Paper Topics for the Second 5-7 Page Paper
Due Date: Start of class, Tuesday,
April 17th, 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, April 13th, 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.
Paper Topics (Note: some of these are
the same topics as appeared on the first set of paper topics. Don’t write your second paper on too similar
a topic to your first paper; check with your instructor if your
are unsure.)
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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?
4. Antonin Scalia
and Ronald Dworkin defend contrasting views of
constitutional interpretation. Write a
paper contrasting their views. Describe
an example of a case that their views would decide differently. Overall, whose view is stronger, and
why? Defend your judgment.
5. Write a review of Ronald Dworkin’s book Life’s
Dominion (you may of course ignore the final two chapters, which we did not
read). After briefly describing the
book’s main claims and goals, pick one of these claims and examine it in some
depth. What arguments does Dworkin give to support this claim? Is it a good argument? Why or why not?
6.
The Fourteenth Amendment asserts, among other things, that “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”
(emphasis added). In applying this
amendment, judges must interpret what beings are included in the meaning of the
word “person.” Write a paper discussing
the question of whether fetuses are within the meaning “person” in the
Fourteenth Amendment. Be sure to state
and defend your own view. Also state
what implications your view has for the consitutionality
(or not) of possible state laws permitting abortion or banning abortion.
7.
Pick either Roe v. Wade or Planned Parenthood of
8.
Francis J.
Beckwith, in his article “Pluralism, Tolerance, and Abortion Rights” criticizes
a pro-choice argument with affinities to Dworkin’s
argument. How might Dworkin
respond to Beckwith? How might Beckwith
object to such a rebuttal? Write an
essay exploring this issue. Be sure to
state and defend your own view of the issue too.
9. We studied two competing
accounts of racism (and the related notion of racial discrimination): the
intent theory, and the disparate impact theory.
Which of these accounts is better, and why? Justify your answer. Then apply it to at least one court case
involving discrimination, e.g. Griggs
v. Duke Power Company or Washington v. Davis. Does the account you favor suggest the case
was correctly decided? Why or why not?
10. One looming constitutional
battle concerns the issue of same-sex marriage.
What would the different theories of constitutional interpretation we
have studied have to say about this issue?
Pick one or two of these theories and answer this question. Be sure at some point in your paper to say
what you think the best approach to this question is, all things considered,
and why.
11. One argument that is popular among opponents of
same-sex marriage asserts that if we legalize same-sex marriage, then
consistency of principle will require us to legalize polygamous marriage and/or
incestuous marriage. Write a paper
evaluating this argument. Show your
awareness of the readings we have done, but don’t forget to describe and defend
your own view of the issue.