answer these questions using the reading for each week with no outside sources, please. for some the link is provided next to the name and some are attached. make sure to include intext citations when using.
Week Two: Frederick Douglass, “The Dred Scott Decision.” https://rbscp.lib.rochester.edu/4399
Does Douglass adopt a natural law approach or a legal positivist approach? Cite the passage that provides evidence for your choice.
The Dred Scott decision was a loss for abolitions. Why is Douglass still optimistic?
Douglass references God as the source of his views. What are some of the other sources of law that he draws on?
Douglass writes, “The people of the North are a law abiding people.” Is that a good thing? Why or why not?
Douglass also advances a theory constitutional interpretation. If the constitution is unclear, how should judges and ordinary people interpret the constitution?
Why do you think Douglass insists that the US Constitution is a source of anti-slavery principles, even though the framers themselves did not hold this view? How does he support this argument?
Week 3: Will Waluchow, “Constitutions as Living Trees: An Idiot Defends”
Jeremy Waldron thinks that a charter is a form of pre-commitment and asks “why should ‘the people now’ be bound by what ‘the people then’ agreed were appropriate constraints on the power of government. What is Waluchow’s response?
Choose either “the Hobbesian Predators” argument or the “Threat of Nihilism” argument and explain it in your own words.
Is the “living tree” approach to the Charter similar to Frederick Douglass’s view of the significance of the US Constitution?
Why does Waluchow think that law “is an inherently dangerous and often unwieldy social tool”?
How does the “living tree” approach to constitutional interpretation make law less dangerous/problematic?
Can you have a Charter without strong judicial review (e.g. the ability to strike down a law)? How does the Canadian notwithstanding clause solve some of the problems of judicial review?
Week 4: Ralph Nader, “Suing For Justice”
What is the difference between comparative and contributory negligence and why does it matter?
Name two ways that tort laws benefit society, according to Nader.
Is tort law under-used and, if so, why?
What is the most surprising thing that you learned in this article?
Are there any points that you disagree with? Can you think of any arguments in favor of damage caps or other limits on tort law?
Week 5: Karl Jaspers, “Scheme of Distinctions,” in The Question of German Guilt
Briefly distinguish the four kinds of guilt.
What is metaphysical guilt? What do you think of the concept? Do you feel metaphysical guilt about anything?
Do these concepts help you think about Canadian issues such settler- colonialism and the deaths of Indigenous children in residential schools?
Do you agree that it “clearly makes sense to hold all citizens liable for the results of actions taken by their state” (p. 33) ?
Of the four kinds of guilt or responsibility, which one can be assigned to the people as a whole? Explain why.
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|