Question
Reflection Paper Assignment Instructions
Overview
Reflection offers an opportunity to consider how new ideas, information, experiences, and observations can shape thinking and knowledge. Reflective writing can help improve analytical skills because it requires expression of thought and analysis. Further, reflective analysis seeks to acknowledge or reject that thoughts are shaped by assumptions and preconceived ideas. In this course, we set out to study “the contemporary challenges facing America, the prevailing Western legal tradition, and a Biblical model of statesmanship, particularly as these challenges have influenced policy formation,” including the “modern reinterpretations of American constitutionalism and the shifting relationship of the State to the individual and other spheres in society.”
Instructions
Write a Reflection Paper providing how your understanding and ideas have been impacted as a result of this class. This is your opportunity to recognize the ideas of others, notice how their assumptions and preconceived ideas may have shaped their thoughts, as well as your own, and perhaps recognize how your ideas support or oppose what you have learned.
Assignment Specifics:
• 6-8 sources cited from the class readings and presentations
• 4-5 double-spaced pages of content, not counting the title page or references
• Turabian Format
Submit this assignment as a Word document file.
Note: Your assignment will be checked for originality via the SafeAssign plagiarism tool.
TEXTBOOK/READING
Barton, David: Original Intent. The Courts, The Constitution, and Religion. Wallbuilders, 1996.
Danoff, Brian and L Hebert Jr.: Alexis de Tocqueville and the Art of Democratic Statesmanship. Lexington Books, 2011.
Garraty, John: Quarrels That Have Shaped The Constitution. Harper & Row Publishers, Inc., 1987.
Lund, Nelson. “Antonin Scalia and the Dilemma of Constitutional Originalism.” Perspectives on Political Science. 48, no. 1 (2019): 7-13. https://doi-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.1080/10457097.2018.1513752
McGinnis, John and Michael Rappaport. “UNIFYING ORIGINAL INTENT AND ORIGINAL PUBLIC MEANING. Northwestern University Law Review. 113, no. 6 (2019): 1371-1418. https://www-proquest-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/docview/2243440608?pq-origsite=summon
McGinnis, John O. and Michael B. Rappaport. 2019. “Unifying Original Intent and Original Public Meaning.” Northwestern University Law Review 113(6): 1371-1418.
Wood, Mary. 2010. “Scalia Defends Originalism as Best Methodology for Judging Law.” University of Virginia. Accessed May 20, 2021. https://law.virgina.edu/news/2010_spr/scalia.htm
Buckler, Kevin, and Elizabeth L. Gilmore. 2017. “Originalism, Pragmatic Conservatism, and
Living Document Judicial Philosophies: Explaining Variation in U.S. Supreme Court Votes in Criminal Procedure Cases for the 1994–2014 Terms of Court.” American Journal of Criminal Justice 42 (1): 28–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-016-9354-6.
Cochran, C. E., Mayer, L. C., Carr, T. R., Cayer, N. J., McKenzie, M. J., & Peck, L. R. (2016). American Public Policy: An Introduction. (11, Ed.) Boston: Cengage.
Eidsmore, J. (1987). Christianity and the Constitution: The Faith of Our Founding Fathers. Grand Rapids: Baker Books.
Reflection Paper Grading Rubric
| Criteria | Levels of Achievement | ||||
| Content (70%) | Advanced 92-100% | Proficient 84-91% | Developing 1-83% | Not Present | Total |
| Content | 55.25 to 60 points Major points are clearly articulated and sufficiently supported.A summary of facts and course of action are present and clearly stated. | 50.5 to 55 points Major points are clearly articulated, but not sufficiently supported.A summary of facts and course of action are present, but not clearly stated. | 1 to 50.25 points Major points are not clear, nor are they given sufficient support.A summary of facts and course of action are not present. | 0 points Not present | |
| Connections | 46 to 50 points The student effectively communicates at least 7 connections to “Contemporary Challenges to Constitutional Order.” | 42 to 45.75 points The student effectively communicates 4–5 connections to “Contemporary Challenges to Constitutional Order.” | 1 to 41.75 points The student effectively communicates 3 connections to “Contemporary Challenges to Constitutional Order.” | 0 points Not present | |
| References | 27.75 to 30 points References (6–8) to the class are present, clearly demonstrated, and appropriately integrated. | 25.25 to 27.5 points References (4–5) from the class are present and appropriately integrated. | 1 to 25 points References (0–3) from the class are present, but do not seem to be appropriately integrated. | 0 points Not present | |
| Structure (30%) | Advanced 92-100% | Proficient 84-91% | Developing 1-83% | Not Present | Total |
| Formatting | 32.25 to 35 points Current Turabian guidelines are followed.The paper is 4–5 pages.The paper is typed, in 12-point Times New Roman font, double-spaced, with 1-inch margins. | 29.5 to 32 points Current Turabian guidelines are followed with few errors.The paper is 2–3 pages.The paper is typed, in 12-point Times New Roman font, double-spaced, with 1-inch margins. | 1 to 29.25 points Current Turabian guidelines are not followed or are followed with frequent errors.The paper is less than 2 typed pages.Any of the following are not present: Typed paper12-point fontTimes New Roman fontDouble spacing1-inch margins | 0 points Not present | |
| Spelling and Grammar | 23 to 25 points There are minimal or no grammatical and/or spelling errors.Reflection is present, clearly addressed, discussed, and well defined. | 21 to 22.75 points There are some grammatical and/or spelling errors.Reflection is somewhat addressed, but not well defined. | 1 to 20.75 points There are continuous grammatical and/or spelling errors.Reflection is apparent. | 0 points Not present | |
| Professor Comments: | Total: | /200 |
Solution
Reflection Paper
This coursework in this class makes visible the constitutional paradox in the US created by the integration of law and democracy. According to the Founding Fathers’ anticipation in conceiving the Constitution, the Supreme Court’s role was to primarily protect Americans’ rights (McGinnis et al., 2018). I order to seemingly defend the fundamental doctrines of freedom and equality, the Judiciary has usurped the Legislative branch of government by issuing legislative and legislation decisions. The ability of the Judicial branch to issue decisions irrespective of the original intent has invited division and controversy in the US. This paper intends the ideas in this class are necessary or destructive to modern democracy.
At firt, the US Constitution guaranteed the nation would not establish a given religion while political states such as clergy and royalty were placed on equal ground with the common people permanently. As a result, prospects of the biblical model of statesmanship are highly debatable in democratic regimes. For instance, one major obstacle of this model of statesmanship is the partisan character of modern democratic politics where politicians disregard the common good and serve particular interests (Danoff & Hebert, 2011). I believe that statesmanship and partisanship do no go well together thus it was an act of statesmanship when Edmund Burke rhetorically laid the intellectual modern party government foundation. Nonetheless, paradoxically, the foundation aimed and succeeded in reducing dependence upon statesmanship. I believe that it is challenging to combine the biblical model of statesmanship with basic democratic characteristics thus affecting modern policy formation. This thought supports Danoff and Hebert’s (2011) argument that besides Tocqueville ‘s influence on the development of the “democratic statesmanship” concepts, they do little to demonstrate how the inevitable tensions between statesmanship can be resolved so that modern politicians can serve the common good …………for help with this assignment contact us via Email Address: consulttutor10@gmail.com