The list of cases upon which the exam questions will be based is as follows: Marbury v. Madison, McCulloch v. Maryland, Gibbons v. Ogden, Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, Dartmounth College v. Woodward, Dred Scott v. Sanford, The Civil Rights Cases, The Slaughter-House Cases. Be able to place each within its historical setting, identify its legal issue and resolution, and its historical significance: in other words, be able to tell the story of the case in the manner of the chapters in Garraty. Out of the eight named cases, I will ask four questions, each based upon one the cases, and ask you to answer two of them. See you at 3:30pm (not 3:00pm). Bring a couple of blue and black pens and your ID number.
Katrin and Tom will make presentations on selected cases, but since they still (as of Saturday morning) have not told me which cases they will present, I will assign the following readings for class: Urofsky, chapter 21 and the Civil Rights and the Slaughterhouse cases, both of which are available on the Constitutional Law Case List.
Remember, the purpose of the presentations is to tell the story of the case in a way similar to the stories in the Garraty text. Use such other sources as you find necessary. I have added a whole bunch of new constitutional history cases to the list on Constitutional Law Case List to increase your options.
We will focus on a few civil rights and Fourteenth Amendment cases in the last two classes. As I mentioned in class, rather than follow the Urofsky text straight through to the end, we will read only what is relevant to the cases on which we focus. So, for this class please read pages 439-449 of chapter 20 and chapter 22 ("The Court and Civil Rights"). Carmen will tell us about Barron v. Baltimore, an 1833 case that is important to understand when we look at nineteenth century civil rights cases from a twenty-first century perspective. Katrin and Tom still have to choose cases; you can pick one to report on at the December 1st class (email me) or pick one for the December 8th class. All of the presentations so far have been very appropriate to this course.
I have added a bunch of cases that should take us through the end of the semester to the Constitutional Law Case List.
For the review essay, let me quote from the syllabus: "The review essay will be an 8 to 12 page paper that reviews an approved book from a list of books to be made available by the instructor and also provides additional research material to explain how a particular Supreme Court case (1) reflected a critical response to existing historical, political, and legal factors and (2) how the decision affected subsequent historical, political, economic, and legal conditions in the country." If you are having a difficult time developing a research question from the book you have read, focus your research on explaining the two parts of the quoted statement.
As I stated in class, the first two to two and one-half pages of the review essay should explain the author's thesis, explain how he supports his argument, and provide evidence that you have read the entire book. The rest of the essay should either pursue the research question that you have identified or follow the above-quoted provision from the syllabus. In addition to the book that you reviewed, you should significantly use (that means not just mention or make one reference to it) at least four other scholarly sources. ("Scholarly"=having footnotes/references and a bibliography.) The grade is based on the 40%/30%/30% formula described in the last section (Part IV) of the Memo on General Requirements for Research and other Papers in Politics.
Under the "Useful Links" section of my web page, read the memos on General Requirements for Research and other Papers in Politics (Part IV) and on Article and Book Reviews, and follow the relevant directions from each memo. If you review the five guidelines for book reviews in the latter memo, your review-essay is basically a long critique of the book using external sources.
See you all next Wednesday!
Please read chapter 18 in Urofsky and chapter 6, The Dred Scott Case," in Garraty. Lindsey will also present a paper on Prigg v. Pennsylvania, which is discussed in chapter 17 of Urofsky.
I have added a number of cases that are discussed in the Urofsky text to the Constitutional History section of the Constitutional Law Case List.
The Garraty chapters and the court opinions in the Dartmouth College v. Woodward and Charles River Bridge cases are the assigned material. No student presentations this class. At least one a class for the rest of the semester.
You should have received and have even begun reading the book you chose to review. Your reading should produce two things: an understanding of the author's thesis—the main point that the author wanted to get across in the book—and a question that you want to pursue based upon the book. The question is the basis for your additional research in this 8 to 12 page paper. You should identify both by the class of the 17th. Paper is due December 1st.
Guidelines on the general requirements of research papers can be found on the link entitled "Memo: General Requirements for Research and other Papers in Politics," which is the first link under the "Useful Links" section of my web page.
No new assignment in Urofsky (be sure to catch up on all of the previously assigned chapters); in Garraty, read the chapter on the Steamboat case, and read Gibbons v. Ogden, which can be found on the Constitutional Law Case List page. Heather will tell us the inside story of the Cohens case (Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821).
The two books that I suggested to you for consulting about the cases are Charles Warren, The Supreme Court in United States History (Boston: Little, Brown, 1947), and Andrew C. McLaughlin, A Constitutional History of the United States (New York: Apple-Century-Crofts, 1935; vol. 1 reprint by Simon Publications, 2001). Check the WRLC libraries for them.
Be sure to order your books for the review essay and start reading!
As announced, the class will focus on the case of McCulloch v. Maryland. The assignment for next time is (1) Garraty, chapter 3, (2) Urofsky, chapter 11, and (3) the opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland. The opinion can be found under the subheading "Constitutional History Cases" at the very end of the Constitutional Law Case List link on my main web page. You need not read the whole case; read just the pages indicated on the case list link (as explained in class).
You should already have read Urofsky, chapters 8 and 10 for the October 20th class. You should further read chapter 7 of Urofsky. One question on the final exam will focus on the Urofsky text historical narrative.
Finally, as you read Urofsky chapter 11 (or chapter 10), if you come across a particular case that peaks your interest, pick it and be prepared to make a Garraty-like report to the class during one of the remaining class periods. I will select someone (a volunteer?) next class to make such a report at the following November 3d class). The semester is only half-over; let's not lose momentum now.
Please read the following: Urofsky, chapters 8 & 10; Garraty, chapter 1; and Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 153-180 (Marshall's opinion). Outline the Marbury opinion. (Chapter 7 of Urofsky is a good overview of the years from ratification to Marbury. You should also read this over the next two weeks.)
The Marbury opinion is organized on the basis of questions that Marshall poses and answers in the course of his argument. What are the questions that he poses? What are his answers to each question? What rationale does he give for each answer? How does each question lead to the next? The constitutional issue is contained in his rationale for the answer, or answers, to his last question, which he actually breaks into two. What is his rationale for maintaining that the American courts have the power to declare federal statutes unconstitutional? Compare this rationale to Hamilton's argument in Federalist #78, which we read a couple of weeks ago. Are the arguments similar? Different.
Because this is the first opinion that we will read and analyze, we will focus primarily on the opinion during class. In the following weeks, I will ask one of you each class to make a presentation on the assigned readings. I will be glad to take volunteers for these assignments. If no one volunteers for October 27th, I will proceed alphabetically. Volunteering lets you have some control over your schedule.
As I mentioned in class, you must select one of the following books for your review-essay by October 27th. The review-essay is due December 1st.
The second part of the class will be an introduction to the remainder of the course. Skipping out on the second part will not be excused.
All right, folks, this is what you must do.
1. Federalist and Anti-Federalist writings. Please read Federalist Papers 10, 39, 51, and 78. Nos. 10, 39, and 51 are classics by Madison that everyone ought to be familiar with. No. 78 is one of Hamilton's essays on the judiciary. The Federalist Papers are available via a link on my main website under "Western Political Concepts I & II Readings." It works; I just tried it. In opposition to the constitution, please read George Mason's Objections (in the Solberg text), Elbridge Gerry's letter to the Massachusetts General Court of October 18, 1787, and Brutus's Letters XI and XII, dated January 31 and February 7, 1788. These are available a couple of different places. Let me turn first to the second part of the assignment, and then I will explain where you can find these documents.
2. State ratification debates. Each of you should select one state and either continue examining the institution that you reported on in class or focus on a new subject that received a lot of attention in the state convention you selected. For example, several states had extensive discussions about a bill of rights for the new constitution.
The ratification debates are found in Elliot's Debates, which are linked onto the Library of Contress website, "Thomas." There is a link to "Thomas" on my main website under "Useful Links" and a link directly to Elliot's Debates on the POL/HI 333 syllabus that is on my website. Use the link on the syllabus. When you get to the Elliot's Debates page, select a state by clicking on the "Contents" link of each of the five volumes listed on the left-hand side of the Elliot's Debates website. Select one of the following states: Mass, NY, PA, VA, NC, or SC (if you pick South Carolina, you've got to look at Connecticut, Hew Hampshire, and Maryland, too!). Skim through the debates and try to find discussion of your institution or chosen issue. You do not have to read hundreds of pages! The three of you who are looking at the judiciary should choose separate states.
If you want to access Elliot's Debates via the "Thomas" website, you must click on the link that says "Century of Lawmaking" under the "Related Resources at the Library" on the left-hand side of the Thomas webpage, and then click on Elliot's Debates. Volume One of Elliot's Debates also includes Elbridge Gerry's letter and George Mason's Objections.
Another excellent source for Anti-Federalist writings is "The Founders' Constitution." On the main webpage, click on "Indexes," then on "Index of Authors and Documents." The Brutus letters are on the list of links, as are the Federalist Papers, listed by author. The TeachingAmericanHistory.org website is also good, but does not have half of the Brutus letter.
Come to class with something in writing to be read but not handed it.
Please read Madison's notes on the final stage of the convention (August 6th to the end, September 15th, pages 251 to 335). Carmen, Tom, and Lindsey, select one of the institutions of government--the executive, the judiciary, the Senate, the House of Representatives--and discuss its development over the final month of convention deliberations. Consult with a classmate if you have questions about what to include in your report. Three pages, double-spaced, to be read in class and then handed in, Solberg's edition of the notes for the third stage is divided topically. If you choose to follow one of those topics--navigation acts, slavery, Western lands, and so on--be sure to try to tie it to the earlier proceedings of the convention.
I will post a list of books here for the book review later this weekend. Thanks for your patience.
Please read Madison's notes from the second stage of the Philadelphia convention—June21st to July 26th—and select one of the following institutions to focus on during that period: the Executive, the Judiciary, the Senate, the House, the Council of Revision. Scott will report on his findings about the Executive, Katrin on the Judiciary, and Heather on one of the branches of Congress. The rest will do the same the following week.
The reports should be typed, double-spaced, no more than three pages, and read in class. Explain how the institution you focused on developed during the time period in question.
For Wednesday, please read Solberg, pages 67 to 140, which covers the initial discussion of Randolph's Virginia Plan and the presentation of Patterson's New Jersey Plan. Chapter 6 in Urofsky discusses the Philadelphia Convention, so please read it either this week or sometime in the next two weeks.
As you read the debates, try to determine if the following interests or perspectives color the delegates' comments:
Above all, try to lose yourself in the convention room and imagine what impression the speaker must have made, what the reactions of the listeners were. You will probably do this naturally, and your impressions will change as you become more familiar with the speakers, but try to get a sense of the atmosphere in that hot, hot assembly room in Philadelphia.
The ungraded seminar papers are ready and in the wall rack at my office: these are NOT the research papers. The final exam question will tie the material we read in Madison's notes and Elliott's debates with the cases and issues we read about later in the semester. Given what we read in Madison about the deliberations of the convention and then the cases we studied later on (or which are in the Randall book), two general areas suggest themselves: one is the Framers' understanding, if any, of the extent and the source--state or national government--of regulation of the economy. The desire to give the national government more power over economic regulation was one of the main goals almost all of the Framers had in common, but the Contract Clause, the Commerce Clause, and the evolution of the Supreme Court's approach to business regulation over the late 19th and early 20th century should be compared to what the Framers said at Philadelphia.
A second subject is the development of the national war and emergency power in the 20th century. Was this contemplated by the Framers at Philadelphia? Were they essentially pragmatists who would have accepted "necessary" changes in the relative powers of the national government as contrasted to the state governments and the executive branch as contrasted to the legislative branch, or did the Framers have a more definite idea of what the national government's power in war and international relations should be?
You will have to pick one of these two subjects and compare and contrast the relevant historical and case material that we have read in Randall with any relevant debates you came across in Madison's Notes. The Final is Wednesday evening at 6:30pm, not 6:00pm! Should be over about 8:00pm.
Please read the rest of the material in chapter 9 of Randall. The only relevant Garraty story is the one on Curtiss-Wright; read it if you wish, but I will not formally assign it.
Please read pages 353 to 372 of Randall. A number of cases that are excerpted at the end of the chapter are mentioned and discussed in those pages: please read those cases. Next class, we will complete chapter 9 and the rest of the excerpted cases at the end of that chapter. I need at least two volunteers to give papers on Tuesday, or else you will have to give a paper at the last class, when the research papers are also due.
When skimming Jordana's book, Labbe and Lurie's The Slaughterhouse Cases, I came across a statement in their preface that seems particularly apt for your research papers:
"A study of one of the Supreme Court's great constitutional cases involves more than an analysis of the decision and the several opinions of the justices. A great deal needs to be said about the political, economic, and social background out of which the case arose. . . . Much also needs to be said about the identity of the parties to the case and about the lawyers who converted the parties' interests into legal arguments."
You might also "discuss the aftermath of the . . . decision and briefly trace the future course of the legal doctrines involved in" the case. Obviously you cannot do all of this in your brief papers, but if you translate "a great deal" and "much" and "discuss the aftermath" into "something" and "briefly describe," and allowing for each of you to emphasize one of these aspects in your paper more than the other aspects, you have a pretty good description of what your paper should look like.
Please read chapter 8 in Randall and chapters 14 and 16 (don't let the Roman numerals throw you) in Garraty. One of you (???) was going to give a paper: remind me who it was.
We will cover chapters 6, 7, and 11 of Randall, and the previously assigned chapters of Garraty plus chapter 7, "The Unscrupulous Warehouseman." The two sources I mentioned in class are Charles Warren's Supreme Court in United States History and Andrew C. McLaughlin's Constitutional History of the United States.he Warren text is on reserve; the McLaughlin text is not in our library but has been newly reissued: check Amazon.com.
Skim through the rest of the Randall book and select a case that will be the basis for your research paper. Come to class prepared to explain the nature of the case, its issue, holding, and rule, its tie to its historical setting, and what you want to find out about the case, its historical causes or consequences, or its relation to other cases, theories, or political events. In other words, what question do you want to research that is related to the case? Treat this as a seminar paper: come prepared with a two or three page paper to read. We will discuss each paper and try to leave you with a clearer idea of what you should focus on in your research.
The book reviews are due. No need for ID numbers since I know the books that you are working on. The reading assignment is chapters 6 and 11 of Randall, and chapters 2, 4, & 5 of Garraty. Read the cases that the Garraty stories are about: Dartmouth College, Gibbons v. Ogden, Charles River Bridge. In chapter 11, read the Penn Central Transportation case. No seminar papers are assigned, but come prepared to discuss your likely area of interest for the research paper.
BOOK REVIEWS. As I explained in class, the book reviews should (1) be five to seven pages long plus a title page, (2) identify the author's thesis and method of supporting the thesis, (3) contain specific evidence to demonstrate to me that you have read the entire book, and (4) consist of at least one-half commentary and at most one-half summary or description. Your comments should be aimed at identifying one of the author's fundamental themes and relating it, if possible, to the themes and material that we have been studying in this course. Since most of the books you have chosen focus on a particular Supreme Court case and the historical context in which the case occurred, you may focus on the case or on the historical events preceding or following the case. To do so, you may use materials from other sources, legal or historical, to support your comments, but the paper is a book review, not a research paper, so you need not use a lot of other sources, if you use any at all. Your commentary should have a point--a thesis--about the book that you support with persuasive evidence and argument. Use footnotes to identify the sources of the passages that you quote or paraphrase.
Please read the historical commentary in chapter 4 of Randall's American Constitutional Development, chapters one and three in Garraty, Quarrels that have Shaped the Constitution," and four of the cases in Randall's chapter 4, including Marbury, McCulloch, Barron and one of your own choosing.
Again, let me tell you all how pleased I am with your preparation and with the class discussion on Elliot's Debates. The two seminar papers were certainly good, but the presentations by the rest of you were terrific as well. Please keep it up. It is what I hoped this class would be like.
The book review is due Wednesday, October 22. I will post the requirements and also discuss it in greater detail in class.
Mid-term Question. Based on your readings of Madison's Notes AND of the proceedings of one of the state ratifying conventions, address the following question:
Which issue--the large state v. small state issue or the federal/confederal v. national form of government issue--was more fundamental at the Philadelphia Convention? Was this also an issue in the state ratifying convention that you studied?
You should consider how the two issues were related, if at all and how the fundamental differences on the issues were presented in the debates (you might consider, for example, whether the federal-national debate was at the root of the discussion of another issue, such as the debate over the executive or over the representation of the Senate debate or some other seemingly unrelated issue).
You need not use footnotes (although footnotes are OK--just make them to the dates of the debates you are referring to), but you should identify carefully the speaker/writer and date of any remarks that you use in your paper. I am hoping that you use this paper to uncover some of the deeper currents that ran through the debates.
The mid-term should be five typewritten, double-spaced pages. A title page with your ID number is also necessary. No formal footnote apparatus is necessary, but You should identify with some accuracy and precision the sources you use (the particular day on which someone spoke in the Philadelphia convention or one of the state ratifying conventions or, if you wish, the title of a Federalist or Anti-Federalist paper.
I will post the dates of debates on the executive branch on Saturday morning. In the meantime, read the article on "Cases of a Judiciary Nature."
By my accounting, the Philadelphia delegates discussed aspects of the proposed Executive on the following dates: July 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26; August 15, 24, 25, 27; September 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 15. Unlike the discussions of the legislature last week, many of these Executive discussions did not take the whole day that I listed. As with last week, pick ten dates--don't look for the ten shortest! I suggest in particular that you look at some or all of the July dates when the fundamental issues were discussed, and then follow it up with a couple of later dates to see how the final proposal was arrived at. Michelle and Amanda are scheduled for the papers. You are all on your own regarding the food.
I had wanted to discuss with each of you the book that you selected for your book review. Firm selection of a book is due on the 17th of September. Email me with your present choice and we can discuss it.
I want to limit the reading to less than the last time, but I am having a difficult time cutting out material from the June 20th (p. 154) to the crucial vote in July 16th (p. 302). Therefore, as a bad compromise with myself, I will assign this: read the daily reports for any ten (10) days of the convention between June 20th and July 16th. Be sure to select July 16th itself and at least a couple of the immediately preceding days. Bring a list of the days you have read to class (trust but verify). This period of time leads up to the critical July 16th passage of the Connecticut Compromise.
Please read Madison's notes from the first entry (Monday, May 14th, 1787) up to and including Tuesday, June 19th, 1787. Note in particular the different plans placed before the convention for its consideration. You should come to class with a book preliminarily identified for your book review.
As you read the Madison report, you may want to identify one or two delegates, to follow throughout the convention. The National Archives Constitution site is a good source of such information, as is the Ashbrook Center's Teaching American History site.
Another
thing to look for in the report on the convention's first month of deliberation
are signs of later disputes, such as the large state-small state tension or the
slavery issue, and later issues, such as the Framers' understanding of the
extent of the Executive and Judicial powers. Which delegates were
pro-democracy? Which were anti-democratic? What form did their pro- or
anti-democratic sentiment take? What issues or proposals/resolutions/votes
brought up their views on democracy? Note also the foundational decisions on
parliamentary rules. Finally, of course, note the proceedings that immediately
preceded Paterson's request for a recess: did you see it coming? Why did the
convention reject the New Jersey Plan?
University Press of Kansas series "Landmark Law Cases and American Society"
Another valuable source for this class is Benjamin Perley Poore'sThe Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters, and Other Organic Laws of the United States: Colonial Charters, and Other Organic Laws of the United States
(Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1877), available here.