Paul Finkelman Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law University of Tulsa College of Law 3120 East 4th Place Tulsa, OK 74104-3189
918-631-3706 (office) 918-631-2194 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sanford Levinson wrote:
Shameless self-promotion: My polemic against teaching Marbury has now been published by the Wake Forest Law Review. Even though it is dreadfully old-fashioned, I actually have a number of offprints that I will be happy to send to anyone who wishes one. Just send me your name and address (off list).
I think it would be a big mistake to begin with any of the contemporary cases, since they are relentlessly doctrinal. If one takes doctrine seriously, then their understanding requires some immersion in the earlier materials. If one does insist on teaching these cases early on, I STRONGLY advise beginning with Strauder v. West Virginia, a remarkably short case that manages to encapsulate every one of the tensions of Fourteenth Amendment and racial discrimination, ranging from originalism (political rights v. civil rights) to the difference between focusing on treating blacks "just like" whites (and, presumably, vice versa), as against invalidating only "unfriendly legislation" designed to return the newly freed African-Americans to their formerly subordinate condition. Nothing written since 1880 really resolves this debate. this week's cases are only the latest iteration of the arguments.
sandy
At 11:27 AM 6/28/2003, you wrote:
I was wondering whether it might be a good idea to pre-assign the reading of Grutter/Gratz and Lawrence and begin the next semester's class with a discussion of them instead of starting with Marbury and the structure of government cases. Sure, we'd skip, initially, a lot of the build-up, but we could catch up on that as we went along. Might make Marbury seem a lot more relevant and J/R a lot more significant and controversial, especially in the non-textual area.
I heard a spokesman for Center of Individual Rights, the conservative group that backed plaintiffs in Grutter/Gratz, commenting on the new decisions on a talk show that "Conservatives want the Constitution interpreted as it is, while Liberals want it interpreted according to how it ought to be."
Cute.
Robert Sheridan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
