Why impose a course on constitutional law on our students?

[Nelson Lund]

Nothing is final yet, and the instructors may not all use the same 
syllabus. The course will be offered for the first time next spring--I 
imagine that we'll have something that can usefully be shared sometime 
during the auturmn semester. The basic idea is to focus exclusively, or 
almost so, on primary sources such as the Articles of Confederation, 
Madison's Convention notes, selected Anti-Federalist writings, and the 
complete Federalist Papers.

Nelson Lund
George Mason


Sanford Levinson wrote:

> I presume that I'm not alone in being interested in the syllabus of 
> the new required course. 
>  
> sandy
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: Nelson Lund [mailto:nlund at gmu.edu]
> Sent: Mon 7/9/2007 4:20 PM
> To: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> Cc: DavidEBernstein at aol.com; Sanford Levinson
> Subject: Re: Why impose a course on constitutional law on our students?
>
> Consistently, perhaps, with the spirit of the comments from both David 
> Bernstein and Professor Levinson, George Mason recently created a new 
> required course on the Constitution, which is a prerequisite to 
> courses about constitutional law. Simultaneously, the previous 
> requirement that students take Constitutional Law II (equal protection 
> and substantive due process) was eliminated.
>
> Nelson Lund
> George Mason
>
>
> DavidEBernstein at aol.com wrote:
>
>> I always tell my students that when they are sworn in to the bar they 
>> will take an oath to uphold the Constitution, they should have some 
>> idea of what they are swearing to uphold and some theory as to what 
>> it means, and that they shouldn't confuse the latest pronouncement 
>> of five Justices with "the Constitution."
>>  
>> In a message dated 7/9/2007 3:56:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
>> SLevinson at law.utexas.edu writes:
>>
>>     This comes under the category of shameless self-promotion.  Our
>>     colleague Malla Pollack has founded a new (online) law review, the
>>     American Justice L. Rev., and the first issue includes a piece of
>>     mine,
>>     "REFLECTIONS ON THE ROLE OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IN THE LAW SCHOOL
>>     CURRICULUM."  It can be found at 
>>
>>     http://www.ajsl.us/review/Pollack%20LevinsonforPUBLICATION.pdf
>>
>>     To make a longish story short, I argue that there's no good reason to
>>     require constitutional law (as is done at most law schools, save
>>     for the
>>     University of Chicago) in terms, e.g., of preparing students for the
>>     bar--we don't teach lots of subjects that are covered on the bar--or
>>     preparing students to practice law--most of our students will
>>     never have
>>     a constitutional law case in their entire careers, though they are
>>     likely to have lots of cases in subjects that we don't require, e.g.,
>>     family law.  So, if there is a justification for requiring
>>     constitutional law, as I think there is, it is to prepare them to be
>>     good citizens and civic leaders.  But it should be obvious that
>>     preparation for that role does not require that our students
>>     learn the
>>     latest three- and four-part tests or most other contemporary
>>     doctrine.
>>     Not surprisingly, I argue that it does require an historical
>>     overview of
>>     American constitutional development (which can be taught,
>>     normatively,
>>     as a story either of decline or progress, or neutrally as the way
>>     that
>>     the Constitution, for better or worse, has actually developed
>>     over the
>>     past 220 years) and paying far more attention that we now pay to
>>     what I
>>     have come to call the "hard-wired Constitution."  Indeed, not to
>>     put too
>>     fine a point on it, I think that the legal academy is criminally
>>     negligent in failing to teach our students about what are in fact the
>>     most important parts of the Constitution (which, of course, are never
>>     litigated and most of which raise few questions of
>>     "interpretation" the
>>     way legal academics define such questions). 
>>
>>     Obviously, I would be delighted to read any responses, on- or
>>     off-line,
>>     to my arguments, which are, just as obviously, meant to stir up a
>>     debate
>>     (and not only to promote sales of my book and adoption of our
>>     casebook
>>     :) )
>>
>>     sandy
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> See what's free at AOL.com 
>> <http://www.aol.com/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503>.
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>>
>>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20070709/a7312123/attachment.htm