Course Going Well
The American Constitutional Law class is going very well.
One student put me on the spot on Thursday by asking about the Schiavo case in Florida. I had done some reading, and even posted on the blog about it, but I wasn't sure it was relevant to the course. Hasn't there been a U.S. Supreme Court decision on the right to die? he asked. Indeed there has; and there is also an Act of Congress that covers some of these matters. I will have to learn more.
We spent a week on "Congress," a week on the Presidency, and a week on War Powers and Foreign Policy, which brings out more aspects of the tension between President and Congress (and seems to leave the states, and sometimes individual rights, in the shadows). Along the way we looked at some details on Clinton and Nixon (impeachment and coming within a whisker of impeachment). I read to them a bit from a web site to cover Andrew Johnson (1st presidential impeachment; Johnson like Clinton served out his term). Going a bit astray, I read a bit from the great biography of Andrew Jackson by Marquis James. In the nullification, Jackson made it clear he would raise troops, even in states that were threatening to secede, and prevent any state from threatening the union. He hoped Congress would meet in time to ratify all this, but if not, he would act alone. Clear anticipations of Lincoln in the Civil War. In fact, as with so many episodes in which the South acted up (even the long-ago Alien and Sedition issue), one suspects that slavery and race were the real or underlying issues.
In connection with War Powers, I presented some of the results of the big Congressional votes on Gulf War II. October 2002 (President can deploy troops, Iraq, but not necessarily "war"): Senate Yes for Bush 77, No 23. House 296 Yes, 133 No. October 2003 ($87 billion, yes billion, for Iraq): Senate 87Y, 12N, 1 No Vote; House 303, 125.
The lonely 12 Senators who voted "no" on the money: Boxer (CA), Byrd (WV), Edwards (NC), Graham (FL), Harkin (IA), Hollings (SC), Jeffords (VT), Kennedy (MA), Kerry (MA), Lautenberg (NF), Leahy (VT), Sarbanes (MD). Of these, the only ones who had voted "Yes" a year earlier on the broad resolution, and have now voted "No" on the money, are Harkin and Hollings, along with Edwards and Kerry--the latter two being presidential candidates. This seems a risk for these two. (Lautenberg was not a Senator in 2002). It is one thing to object to the invasion of Iraq; but once the U.S. is so fully committed, to refuse the money to continue? And go on record against a war that may be popular?
In the House, Gephardt voted Yes both times; Kucinich voted No both times.
Do I actually talk about the textbook, and U.S. Supreme Court cases? Oh yes.
|
