politics and Marbury v. Madison.

[Sean Wilson]

Hmm. That's interesting. Omitting historical evidence that Marshall's decision was a "cut and paste job" could be malpractice, but asserting to students that (a) Marbury should not be taught because it is not worthy of student exposure; (b) that truncation of quotes suggests mischief rather than relevance; (c) that the sentences in Article III stand equally for either Marshall's view or the one that opposes it (and that the Constitution really does allow trials in the Court for mandamus); and (d) that when judges find pleasing and savy solutions that it necessarily means the justification of the case is suspect -- all of this is "academic freedom."
 
I would suggest that both Marbury's politics and its reasoning should be equally front and center. It makes a better story that way. I doubt very seriously that omitting Federalist speeches about the repeal is malpractice. If we to have a consensus on what is responsible teaching, I would surely hope it entails an examination of how strongly the evidence is for judicial review and how Marshall's position has stood the test of time. 
 
 

		
---------------------------------
 Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20051020/5c1f173c/attachment.html