Federalism: A Normative Theory and its Practical Relevance by Kyle Scott

Helping Libya is easier than you think.

$34.44

Paperback

The premise of this essay is that the Constitution may at times stand in tension with what is either just and/or expedient and most people oversimplify the issue, or miss it all together. Such as those who responded to the post. 

Here is a quick excerpt. For the full entry use the link below:

My intention for this essay was to show how this clause applies to current political events and uncover the fundamental questions that must be answered in order to reach some resolution. So let me repeat the most fundamental questions I see for this clause: If the Constitution sets up a system that can achieve justice when literally followed then does abandoning that system compromise the search for justice? Or, should we say, that abandoning this part of the Constitution in our fight against terrorism or overworked courts is the only means by which we can achieve justice? And, if we answer in the affirmative to the second question, must we say that the Constitution, if strictly followed, cannot lead us to justice in all situations?

Raising and pursuing these fundamental questions in a slow, deliberate manner within the confines of care, reason, and logic—without employing clichés or rhetoric—is the true intention of the Founders. Our Founders were deep and original thinkers who understood the fundamental questions and the importance of asking them. Their search for truth was more important to them than the personal attachment they felt to a particular position. We too should be so brave!

http://www.constitutingamerica.org/blog/blog/2011/05/06/may-6-2011-–-article-iii-section-1-clause-3-of-the-united-states-constitution-–-guest-essayist-kyle-scott-political-science-department-and-honors-college-professor-at-the-univers