Part I:
Q1. Based upon the "rule of law" and its limits on public administrators, explain why a public administrator should not falsely conclude that they necessarily can alter human behavior merely by passing a law. Morality varies across and within societies and creates many commonalities that are essential to a functioning society.
Q2. Explain and provide examples on how society would function if it were bound by only natural law, or formal law, or truly entirely relativistic. Choose one and support your answer with examples or evidence.
Part II:
Q1. For public administrators, analyze the possible benefits of a public administrator knowing how to research regulation. Determine which of your listed benefits is the strongest and state why.
Q2. Using the Marbury v. Madison, consider how difficult it is to sort out the facts and rulings of the case. Discuss the complexities of reviewing a full case and state how you can outline future cases presented in this class.
Part III:
In Marbury v. Madison, describe and comment about both Jefferson's approach and Madison's logic, and weigh the options.
- Explain if Jefferson's approach could have worked.
- Discuss the significance of the case to the constitutional principles.
Analyze and discuss how the opinions in Griswold v. Connecticut reflect justices' views about the roles of the judiciary and the legislature.
Part IV:
Q1. Discuss the impact of Superior Court Justices who serve on the bench for decades. Do they reflect the prevailing norms better than elected legislatures? State why or why not.
Q2. The Constitution has always had several interpretations. Pick one amendment and provide an interpretation for and against that amendment.
Q3. Discuss how public administrators can juggle situations where two or more parties interpret the constitution differently.
Part V:
Q1. Explain the significance of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses to the public community. Provide an example different from the textbook.
Q2. In Mathews v. Eldridge, take a position on whether or not the court was merely pulling back from the hearing requirement it has previously suggested whenever government benefits are at stake. Provide details or evidence to support your position.
Part VI:
Q1. In Grutter v. Bollinger, considering the 25-year notion, discuss whether equal protection really changes and whether or not the 2008 presidential election expedited this timeline.
Q2. Using the Brown v. Board of Education, discuss the significance of the case and state whether race can "count" without it being determinative. Support your position with examples or evidence.