Applicability of Hendersons Commentary to the Janus Decision Discussion – Description
On p. 379 of “Authoritarianism and the Rule of Law” — you’ll find the article in the Learning Unit #5 module folder — Lynne Henderson writes, “While many liberal-progressive constitutional scholars have noted the ‘conservative’ shift in the Court’s decisions and are voicing concern and proposing alternative strategies, it is the thesis of this article that the problem is authoritarianism, not conservatism per se. While conservatism may mean a sense of caution or a respect for tradition that is not absolute or inflexible, authoritarianism represents inflexibility and oppression.”
Drawing from all relevant learning unit materials, remark upon the applicability of Henderson’s commentary (from 1991, incidentally) to the Supreme Court’s Janusdecision. At a minimum, your contribution should refer to the Andrias article centered in the Powerpoint presentation. A really impressive contribution might also refer to the Orren article and/or the Kersch chapter (both of which are also embedded in the Powerpoint presentation). If you’re feeling especially ambitious, you might also incorporate insights from Anderson’s “Private Government,” which I have stashed in the Learning Unit #5 module folder.
The post Applicability of Hendersons Commentary to the Janus Decision Discussion first appeared on .
