POLITICAL SCIENCE 4361 AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I FALL 2013 Jerry Waltman Draper 312.

3 Phones: 710-6044/3161 (O); 666-9459 (H) Email: Jerold_Waltman@baylor.edu Office hours: 10-11:15 MWF Any time by appointment Political science courses in constitutional law once, in fact not that long ago, held a rather precarious place in the discipline. More empirically oriented political scientists viewed them with suspicion, stripped as they were of variables susceptible of quantitative measurement. They were mere holdovers from the days when political science was rooted in law and history instead of rigorous social science, many believed. At the same time, law school professors saw them as little more than watered down versions of what they taught. Constitutional and legal historians chimed in that the courses only reorganized what they taught along topical lines, and hence constituted a disciplinary encroachment. Nonetheless, the courses endured, and with good reason. For while the materials used, Supreme Court cases, are indeed non-quantitative, legal, and often historical, the issues at stake go to the heart of political theory. This semester, for example, we will find ourselves discussing the following questions: How should political institutions be organized? Who should govern? What are the limits of political power? Who should make foreign policy? Which decisions should be made by a central government and which ones by subnational units? How are political leaders to be held accountable? How is political legitimacy to be established and maintained? And these are only a few. Therefore, while we will spend most of our time in this course reading and analyzing Supreme Court cases, we do not want to become lost in technical details; rather, we want to keep in front of us at all times these timeless and vital questions regarding the foundations of a good polity. Texts: David M. OBrien, Constitutional Law and Politics: Vol. I-Struggles for Power and Governmental Accountability, 8th ed. Mark R. Killenbeck, MCulloch v. Maryland: Securing a Nation Requirements: We will have three examinations, including the comprehensive final, plus a book exam. The examinations will count 80, 120, and 120 points respectively, while the book exam will carry 30 points. The tentative dates for these are as follows: September 25

and November 8 for the two regular examinations and October 25 for the book exam. In addition, you may earn up to three additional points for classroom participation (the how of which will be explained in class). In order to receive an A, you will need to earn 90% of the points, a B+ 87%, a B 80%, a C+ 77%, a C 70%, and a D 60%. Attendance policy: According to University policy, a student who misses more than 25% of the classes in a course must receive an F. Graduate students Students enrolled for graduate credit need to contact me the first week of class for additional assignments. Topical outline and reading assignments: August 26 Introduction

August 28 Judicial review The Constitution (front of text); James Kents Lecture (1794); Marbury v. Madison Note: When you read all subsequent cases, be sure to go back and reread the pertinent sections of the Constitution. August 30 Judicial review contested President Jacksons veto message; President Roosevelts radio broadcast September 2 September 4 Labor Day holiday Methods of interpretation

September 6 The Supreme Court in operation Text, pp. 172-189, including box on 176-178. Plus diagram and map on p. 103 and p. 106. (Note: In subsequent assignments, you may omit boxed material unless otherwise noted.) September 9 Categorizing justices

September 11 Presidential appointment power Text, pp. 230-234 and pp. 346-351; Myers v. U.S.

September 13 Humphreys Executor v. U.S.

Presidential appointment power

September 16 Presidents and foreign affairs: General Text, pp. 273-287 (including Constitutional History box); Prize Cases; U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. September 18 Presidents and war Ex Parte Milligan; Boumediene v. Bush September 20 Korematsu v. United States September 23 Presidents and war

Presidents and national security: Internal matters Youngstown Sheet and Tube v. Sawyer Exam No. 1

September 25

September 27 Presidential accountability United States v. Nixon; Clinton v. Jones September 30 Legislative delegation Schechter Poultry Corp. v. U.S.; Clinton v. New York October 2 McCulloch v. Maryland October 4 Gibbons v. Ogden The classic view of Congressional power The classic view expanded

October 7 The classic view overturned U.S. v. E. C. Knight Co.; Hammer v. Dagenhart October 9 The New Deal National Labor Relations Board v. Jones and Laughlin Steel October 11 Fall break. Please drive carefully.

October 14 Consolidating the New Deal U.S. v. Darby Lumber Co.; Wickard v. Filburn October 16 The commerce power at high tide Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S.; Katzenbach v. McClung

October 18 October 21 United States v. Lopez October 23 U.S. v. Morrison

Book exam (Killenbeck) The retreat Expanding the retreat

October 25 Congress and health care NFIB v. Sebelius (on Blackboard) October 28 October 30 November 1 City of Boerne v. Flores Models of federalism Notes on Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment Section 5 powers under review

November 4 Federalism Southern Pacific RR v. Arizona; Maine v. Taylor November 6 Federalism Text, pp. 732-739; Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority November 8 November 11 Printz v. U.S.; Mack v. U.S Exam No. 2 Federalism

November 13 Federalism Seminole Tribe v. Florida; Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs November 15 Windsor v. U.S. (on Blackboard) November 18 Federalism

The right to vote and have ones vote counted Gomillion v. Lightfoot; Baker v. Carr (Chap. 2) The political thicket The political thicket becomes thicker

November 20 Wesberry v. Sanders November 22 Reynolds v. Sims

November 25 November 27-29 December 2 South Carolina v. Katzenbach

Background to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 Thanksgiving. Ditto plea from above. The Voting Rights Act and its aftermath

December 4 The Voting Rights Act constrained Shelby County v. Holder (on Blackboard) December 6 December 9 December 14, 9 AM (To be confirmed) Judicial review revisited Review/slippage Final exam

Makeup policy: I will administer a makeup exam without penalty for an excused absence. Generally, these are an illness which requires a physicians treatment, death of a family member or friend, and official university business. In other cases, I will give makeup exams. However, I eliminate all choices and extract a five per cent penalty. Special assistance: Any student who has a disability, whether or not it qualifies under the Americans with Disabilities Act, should feel free to talk with me. I will work with the appropriate university officials to work out whatever accommodations we can.