This paper should be about 3 – 4 pages
This is an important paper, please check everything after you finish.
You must use the book ,reading and documentary from the reading list.
Show you have read and understand them
but also you should have your own ideas
Read prompt and requirements carefully
Here are the book you must read and use
Michael Les Benedict, The Blessings of Liberty (3d. ed., 2017;
Benedict, American Constitutional History (2d. ed., 2018
And the reading list is attached
Try to use more reading and documentary at least 6-8 sources
No outside sources
3 – 4 pages Single space about 2000 words
The paper in giving you a chance to show off your command of the material in the reading, lectures, and documentaries in a well-written and well-spelled, grammatical, polished and creative manner.I know what I’ve said in lecture, so please don’t simply repeat it.And please don’t hesitate to disagree!
In the mid-1980s, your professor, who was then beginning her career, wrote work sharply critical of Classical Legal Thought (which she called legal formalism; what Benedict calls laissez-faire constitutionalism or conservative constitutionalism), Langdell, and the U.S. Supreme Court between Reconstruction and 1937.Among other things, she complained about the aridly logical nature of Classical Legal Thought (CLT) and its stifling impact on legal education.She charged that the justices who believed in CLT too frequently deployed doctrines such as substantive due process and liberty of contract to help elites. She downplayed the impact of sociological jurisprudence, while celebrating that of legal realism.She also trashed the Hughes Court until it switched course in 1937 (under the pressure created by Roosevelt’s massive win in 1936 and/or his Court Packing Plan, she claimed—the so-called “switch in time” that saved nine), and celebrated FDR’s wisdom in trying to pack the Court.
For the purpose of your essay, you may assume (with some justification!) that her prior scholarship haunts her and that she now has a chance to rewrite what she said.She asks you to provide her with a memorandum about these topics helping her to think through what her approach should be. Explain how she should understand and discuss 1) what CLT was; 2) how it manifested itself in legal education and whether that manifestation was a good thing; 3) how it manifested itself in judicial opinions during this period (including the development of doctrines of substantive due process and liberty of contract), and how wise or foolish the justices were; 4) who rebelled against CLT between the late nineteenth century (beginning with Holmes) and the 1930s, why they rebelled, and how these rebellions manifested themselves; 5) the record of the Hughes Court; and 6) whether Court Packing represented wisdom or folly. Obviously, your professor’s sympathies lie with the rebels, and maybe you think she’s right, but that she should tone down her critique.Or maybe you think she should intensify it.Or maybe you think she’s completely wrong!Assume (again, with some justification!) that the issue of whether she’s been fair to the people she’s written about and whether her approach is correct sometimes keeps her awake at night, and that she really wants to know what you think.Do not limit yourself to lectures.Draw on the two Benedict books and supplementary readings and documentaries also.You do not need to provide citations, as your readers will be able to tell whether you’ve absorbed the other sources.Include a cover sheet with your name, perm number, word count, and, if you are so moved, a relevant illustration!