Constitutional litigation is the "stuff of power politics in America." As Alexis de Tocqueville observed, "there is scarcely any political question that is not resolved, sooner or later, into a judicial question." In the past two hundred years nearly every interest represented in our diverse and far-flung nation has knocked, at one time or another, on the Courthouse door. It is more than a little ironic that in our representative republic nine unelected individuals have come to wield so much power and enjoy so much acceptance. It is even more ironic that the elected, co-equal branches--the Congress and the Executive--seem, of late, to be knocking the hardest! The Supreme Court decision in U.S. vs SYNAR, the constitutional challenge to the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings budget deficit reduction act, is an example of this trend. This course will take an in-depth look at the politics behind several cases, including SYNAR, in which the Congress or the President, or both, have come hat-in-hand seeking a resolution to their ongoing tug-of-war for power from the "umpire." We will consider such questions as: Is the "more equal branch" really the "least dangerous branch?" When the court rules on separation-of-powers issues is it interpreting the Constitution or creating its own version of a Constitution? Is the Constitution a "blueprint" that can be applied with some specificity or a "spirit" open to broad and flexible interpretation? Can the modern bureaucratic state be squared with the Founding Father's constitutional design? The readings will be from law journal articles, excerpts from various books on judicial review and Supreme Court cases.
COURSE FORMAT: Discussion
Level: UG Credit: 1.00 Gen Ed Area & Dept: SBS GOVT
Prerequisites: None
Last Updated on MAR-03-1998
Source is being researched.
Copyright Wesleyan University, Middletown, Connecticut, 06459