Philosoph 265, Spring 2007

Paper Topics for the First 5-7 Page Paper

Due Date:  Start of class, Tuesday, February 20th, 2007. 

Please put your student number in the upper right-hand corner.  Do not put your name on your essay. 

Your paper should be at least 5 full pages (e.g. two lines of text on page 5 does not count as 5 full pages).  If you wish to get around this requirement by using fonts larger than 12 point font or margins greater than 1.25”, or by leaving skipped lines of blank space between paragraphs, etc., then please add a few sentences at the end of your paper explaining why you think Prof. Duncan is an idiot who won’t notice these things and hold them against you. Also, give your essay a title; put this at the top of the page.  Add page numbers to the pages of your paper; this helps me refer back to parts of your paper in my comments at the end.

You must write on one of the topics below unless you submit an alternative topic in writing (email is OK) to me by the end of the day Friday, February 16th, and I approve it.  Extensions on essay deadlines will be granted only in extraordinary circumstances; see the syllabus for my extension and grading policy.  For advice on writing a philosophy paper, please see the paper guidelines (also available via a link on the coursepage).  One detail from that advice that I wish to highlight here:  if you quote or paraphrase from other sources (including the assigned reading sources), provide a reference that includes a page number for the source.

 

1.      Thomas Aquinas gave traditional natural law theory its canonical formulation in his work Summa Theologiae.  Briefly outline the main points of his theory, as described in the Altman text.  Then discuss the following question:  Aquinas's theory is overtly religious in nature (in the sense that it assumes the Christian God exists and His law can be known); in your judgment, can Aquinas's theory be "secularized," i.e. translated into terms that require no belief in the Christian God (or any god, for that matter)?  Would such a theory in your judgment be plausible at all?  (If you wish, you could read Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous “Letter from Birmingham Jail” and explore connections between his claims there and Aquinas’s theory.)

2.      Was Riggs v. Palmer correctly decided or not?  Write a paper answering this question; be sure to explain what bearing your answer has on the dispute between natural law theorists and legal positivists.

3.      Write a paper discussing H. L. A. Hart’s criticisms of John Austin’s legal positivism.  What problems does Hart, a fellow positivist, find with Austin’s theory?  Are these genuine problems, or could Austin effectively rebut Hart’s criticisms?  How does Hart believe his theory avoids the problems he finds with Austin’s theory?  Is he right?  Justify your answers.

4.      Article IV, Section 2 [the "fugitive slave clause"] of the U.S. Constitution states that "No person held to service or labor [i.e. no slave] in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."  Imagine you are a Northern state judge in the pre-Civil War U.S.  A Southern plantation owner named William Chase has filed suit in your court demanding the return of his 22 year-old male slave namedHH Robert Adams under the fugitive slave clause.  Mr. Adams recently escaped to your state via the Underground Railroad but was tracked down by bounty hunters hired by Mr. Chase.  Mr. Adams is being held by the authorities until the suit is settled.  What would you do?  Would you deliver Mr. Adams to the bounty hunters, to be returned to his owner?  Or would you allow Mr. Adams to remain in your state and order the bounty hunters to return home empty-handed?  Or some third option?  Write your paper as a judicial opinion you would give as judge in this case.  (You may fill in details of the case as you wish, consistent with the facts described above.)

5.      Does Justice Douglas's appeal to the "penumbras and emanations" of the Bill of Rights in Griswold v. Connecticut constitute good constitutional interpretation in your view?  Is such an appeal merely a license to ignore the text of the Constitution, as Robert Bork charges?  Why or why not?  Write a paper explaining and defending your answers to these questions.

1.      What should be done about the "problem of the grudge informers"?  Re-read Lon Fuller's article on this problem, and write a paper discussing it.  In your paper you should say which deputy's answer is best, and how (if at all), you would change it to make it an even better answer.

2.      Read Lon Fuller's article entitled "The Case of the Speluncean Explorers" (available online by clicking here).  This fictional case involving cannibalism is famous for the dramatic way in which it highlights the differences between different theories of law.  Read the article, and then write a paper saying which judge in your view offers the best opinion, and why.  Could the opinion be improved even further, and if so, how?  (I realize this paper topic involves some extra reading, but I would strongly encourage you to take a look at Fuller's article; it is fascinating and written in a captivating style, and hence well worth at least a quick skim on your part.)

3.      In the articles we read, Charles E. Wyzanski and Robert H. Jackson present very different assessments of the Nuremberg Trials.  Write a paper discussing the differences between them.  Answer such questions as:  What are the main issues on which they disagree?  Whose view, in your judgment, comes closest to the truth on these issues, and why?

4.      Is "international law" really law at all?  Can a legal system really exist in the absence of courts with compulsory jurisdiction to resolve disputes and without a centralized policy authority to enforce the courts' decrees?  Suppose, furthermore, that an international criminal court were established.  Given that no nation currently has laws that can be expected to match completely the rules any such international court would follow, could individuals brought before such a court successfully argue that they were being subjected to "new" law, in violation of the principles of legality and the rule of law?  Write a paper discussing these questions, being sure to state and defend your own views. 

5.      Is judicial review an anti-democratic practice?  Why or why not? And if so, what implications does this have for judicial review?  E.g. is it a good thing it is anti-democratic?  If it is a bad thing, does this mean we should eliminate or revise judicial review?  How?  What objections might someone make against your views, and how what you respond?

6.      In his article “We the People,” Larry Kramer contrasts “judicial supremacy” (the idea that the Supreme Court has the final word on the interpretation of the Consitution) with “popular constitutionalism” (the idea that “We the People” should have the final word).  Kramer argues provocatively in favor of popular constitutionalism.  What are his main points in favor of this?  How might a defender of judicial supremacy respond to these points?  Who in your judgment has the stronger argument, and why?