Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Journal Article Link 2.1: Kincaid, J. (1988). State Constitutions in the Federal System. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 496(1): 12-22

State constitutionalism has undergone a certain revitalization in recent decades due to the efforts of state electorates and officials to reform and modernize state government, the willingness of many state high courts to redevelop state constitutional law as an independent body of law, and the expansion of federal constitutional law requiring adjustments in state constitutional law. State constitutions remain important as instruments of local self-government even though the field of state constitutional choice has been circumscribed by federal constitutional law. A basic distinguishing characteristic of state constitutions is their reliance on direct popular consent and control. This characteristic is a matter of conflict in state constitutional change because it produces long and detailed constitutions subject to easy popular amendment. Despite reform efforts to streamline state constitutions and limit majoritarian influences, most state electorates continue to prefer more consent and control of government under state constitutions than are available under the U.S. Constitution.

1. Summarize the author’s main point(s) in just a few sentences.
2. What potential problems does the author not address with his/her own work?
3. How would you address potential problems and/or future research recommendations that are addressed by the author?
4. Do you see any evidence of bias in the authors work or writing? If so, what is it and why do you think it is there?
5. How has this article expanded your knowledge on the subject and/or challenged your preconceptions of the subject?

Journal Article Link 2.2: Maltz,  E. M. ( 1988). Lockstep Analysis and the Concept of Federalism. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 496(1): 98-106.

Commentators on state constitutional law have been generally critical of those state courts that follow lockstep analysis. Often these criticisms have relied heavily on the concept of federalism. This reliance is misplaced; lockstep analysis is entirely consistent with basic notions of state autonomy. Instead, it is courts using other approaches that have at times ignored the basic theory of federalism.

1. Summarize the author’s main point(s) in just a few sentences.
2. What potential problems does the author not address with his/her own work?
3. How would you address potential problems and/or future research recommendations that are addressed by the author?
4. Do you see any evidence of bias in the authors work or writing? If so, what is it and why do you think it is there?
5. How has this article expanded your knowledge on the subject and/or challenged your preconceptions of the subject?

Journal Article Link 2.3: Darley, J. M., Sanderson, C. A., LaMantia, P. S. (1996). Community Standards for Defining Attempt: Inconsistencies With the Model Penal Code. American Behavioral Scientist, 39(4): 405-420.

When should taking various steps toward the commission of a crime itself count as a crime? Different legal codes give remarkably different answers: The older common law criminalized individuals' attempts only if the steps had led the individual into dangerous proximity to successfully committing the crime, whereas the current Model Penal Code holds that an individual who has taken any substantial step toward committing a crime is liable. We presented college students and community respondents with a series of scenarios describing different levels of attempt and discovered that their views about liabilities for attempted crimes are better described by the older common law than the Model Penal Code. Further, we asked respondents to tell us how they thought that the various levels of attempt would be treated by the laws of the state in which they resided. They believed that the state law assigned liabilities that matched their own intuitions about appropriate liability judgments. Because they lived in a Model Penal Code state, this indicates that their beliefs about the law were inaccurate in an unfortunate direction: actual attempt liability was incurred far earlier than subjects thought it was. The discussion focuses on the implications of individuals' views about appropriate liability judgments for legal codes.

1. Summarize the author’s main point(s) in just a few sentences.
2. What potential problems does the author not address with his/her own work?
3. How would you address potential problems and/or future research recommendations that are addressed by the author?
4. Do you see any evidence of bias in the authors work or writing? If so, what is it and why do you think it is there?
5. How has this article expanded your knowledge on the subject and/or challenged your preconceptions of the subject?