I want you to argue a theory of constitutional interpretation that examines the role you think the Supreme Court should have in our society. Choose one of the theories we discussed in class and argue why it is right. In order to do so, I want you to choose at least FIVE cases that we have studied this semester and explain how they either exemplify what the court should be doing or describe what it should not. A good rule of thumb is to pick 3 cases where the court is doing what you think it should and 2 where it isn’t.
For example, if you decide that you want to argue for Breyer’s ancient liberty doctrine, you would find a series of cases where the Court has seemed to use his theory (including many Frankfurter and Breyer quotes) to show what the Court should be doing and other cases where the Court did not follow it. Feel free to use dissents to help strengthen your argument, but be sure you use SPECIFIC TEXTUAL EVIDENCE to make your case. In other words, if you write more than a paragraph or two without a quote from a case, you’re probably doing something wrong.
In writing your paper, be sure you are clear from the start what your theory is and be sure that your cases fit your argument. Most importantly I want your theory to be coherent and consistent. A well argued theory will sometimes lead to outcomes that you don’t necessarily like, but will fit your overall model.