Why impose a course on constitutional law on our students?

[Mark Graber]

Scott's post raises an interesting point.  Should the ideal division of
labor be as follows.  We should teach undergraduate students theories of
constitutional interpretation, not worrying at all about the extent to
which justices rely on them to make decisions.  The standard texts for
the constitutional law course, however, ought to be THE SUPREME COURT
AND THE ATTITUDINAL MODEL, as well as all the standard critiques of
Segal and Spaeth.  After all, when representing a client, it is far more
important to understand how a judge is likely to rule than how a judge
should rule.

MAG

>>> Scott Gerber <s-gerber at onu.edu> 07/10/07 9:39 AM >>>
I haven't been following these posts, but, as a law professor at a 
non-first tier school, I first try to make sure my students know what 
the "law" is (which isn't difficult to do, frankly), but also _why_ the

law is the way it is and, more importantly, what the law _should_ be. 

By _should_ be, I don't mean my policy preferences, but rather what it

_should_ be in light of the theories of constitutional interpretation 
(obviously, the answer sometimes changes depending on what theory is 
invoked). 

Scott