First Thoughts

Consider this observation from Prof. Thomas R. Dye:

All governments, even democratic governments, are dangerous. They wield coercive power over the whole of society. They tax, penalize, punish, limit, confine, order, direct, and regulate. They seize property, restrict freedom, and even take lives, all under the claim of legitimacy.

The primary purpose of this course is to consider the many ways the Constitution establishes, limits and checks the power of government, and to appreciate the many ways the Constitution was designed to protect liberty, both through structural safeguards, such as separation of powers and federalism, as well as through specific protections of individual liberty. Both the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution make clear that the purpose of our government is "to secure" and protect our "unalienable Rights" and "the Blessings of Liberty"

Now, consider thios quotation from the Paulsen book (p. 240, one that captures the essence of this course. He speaks of the:

"[F]our cornerstones of the Constitution's overall design: first, the fact that it is a written constitution; second, its essentially republican character; third, the carefully crafted separation of powers among the branches of the national government; and fourth, the distinctive feature of federalism, dividing power between the national government and the states."

That, in a nutshell, is the content of this course.

Interestingly, although Con Law II is described as the course in which you learn about constitutional "liberties," and Con Law I as the course in which you learn about constitutional "structure," in fact the structural architecture of the Constitution was designed to protect liberty by constantly (and in many ways) checking government's ability to tax and regulate a free citizenry. How do separation of powers and federalism protect liberty? Keep your eye on the prize of liberty! Here is how Madison put it in Federalist 47 (Paulsen at 34): "The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands...may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."

Now, consider how Paulsen describes (p. 13-16)  the key questions the Framers faced as they worked on creating a Constitution that permitted efficient government, but with a presumption of liberty:

"The questions, after all, were enormous. How strong should the national government be? How much power should be kept with the individual states? Should the national government be supreme over the state governments? Should there be a strong executive branch? What should its powers be? How should representation in Congress be allotted--should it be according to population, or should large and small states have equal weight, as under the Articles of Confederation? How should the powers of the national government be held in check? Was there need for a bill of rights? What should be done about the question of slavery, on which Northern states and Southern states were sorely divided?"