Prof Anne Rose (History, Religious Studies, Jewish Studies) assigns students to engage in informal debates about issues surrounding the Constitution in her HISTORY 459 course. She and her students did their first informal debate this morning. With her permission, this activity is described below.

Sept 18(M)
U. S. Constitution (packet);
James Madison, selections from The Federalist, no. 10 and 51, AIT, v. 1

Debate: The United States would be better off today if the nation had adhered more closely to the political theory behind the Declaration of Independence rather than the Constitution. Yes or no?

In his contribution to The Federalist, James Madison (1751-1836) not only explained the political theory behind the Constitution, but aimed to rally support for the Constitution’s ratification. Without saying as much, he recognized that the nation’s political ideas had changed in the course of a decade. Even at the time, however, there was fierce debate about the wisdom of the new direction, and today we will have an informal debate about the basic issues in relation to what you see as their long-term effects.

On Friday, Sept. 15, I will assign you either to the “yes” or “no” side of this issue. To prepare for today’s class, I ask you to write down three potential arguments that might be used to defend your position. At the beginning of class today, you will have time to get together with other students in your group and decide which arguments may best be used. We’ll then debate the question informally. You do not need to complete a journal entry. Instead, I will collect your list of reasons and grade it on a check plus, check, check minus basis and factor that grade into your class participation grade.

Post links or citations to your favorite books about Constitution(s) here, annotated or not as you like. Thanks.

Let everyone know how you see your life intersecting with the U.S. Constitution. How does your area of work expertise depend on Constitutional issues? How have U.S. Supreme Court or other judicial opinions related to Constitutional case law affected your area of professional practice? This thread is devoted to helping people from across the disciplines and professions — arts and sciences — think about how and why the U.S. Constitution might be important to them.

Post — or link to — your ideas for in-class or beyond-class assignments and activities here.

The theme for Constitution Day 2006 is Judicial Independence. This forum will allow students and faculty to participate in a number of ways. First, you will be able to view “A Conversation on the Constitution: Judicial Independence,” where Supreme Court Justices Stephen Breyer, Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O’Connor discuss why we need an independent judiciary (low bandwith, high bandwith Windows Media versions). Second, you will be able to post your reactions to the video and comment on any aspect of judicial independence. Hopefully, comments will stimulate an on-going dialogue among students and faculty.  A moderator will look after the day to day running of the site.  Third, you may submit articles related to judicial independence for posting and reaction. Fourth, you may listen to and comment on Justice Talking’s radio programs on The Roberts Court: What Can This Term Tell Us About The Future of the Court? and Domestic Spying: What are the Checks on Presidential Power?. (Comment on Roberts Court here, Comment on Domestic Spying)

Domestic Spying: What are the Checks on Presidential Power?

Source: http://www.justicetalking.org/viewprogram.asp?progID=549

The Roberts Court: What Can This Term Tell Us About The Future of the Court?

Source: http://www.justicetalking.org/viewprogram.asp?progID=560

Supreme Court Justices Stephen Breyer, Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O’Connor discuss why we need an independent judiciary. Taped in May 2006, the justices take questions from students and discuss the ways that the Constitution safeguards the role of judges so that they in turn can safeguard the rights of minorities.

View the video (Source: Justice Learning):

• Windows Streaming Media version1 (300 kbps, 320×240)
• Windows Streaming Media version 2 (150 kbps, 240×180)

Download Windows Media Player

LOADED QUESTIONNAIRES? Judicial Candidates Advised to Be Wary of Answers Inviting Suits Challenging Canons

Source: ABA Journal Report

Author: Terry Carter

Three Florida Supreme Court justices who are up for retention election this fall recently received a Christian group’s questionnaire on issues important to that group, including opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage.

The judges, through the court spokesman in a letter dated Aug. 22, declined to answer, noting that doing so “could be interpreted as a position on an issue that may come before the judge.”

Then came the lawsuit, filed in federal court six days later by the Florida Family Policy Council. It claims sections of the state Code of Judicial Conduct are unconstitutional insofar as they are being used to prohibit judicial candidates from expressing their views on important issues. Florida Family Policy Council v. Freeman, No. 4:06CR395 (N.D. Fla.).

Read more: http://www.abanet.org/journal/ereport/s8canon.html