Constitutional Powers

Instructions

      Paper Assignment:  Write a critical evaluation, using at least six of the assigned cases (with at least one case from each of the four topic areas) as evidence, of the following claim:        The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted (1) state power, (2) executive power, (3) judicial power, and (4) foreign affairs and wartime powers in accordance with the intentions of the Framers of the original Constitution and its later amendments.      As evidence of the Framers' intentions, you must use only the Federalist essays assigned for this course, together with relevant historical evidence contained in the Court's opinions, which may include dissents and concurring opinions as well.  You or your group may take any position you wish to address this assignment:  complete agreement, complete disagreement, partial agreement, partial disagreement.  The papers will be graded on the reasoned cogency of your arguments, including how well you understand the Framers' intentions, and how well you use the essays and judicial opinions as evidence to make your case.TEXTS TO USE:  (1) Rossum and Tarr, American Constitutional Law, Vol. I, 10th ed.  (Westview Pub.)        (2) Hamilton, Madison, and Jay, The Federalist PapersSpecific Chapters / Cases Studied) State Power:  Pacific Gas v. State Energy Commission (1983) Blackboard                            Arizona v. United States (2012) 426-33            Federalist, No. 32; Cooley v. Board of Wardens (1852) 433-35            Southern Pacific v. Arizona (1945) 435-37            Philadelphia v. New Jersey (1978) Blackboard            Maryland v. Wynne (2015) 442-47            Baldwin v. Montana Fish & Game Commission (1978) 309-11.                (8) Executive Power: Constitution Article II sec. 1 (cl. 1 and 8), sec. 2-3                        Federalist, Nos, 70, 74, 76, 77 (1st para.)                           Myers v. United States (1926) 183-87                                  Morrison v. Olson (1988) 187-91                  United States v. Nixon (1974) 191-93                                  Clinton v. Jones (1997) 193-96                        In re Neagle (1890) 196-98                          Youngstown Co. v. Sawyer (1952) 198-202.(9) Judicial Power:  Article III; Federalist, No. 80                Federalist, No. 78; Marbury v. Madison (1803) 68-71                Eakin v. Raub (1825) 71-73                Federalist, No. 82; Cohens v. Virginia (1821) 303-07                Frothingham v. Mellon (1923) Blackboard                Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992) 82-86                                DeShaney v. Winnebago County (1989) 108-11.                          (10) Foreign Affairs and War Powers:    (a) Basic Principles:  Federalist, No. 23                      United States v. Curtiss-Wright Corp. (1936) 221-23                      Zivotofsky v. Kerry (2015) 232-38.    (b) The Treaty Power: Federalist, No. 75            Missouri v. Holland (1920) 224-25                        Medellin v. Texas (2008) 225-32                        Bond v. United States (2014) Blackboard.    (c) War:  The Prize Cases (1863) 218-19                            War Powers Resolution (1973) 219-20            Authorization for Use of Military Force (2001) 220-21                            Ex parte Milligan (1866) 238-41            Korematsu v. United States (1944) 241-45            Ex parte Quirin (1942) 245-50                    Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004) 252-62.

Answer