Answer one of the following
Option 1:
In Federalist 78, Hamilton argued that the judiciary has “neither force nor will, but merely judgment” and must rely on the other branches to carry out its rulings. Test his claim against one Supreme Court decision that provoked a political backlash. Do not choose Brown, Roe, Dobbs, Obergefell, or Citizens United.
Use three kinds of research:
- The president. Using the American Presidency Project (presidency.ucsb.edu), find what the sitting president said about the decision in the year after it: statements, press conferences, speeches, or signing statements. Quote at least two, with dates. Then determine what the administration did to enforce, ignore, or undercut the ruling.
- Congress.gov. Find legislation members introduced within two years of the decision to reverse, limit, or punish it.
- Newspapers. Using ProQuest Historical Newspapers or another library database, find reactions from at least two other elected officials in the month after the decision.
Cite at least one scholarly source on presidential or congressional responses to the Court.
Did the backlash change anything? Did the president enforce the decision, resist it, or evade it? Did Congress pass any of the bills? Decide whether your case shows a Court as weak as Hamilton described, or stronger than he expected. Draw on Federalist 78 and Tocqueville.
Option 2
From the Cook list of "tossup" or "lean" House and Senate races, pick one incumbent running for reelection. Investigate whether the prospect of losing has changed how that official represents constituents. Has electoral pressure made the incumbent more responsive, or chiefly changed the campaign’s message? Focus on one issue. Compare the incumbent’s earlier record with campaign actions and statements. Look for changes in votes, policy positions, constituent service, or public appearances. Distinguish changes in conduct from changes in emphasis. Use Publius and Tocqueville’s discussion of elections and democratic government, as well as other class materials, to assess how elections hold officials accountable.
Begin with the incumbent’s official (House, Senate)and campaign websites. Check claims against legislative records and independent reporting, especially local coverage. Use earlier news stories and archived webpages to establish what the incumbent said and did before the campaign. (At least three sources must date from after September 1, 2026.) A competitive race alone does not prove that fear of defeat caused a change: look for evidence connecting the pressure to the official’s conduct.
Requirements
- Length: Essays must be double-spaced and no more than six pages long. I will not read past the sixth page.
- Format: Submit as a Word document only. Do not submit PDFs or Google docs. Cite all sources with endnotes (not footnotes) in Chicago/Turabian style. Endnote pages do not count toward the page limit.
- For every primary source, give the full URL or database document number in your endnote. I will check citations at random. Cite Federalist and Tocqueville by page number in the editions on our syllabus.
- AI Policy: You may use AI to locate primary and secondary sources, but you may not copy AI-generated summaries or arguments into your essay. Misrepresenting AI output as your own work is plagiarism and may result in referral to the Academic Standards Committee.
- Writing: Watch your spelling, grammar, diction, and punctuation. Errors will count against you.
- Deadline: Upload essays to Canvas by 11:59 PM, Friday, November 13 (revised deadline). If you have trouble with Canvas, email it to me as a Word attachment. I reserve the right to dock essays a grade point for one day’s lateness, and a full letter grade thereafter.
