicts in recent years--most notably, the ongoing debates regarding presidential authority during wartime, but also important questions about congressional authority to regulate guns and drugs, judicial "activism" in defense of constitutional principles, and much more.

Ultimately, these courses are designed to help you develop an enriched understanding of the principles embedded in this country's fundamental law and a refined ability to determine on your own whether the practice of American politics is faithful to these principles. As such, these courses address controversial topics that raise fundamental questions about our personal and political beliefs, and it is therefore essential that students make every effort to tolerate competing views and to treat each other with concern and respect.

Course Readings

Most of the readings for the course are from an unpublished casebook entitled American Constitutionalism, Volume 1: Structures of Government. The casebook is edited by political scientists Howard Gillman, Mark Graber, and Keith Whittington, and is designated GGW in the schedule below. The editors have made this casebook available for our use, free of charge, on one condition: They would like you to provide them with feedback that would help improve the book before publication. We will discuss this process as the semester proceeds.

In the course schedule below, I have provided links to pdf files for each chapter of the casebook. You are responsible for printing these files yourself, and some of them are quite long. Alternatively, you are free to read them on screen, or to do some combination of the two.

My home page has a long list of helpful links, but the following websites may be of particularly interest:

• U.S. Supreme Court (official website)

• SCOTUS Blog (the favorite blog of Supreme Court junkies everywhere)

• Lexis Nexis (the best source for decisions from all levels of the state and federal judiciary)

• Oyez (audio files of hundreds of Supreme Court oral arguments)

• On the Docket (info on upcoming cases)

Course Expectations

Grades will be based on several 1-2 page papers, a 5-page paper, an 8-page paper, and a final exam.

The assignments are all designed to require a close reading and interpretation of the texts we're using in the course. They do not require any additional or outside reading, and I discourage you from doing any. What I am looking for is a clear argument of your own, supported by a careful, detailed, and thoughtful discussion of the Supreme Court opinions and other materials we have read. Since good writing comes from careful revision, I encourage you to discuss your papers with me and/or your TA before they are due. And lastly, please consult my paper expectations guide before completing each assignment.

Short writing assignments (taken together, 20% of your final grade)

Several short writing assignments will be distributed throughout the semester. These will sometimes be distributed in discussion sections, with a one-week turnaround time; at other times, they will be conducted during the section itself (i.e., in-class writing). I provide no guarantees here, but I expect that there will be about five of these throughout the course of the semester. Taken together, these short assignments will count for 20% of your final grade.

For one of these assignments, all students will have to submit a 1-2 page evaluation of Gilman, Graber, and Whittington's casebook, identifying some particular strength or weakness that aided or hindered your mastery of the material. This assignment will be due in sections on December 6/7. The other topics (and due dates) will be announced as the semester proceeds. 

Medium writing assignment (25% of your final grade)

In a paper of approximately five pages, answer the following questions: Does the U.S. Constitution grant the Supreme Court the authority to exercise judicial review? If so, does this power imply "a superiority of the judicial to the legislative [and executive] power"? If not, what role is the Supreme Court supposed to play in the American constitutional system? Be sure to consider all sides of the argument and to examine all relevant readings.

Due by 4:30 p.m. on Monday, October 1, in your TA's mailbox in 100 Eggers. Again, when completing all paper assignments, please consult my paper expectations guide.

Long writing assignment (30% of your final grade)

In a paper of approximately eight pages, answer one of the following questions. All long paper assignments are due by 4:30 p.m. on Monday, December 3, in your TA's mailbox in 100 Eggers.

1. To what extent are current understandings and practices regarding the scope of presidential power consistent with the original constitutional design? When and how did the key changes occur (if there have been any)? Were they changes for the better or for the worse? Or some of each? Support your argument with specific references and examples.

2. To what extent are current understandings and practices regarding the scope of congressional power consistent with the original constitutional design? When and how did the key changes occur (if there have been any)? Were they changes for the better or for the worse? Or some of each? Support your argument with specific references and examples.

3. To what extent are current understandings and practices regarding the scope of state legislative power consistent with the original constitutional design? When and how did the key changes occur (if there have been any)? Were they changes for the better or for the worse? Or some of each? Support your argument with specific references and examples.

4. To what extent are current understandings and practices regarding the scope of judicial power consistent with the original constitutional design? When and how did the key changes occur (if there have been any)? Were they changes for the better or for the worse? Or some of each? Support your argument with specific references and examples.

Each of the above questions is large and challenging, so I encourage you to begin thinking about this assignment immediately and to raise any concerns you have during class or office hours. And remember to consult my paper expectations guide. To reiterate a couple points, your goal for this paper should be to develop and advance a clear argument of your own, supported by a careful, detailed, and thoughtful discussion of the required readings from the syllabus. In the course of your argument, you should probably reference at least a half-dozen of the primary documents that are reprinted in the casebook, and perhaps many more. I plan to nominate the best paper completed for this assignment for a department-wide award.

Final exam (25% of your final grade)

At the end of the semester, we will have a comprehensive, in-class, closed-book final exam. I will provide more details as the semester proceeds. 

Course Policies

Attendance policy: Attendance in class is not mandatory, and will not be directly factored into your grade. You are, however, responsible for understanding all material covered in class, and I will grade your work in the course under the assumption that you have mastered that material. If you miss a lecture session, you will usually be able to listen to an audio file of that lecture. (For most, if not all, lecture sessions, these audio files will be made available on-line.) If you miss a discussion section, it will be more difficult to make up the work, but if the absence was due to illness or some other documented and legitimate reason, we will help you do so to the extent possible.

Discussion sections: All students in attendance will be expected to participate in class discussion. This does not mean that you have to come to class with a fully developed point of view about every issue addressed in the reading. It does mean that you need to complete the readings prior to class, and come to class with some thoughts or questions in response to those readings. No one will be penalized for being wrong or imprecise, for expressing uncertainty or frustration, or for changing their minds. But it should be clear that you are trying, that you have done the readings and are working toward a mastery of the material. You are responsible for all assigned pages, but in preparing for your discussion sections, you should focus in particular on the cases and questions that are identified for each week in the schedule below. Whenever possible, bring a hard copy of these pages with you to your section.

Grading policy: Most of the written assignments for this course will be graded by your teaching assistant. If you have any questions about these written assignments, either before or after they are due, you are welcome to speak with either me or the TA. If you are dissatisfied with your grade on any assignment graded by the TA, you may appeal that grade to me. To do so, you should submit a clean copy of the paper to me, which I will re-grade from scratch. This means that you could receive a grade that is lower, higher, or the same as the grade originally assigned.

Late paper policy: Except where otherwise noted, late papers will be accepted only under unusual circumstances, and only with my explicit permission (so don't bother pleading with your TA). If and when I agree to offer an extension, I will grade the late-arriving paper myself.

Academic support services: SU provides a variety of tutoring and academic support services, and I encourage you to avail yourself of these resources. Doing so may help you learn the course material better, determine the best strategies for studying that material, improve your writing skills, and have less stress about your success in the course. Tutoring centers include the Tutoring & Study Center (TSC), the Writing Center, the Math and Calculus Clinics, the Physics Clinic, the Chemistry Clinic, and the Athletics Academic Services Center. All schedules and locations are posted on the TSC website.

Academic integrity: University-wide policy provides that "academic integrity is expected of every community member in all endeavors. Academic integrity includes a commitment to the values of honesty, trustworthiness, fairness, and respect," a commitment which "is violated by any dishonest act which is committed in an academic context." Examples of such violations include copying from another student's work, unauthorized cooperation in completing assignments or examinations, and submitting the same written work in more than one course without prior written approval from both instructors. In my experience, the most common form of academic misconduct is plagiarism, which SU policy defines as "the use of someone else's language, ideas, information, or original material without acknowledging the source." If you are caught violating any of these rules, I will assign an F for the course and then refer the matter to the CAS academic integrity coordinator for additional action. For further details on the policy, consult the Office of Academic Integrity.

Student academic work: Any work that you produce as part of your participation in this course may be used for educational purposes in future courses. For example, if you write a very good paper, I may distribute it in future classes as a model. If and when I do so, I will always remove your name so that the work is rendered anonymous. 

Reasonable accommodation: Students who may need academic accommodations due to a disability are encouraged to discuss their needs with the instructor at the beginning of the semester. In order to obtain authorized accommodations, students should be registered with the Office of Disability Services (ODS), 804 University Avenue, Room 309, 315-443-4498 and have an updated accommodation letter for the instructor. Accommodations and related support services such as exam administration are not provided retroactively and must be requested in advance. For more information about services and policy, consult the Office of Disability Services.

Religious holidays: In accordance with SU policy, I will excuse any absences that result from religious observances, provided that you notify me in advance of the planned absence.

Office hours and email communication: My regular office hours are listed above, but you are welcome to make an appointment for some other time, or simply to drop by. If you just have a quick question, I encourage you to reach me by email. In addition, I will regularly use Blackboard's "Send email" feature to contact all members of the class. This means that you are responsible for regularly checking your SU email account.

Course Schedule

I. An Introduction to American Constitutionalism (8/28-9/1)

• GGW, General Introduction; Volume One Introduction; and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004) (all handed out in class, but also available on-line)

Lecture

August 28: An Introduction to American Constitutionalism

Film

August 30: The Supreme Court: One Nation Under Law

Sections

August 30/September 1: Case for discussion: Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004). Be sure to read it before your section.

Recommended: GGW's Chapter 1 is overly long (which is why I haven't required it), but provides an excellent overview of many of the key themes and concepts we will examine this semester.

II. The Origins of American Constitutionalism (9/4-9/11)

• GGW, Chapter 2 (43 pages)

• GGW, Chapter 3 (97 pages)

Lectures

September 4: A Democratic Revolution; and a Retreat?

September 6: Drafting and Ratifying a Constitution

September 11: Reading the Constitutional Text [Note: This lecture cuts off halfway through.]

Sections

September 6/7: Case for discussion: The "Virginia Plan" for a new Constitution. Be sure to read pp. 19-22 of chapter three before your section.

Recommended: We'll be referring with some regularity to the text of the Constitution of the United States. Be sure you're familiar with it. (It's also available here.)  

III. The Federalist and Jeffersonian Eras (9/13-9/28)

• GGW, Chapter 4 (273 pages)

Events

September 18, 4:00 p.m.: Supreme Makeover: Inventing a New Model of Judicial Openness on the High Court?, Grant Auditorium, College of Law, Sponsored by IJPM.

September 19, 2:00 p.m.: Chief Justice John Roberts will give the keynote address at the dedication ceremony for the Newhouse III building. The address will be in Hendricks Chapel.

Due dates

September 13/14: First short paper assignment due in sections. In approximately two double-spaced pages, answer the following question: Choose one early controversy about the legitimate scope of congressional power. (Hint: Read chapter four, section one.) Briefly summarize the two (or more?) contending positions in the controversy. Whose arguments were most consistent with the text and purposes of Article I of the Constitution?

Monday, October 1: Medium paper assignment due by 4:30 p.m. in your TA's mailbox in 100 Eggers.

Lectures

September 13: The First Congress

September 18: Congressional Power in the Early Republic

September 20: State Power in the Early Republic

September 25: Presidential Power in the Early Republic

September 27: Judicial Power in the Early Republic

Sections

September 13/14: Case for discussion: The Sedition Act. Be sure to read pp. 50-58 of chapter four before your section. 

September 20/21: Case for discussion: "The Negro Seamen's Acts." Be sure to read pp. 259-273 of chapter four before your section.

September 27/28: Case for discussion: Marbury v. Madison (1803). Be sure to read pp. 206-209 of chapter four before your section.

IV. The Jacksonian Era (10/2-10/9)

• GGW, Chapter 5 (180 pages)

Lectures

October 2: Congressional Power and Jacksonian Democracy

October 4: Slaves, Indians, and the Road to Disunion

October 9: Presidential and Judicial Power before the Civil War

Sections

October 4/5: Case for discussion: Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842). Be sure to read pp. 35-49 of chapter five before your section.

V. Civil War and Reconstruction (10/11-10/19)

• GGW, Chapter 6 (183 pages)

Due date

October 18/19: Short paper assignment due in sections. In approximately two double-spaced pages, answer the following question: Did President Lincoln act constitutionally when he suspended the writ of habeas corpus in 1861? (Hint: Read pp. 118-126 of chapter six.) Be sure to consider arguments on all sides, but focus on advancing your own view.

Lectures

October 11: Congress and the States at War

October 16: President Lincoln at War

October 18: The Courts at War 

Sections 

October 11/12: No sections this week.

October 18/19: Case for discussion: President Lincoln's suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. Be sure to read pp. 118-126 of chapter six before your section.

VI. The Republican Era (10/23-10/30)

• GGW, Chapter 7 (223 pages)

Lectures

October 23: Congress and the States Confront Industrial Capitalism

October 25: Executive Power in the New Century: A Sign of Things to Come

October 30: Judicial Power in the Lochner Era

Sections

October 25/26: Topic TBA.

VII. The New Deal and the Great Society (11/1-11/16)

• GGW, Chapter 8 (384 pages)

Due date

November 15/16: Short paper assignment due in sections. In approximately two double-spaced pages, answer the following question: In U.S. v. Lopez (1995), which of the following justices offers the most persuasive account of the Court's prior efforts to enforce constitutional limits on federal legislative power: Rehnquist, Kennedy, Thomas, or Souter? What is the lesson of that historical account? How does it differ from--and why is it preferable to--those offered by the other justices?

Lectures

November 1: Congressional Power and the New Deal

November 6: Congressional Power and the Great Society

November 8: FDR at War [Note: The first couple minutes of this lecture are missing.]

November 13: The "Steel Seizure" Case and the Modern Presidency

November 15: Judicial Power and the Modern Court

Sections

November 1/2: Case for discussion: Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S. (1964). Be sure to read pp. 73-83 of chapter eight before your section.

November 8/9: Case for discussion: The "steel seizure" case (1952). Be sure to read pp. 157-176 of chapter eight before your section.

November 15/16: Case for discussion: U.S. v. Lopez (1995). Looking ahead to next week, be sure to read pp. 13-29 of chapter nine before your section.

VIII. Constitutional Debates in the Contemporary Era (11/20-12/7)

• GGW, Chapter 9 (326 pages)

Due date

Monday, December 3: Long paper assignment due by 4:30 p.m. in your TA's mailbox in 100 Eggers.

Lectures

November 20: Federal Regulatory Authority: Guns and Drugs [Note: The first couple minutes of this lecture are missing.]

November 27: Federal Power and State Sovereignty

November 29: The Unitary Executive

December 4: President Bush at War

December 6: The Most Activist Supreme Court in History?

Sections

November 22/23: Thanksgiving Holiday. No classes.

November 29/30: Case for discussion: Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006). (Not to be confused with Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.) Be sure to read pp. 203-234 of chapter nine before your section.   

December 6/7: Exam review. No reading, but remember to turn in your written evaluations of the casebook today.

Wednesday December 12, 2007, 2:45-4:45 p.m.: Final exam (in class, closed book).