Why impose a course on constitutional law on our students? Because it is ...

[RJLipkin at aol.com]

Let me raise an  almost dissenting voice. I have always taught conlaw 
including a great  deal of history and political theory. One reason I've taught the 
course that way  is simply because doing expresses how I conceptualize the 
domain. Another reason  is the importance, or so I thought, of history and theory 
in the study of almost  anything--in law and beyond--but especially in a 
humanistic field such as  conlaw. In my view, constitutional doctrine derives from 
history,  philosophy, political science, and so forth. Finally, I agree with 
Sandy  completely about the relevance, no the indispensability of conlaw, to 
the  education of citizen-lawyers.
 
        This pasts semester  I've been on sabbatical working on a book 
manuscript and some articles. Each  time I became passionate about the importance of 
something I've  learned from my research, I immediately thought of how great 
it would be to  return in the Fall and pass the information on to my students. 
And  like a speed freak's use of crystal meth, this enthusiasm would 
invariably  be followed by a crash. Why the crash? Because I realized that my students 
would  have no idea what I was talking about when I passed my research on to 
them.  It drove me to seriously considered, even if momentarily, whether they 
would be  better off if I taught conlaw like a virtual bar course, something 
I've always  denounced.
 
        My question is this:  Should we teach conlaw as it would be taught in 
ideal pedagogical circumstances  in which it is clear history, political 
theory, and political science must be  included or instead should we teach it 
virtually stripped of these elements so  that the students learn how to 
conceptualize constitutional conflicts by  applying principles, rules, terms of art, and 
so forth?  I know some  might insist, as I always have, that conlaw just 
can't be taught virtually  stripped of history, political theory, etc. That's 
surely right if one  emphasizes "virtually." But rather than assign non-caselaw 
materials which can  be explained as they arise in the caselaw, should we make  
doctrine salient  filling in bits and pieces of history and so forth when  
necessary.
 
        Another way of expressing  my difficulty is by considering the 
complaint that conlaw professors teach  conlaw the way they do for themselves not 
for their students. Doing the latter  would stripe much of the fascinating, 
intriguing, and ultimately indispensable  (for scholars) materials from the course.
 
        I've taught conlaw for  over twenty years, always including heavy 
doses of history, etc. as a central  part of the course.  I tell me students that 
they will be unable to use  constitutional principles and rules to analyze a 
case without these other  elements. But now I'm not so sure. I dream of the 
glazed faces of students when  I try to explain the differences between, for 
instance, the federalists and  anti-federalists and shudder. Of course, I might 
just be a lousy teacher. 
 
        If I were to sign the  post anonymous, it would be "A Disillusioned 
and burnt out (even after a  sabbatical) conlaw professor." I would be grateful 
for any  advice.
 
Bobby

Robert Justin  Lipkin
Professor of Law
Widener University School of  Law
Delaware

Ratio Juris
,  Contributor: _  http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/_ 
(http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/) 
Essentially Contested  America, Editor-In-Chief 
_http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/_ (http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/) 



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20070710/433342d5/attachment.htm