Contrasting the lay-person perspective to the attorney perspective
Tish Gotell Faulks
Tish_Gotell at hotmail.com
Mon Apr 2 18:16:32 PDT 2007
As a new professor, one of my teaching techniques is to contrast
lay-person perspective with the professional perspective my students are
gaining as "lawyers in training." I am working on my ability to present
my questions with as little "politicizing" as possible and considering
asking my students the following question concerning the constitution.
I am interested in what this board suggests both as to the substance of
the question and the method of presenting the question. Off-list
responses are appreciated.
There is a continuing struggle among Constitutional scholars and
practitioners as to the scope of the U.S. Constitution. One side sees
the U.S. Constitution as a limit on the exercise of governmental power
so long as that power is exercised within the jurisdiction (that is
fifty states and U.S. territories) of the United States. The other side
views the U.S. Constitution as a limit on the exercise of governmental
power so long as the party exercising governmental power is a U.S.
citizen, agent, or other party working at the behest of the U.S.
government. Aside from defining and proving who is an agent or one
acting at the behest of the U.S. government, which side has the better
argument and why?
More information about the Conlawprof