If I recall, this was part of the great charm of the first edition of
Brest, Levinson. Marbury became more prominent in the 2nd ed., I think.
When I taught con law I, I always started with the Articles. Being a new
teacher, I had some trouble persuading the students in the first days of
their second semester of first year that this was a valuable use of their
time, even though it seems evident to me that many features of the
federalists' Constitution are best understood as a reaction against what
they saw as the flaws of the Articles. Many students actually were
offended to be taught dead law. ("If I'd wanted to study history I've have
gone to grad school" one wrote in the course evaluations.) Of course, as
Marbury was the last case of the semester, while other sections did it
first, this contributed to their anxiety that they were somehow being
swindled out of 'real' constitutional law...
[I didn't actually use Brest, Levinson, though I would have liked to,
because there was no way I could see to mesh it effectively with the Con
Law II courses being taught by other people out of other casebooks. As a
junior faculty member, that seemed important at the time...]
On Fri, 8 Aug 2003, Francisco Martin wrote:
>
> On a different issue . . . . Can anyone tell me if any Con law casebooks
> address the history of the Constitution's development from the Declaration
> through the Articles and eventual ratifications of the Constitution? All
> of the casebooks that I have just begin with Marbury and judicial review.
>
>
--
Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm
-->It's very hot here.<--
