Application Information: College faculty who teach American history or American government and politics are eligible for these seminars. Faculty selected to participate in the program will receive up to $250 to cover their travel costs. (Funds left over from faculty who do not need to draw upon this allowance will be reallocated to contribute to travel costs of participants having larger expenses.) In addition to travel allowances, faculty will also receive a $300 allowance to cover living expenses. Moderately-priced accommodations will be arranged.
To apply, prepare a letter describing your teaching responsibilities and scholarly interests and indicating how participation in the seminar program can enhance your teaching. Enclose a curriculum vitae and indicate your first and second choice of seminar topics. Applications must be postmarked by March 1, 1985. Mail to College Faculty Program, Project ’87, 1527 New Hampshire Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20036.
Participants will be chosen by the seminar directors and the members of the Education Task Force of Project ’87. All applicants will be notified of the decision by April 15.
Who Shall Interpret the Constitution? Walter F. Murphy, Princeton University, is the director of this seminar to be held August 19-23 at Princeton, New Jersey.
Who decides what the Constitution is, what it includes, and what it means exerts vast power over current and future generations as well as over specific litigants. The short answer to the question of who shall interpret is: probably all of us at some time or other. The underlying and more difficult question is whose interpretation should (or shall) prevail when interpretations differ. Once again we have an easy answer: The interpretation of the Supreme Court is final. But not only Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, and FDR disagree, so did James Madison. And, one should keep in mind that judicial review need not logically involve a claim to judicial supremacy.
This seminar will address this problem of final interpretive authority. We shall attack the issue from several perspectives, combining analyses of past disputes and of the arguments disputants use to justify their claims: legislative supremacy with its roots embedded in democratic theory; judicial supremacy with its roots anchored in constitutionalism; and various versions of “departmentalism,” which taps both vital sources of legitimacy.
We shall examine some of the writings of Madison and Jefferson as well as the debates over the Judiciary Act of 1802, Jackson’s veto of the Bank Bill, Lincoln’s attitudes toward the Court before and during the Civil War, and some of the writings of modern commentators. Ironically, we shall find that the justices themselves have said little directly on the question, at least where congressional and/or presidential power have been involved.
Immigrants and the Constitution: Rudolph J. Vecoli, University of Minnesota, is the director of this seminar to be held June 24-28, in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
The seminar will explore the changing legal status of immigrants from colonial times to the present. It will deal with the constitutional bases of immigration and naturalization policies as these were established by the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. Eligibility for admission into the United States and for acquisition of American citizenship has been subjected to varying criteria, including racial, political, and cultural.
Changing doctrines pertaining to the rights of aliens and naturalized citizens as defined by the Supreme Court will be studied through key decisions, as will the issue of federal vs. state jurisdiction over these matters. Special attention will be paid to critical episodes affecting the definition of such rights: the Alien and Sedition Acts; Chinese exclusion; the Americanization movement of World War I; the post-war “Red Scare” and “McCarthyism”; and the relocation of Japanese Americans during World War II.
Immigration created an ethnically pluralistic society in which cultural matters such as language usage, education, prohibition, and religious practices became hotly contested political issues. We will consider these topics insofar as they became constitutional questions.
The context for this seminar is the impending observance of the centennials of the Statue of Liberty (1986) and Ellis Island (1992). The History Committee of the Statue of Liberty–Ellis Island Centennial Commission is developing a program of scholarly and educational activities focusing upon the historical and contemporary significance of these sites.
The Forging of the Union: Confederation and Constitution, 1781-1789: Richard B. Morris, Columbia University, directs this seminar on July 8-12 in New York City.
This seminar is designed to explore conditions in the Confederation on the eve of the Federal Convention, the ideological alignments of factions, the historiographic issues and the elements of consensus and conflict that shaped the Constitution and its ratification. An effort will be made to demonstrate the relevance of economic, social, cultural, and diplomatic currents to the resolution of constitutional issues.
The seminar will meet daily during the week of July 8 to 12, with all meetings at Columbia University.
Class discussion and readings will focus on sources and documents to be made available, as well as on specially assigned topics highlighted in the peri od’s rich monographic literature. A syllabus will be provided.
Constitutional Change: Revolution, Judicial Review and the Amendment Process: Walter Dellinger, Duke University, is the director of this seminar to be held June 24-28 at Durham, North Carolina.
How does a constitutional system of government, itself born of revolution, properly provide for its own revision? To explore this question, the seminar will first consider the “overthrow” of the Articles of Confederation government by the Constitutional Convention of 1787. We will next consider the debates by these “revolutionaries in search of stability” as they drafted the provision of the Constitution—Article V—that would govern future constitutional revision. We will explore the political and intellectual forces that brought forth the twenty-six amendments that have been added to the Constitution and the process by which these amendments were adopted, and half a dozen others rejected. With this as background, we will debate the critical issues confronting the amendment process today.
Finally, we will compare the formal amendment process with other methods of constitutional change, such as judicial review. In exploring the role that the Supreme Court has played in constitutional change, we will read and discuss several pivotal decisions, perhaps including Marbury v. Madison, Dred Scott v. Sandford, Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, and one of the major sex discrimination cases. In looking at these decisions, we will be principally concerned with the role that constitutional text and structure, the original history of the “intent” of the Framers, and contemporary “values” can or should play in the process by which judges interpret or revise the Constitution.
Remember to get information in soon, postmarked no later than March 1, 1985.
