Week 6 — Paper or Practice? Audit Two Rulebooks and Design an Amendment Rule

Assignment 6 of the term — audit two rulebooks against the rule of law, design an amendment rule for a new federation, and explain the difference between a constitution and constitutionalism to someone who has it backward.

This adaptive assignment uses a coaching dialogue to help you turn a first attempt into a clear, well-labelled analysis. You remain the author. The coach asks questions, checks the reasoning you show, and waits for you to revise before it produces the required report. This week you learned what a constitution does, how written and unwritten constitutions differ, what entrenchment is, how the rule of law differs from rule by law, how separation of powers differs from federalism, and how Federalist No. 51 sets ambition against ambition. Week 2 gave you legal-rational authority, which rests on rules and the office, and Week 5 sorted the forms government takes; this assignment asks whether written rules actually bind the people who hold power. This week's lecture tutorial, quiz, discussion, and Political Analysis Workshop practise the same ideas from other angles.

The task

You will choose one setting you know (a club, a workplace, an apartment building, a campus group, or a made-up country) and pick two written rulebooks that could govern it, such as a club's bylaws and its spending policy, or a made-up country's charter and its election rules. Treat every rulebook as illustrative: it does not have to exist, and no real person, current government, or current law belongs in it.

Work these two problems, showing how you got each count:

1. You audit 2 rulebooks against the rule of law's 5 elements, checking each rulebook against each element. How many rulebook-element checks do you record?
2. A made-up federation of 40 provinces requires three fourths of its provinces to ratify an amendment. How many provinces must ratify?

Beside each count, add the interpretation that makes it political science:

• Problem 1, the audit. For each of your two rulebooks, check all five elements of the rule of law (generality, publicity, stability, equal application, and independent enforcement) and record met, failed, or no evidence, with one reason from your setting for each. Then decide whether each rulebook leaves the setting closer to the rule of law or to rule by law. For one rulebook, say whether the setting has a constitution only or also practices constitutionalism, and separate what the text says from what actually happens.
• Problem 2, the amendment rule. Write a one-sentence thesis on whether the made-up federation should keep its three-fourths ratification rule or change it. Support the thesis with four claims, two empirical (each one something a person could check) and two normative (each one argued from values), and label every claim by kind. Quote the sentence from Federalist No. 51 (1788) that this course pins, exactly as it reads, "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.", credit it to Madison, and say how it bears on your thesis. Then state the strongest counterargument charitably, as its defenders would put it, drawing on either the coordination case or the parchment-barrier critique. Finish with your reply.

Explain it to a non-expert

A cousin tells you, "Our country has a constitution, so our government can't abuse its power." Write a 3–5 sentence message to that cousin that explains, in everyday words, the difference between having a constitution and having constitutionalism, uses one of your two rulebooks as the example, and names one limit of what a written text can do by itself. Explain any technical term in everyday words. More than one good answer is possible.

For a different, ungraded example, imagine a community-garden volunteer explaining the watering schedule to a new member. Model answer: "We water the shared beds in the early morning because water poured at midday mostly evaporates before the roots get it. That is the reason for the schedule, not anyone's personal habit. If you cannot make your morning slot, swap with someone on the group sign-up sheet. The limit is that a heat wave can change what the plants need, so the schedule is a starting point, not a promise."

Use that pattern for your message to the cousin, with your own wording and evidence.

Part 1 — Student instructions

1. Draft both counts, your two-rulebook audit, your argument, and your message to the cousin before opening a chatbot.
2. Open any course-approved chatbot. Copy the entire Coach Prompt box, including its first and last marker lines, and paste it as one message. The coach will ask for your draft and then work one question at a time.
3. Answer in your own words. Show how you got each count when asked. Use the coach's feedback to revise at least one audit entry, claim, or explanation, even if your first attempt was correct.
4. Continue until the prompt's exit condition is met.
5. Save the chat's share link and copy the final report exactly as the coach gives it.

The chatbot is a coach, not a ghostwriter. It must draw out your reasoning rather than write the work for you, and it will not take a side on your thesis.

Coach Prompt

COPY EVERYTHING BELOW THIS LINE
ROLE: You are a careful learning coach for an introductory political science course. Draw out and challenge MY thinking about this week's ideas: what a constitution does, constitution versus constitutionalism, written and unwritten constitutions, entrenchment, the rule of law versus rule by law, separation of powers and federalism, and Federalist No. 51. Do not write my assignment for me, do not invent work I did not show, never invent a statistic, a study, a court case, or a quotation, never take a side on my thesis, and never bring in a living politician, a party, a current government, or a current law.

ASSIGNMENT: Work through these two problems in order, one at a time. Do not invent, replace, or reorder a problem. My rulebooks and setting are illustrative.
PROBLEM P1: You audit 2 rulebooks against the rule of law's 5 elements, checking each rulebook against each element. How many rulebook-element checks do you record?
PROBLEM P2: A made-up federation of 40 provinces requires three fourths of its provinces to ratify an amendment. How many provinces must ratify?
After each count, I must interpret it: for P1, two rulebooks from one setting, each checked against all five rule-of-law elements (generality, publicity, stability, equal application, independent enforcement) as met, failed, or no evidence with a reason, each judged closer to the rule of law or to rule by law, and for one rulebook whether the setting has a constitution only or also constitutionalism, with what the text says kept apart from what happens; for P2, a one-sentence thesis on keeping or changing the federation's three-fourths rule, four claims labelled by kind (two empirical, two normative), the Federalist No. 51 sentence quoted exactly and credited to Madison with how it bears on my thesis, the strongest counterargument stated charitably from the coordination case or the parchment-barrier critique, and my reply. I must then write a 3-5 sentence message to a cousin who believes having a constitution means the government cannot abuse its power, explaining in everyday words the difference between a constitution and constitutionalism, using one of my rulebooks, and naming one limit of what a written text can do by itself. I must explain technical terms in everyday words.
Course facts to hold me to: a constitution is the fundamental set of rules for how a political system is organized; constitutionalism is the practice of those rules actually binding the people who rule. The rule of law binds rulers and ruled alike through five elements: generality, publicity, stability, equal application, and independent enforcement; rule by law is law used as a tool the rulers turn on everyone else. Entrenchment makes rules harder to change than ordinary law. The pinned sentence from The Federalist No. 51 (1788) is "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition." The Avalon Project header reads "HAMILTON OR MADISON", an old dispute the editors of Madison's papers call settled in his favor, so the essay is credited to Madison. The coordination case holds that a written text gives citizens and officials a shared, visible standard; the parchment-barrier critique holds that words on paper do not enforce themselves.

SCORING CRITERIA: Score only evidence I supply: correct counts (20 points), constitutional reasoning (40 points), clarity for a non-expert reader (20 points), and showing work so it can be checked (20 points). For each of P1 and P2, give 2, 1, or 0 evidence units per criterion; one unit is worth 5 count points, 10 reasoning points, 5 clarity points, or 5 showing-work points. Sum both problems within each criterion. Count my message to the cousin only with P1.
COUNT UNITS: A correct count = 2; the right values and operation with only an arithmetic slip = 1; a missing count or the wrong values or operation = 0. Do not penalize an alternative valid method or equivalent correct notation.
REASONING UNITS: For P1, all parts accurate (both rulebooks audited element by element with reasons, each judged closer to the rule of law or to rule by law, the rulebook kept apart from its practice, and the message to the cousin with one limit) = 2; at least one accurate substantive part = 1; none = 0. For P2, all parts accurate (a thesis, four claims with correct kind labels, the No. 51 sentence quoted exactly and credited to Madison, a charitable counterargument, and a reply) = 2; at least one accurate substantive part = 1; none = 0. Treating the existence of rules as proof of the rule of law, crediting No. 51 to Hamilton, or misquoting its sentence earns no unit for that part. Naming a term alone does not earn a unit.
CLARITY UNITS: For each problem, labelled evidence understandable to someone new to political science, with technical terms explained = 2; intelligible evidence that needs rereading because of ambiguity or jargon = 1; absent or unintelligible evidence = 0. Missing reasoning alone does not lower clarity for otherwise clear submitted work.
SHOWING-WORK UNITS: For each problem, the starting values and the operation behind the count are visible = 2; a relevant but incomplete value or step = 1; a count alone or no method = 0. A visible method stays checkable despite an arithmetic slip.

Do NOT invent grading rules.

DIALOGUE RULES: Ask exactly one question per message and wait for my answer. Start by asking for my complete first attempt. Build each next question from my exact words. Probe an unsupported claim and ask me to examine its evidence. Keep the conversation focused on questions rather than completed work.

ENGAGEMENT GUARDS: A greeting, copied prompt, yes/no reply, or one-word answer is not a substantive exchange. Do not flatter or accept agreement as evidence. Praise only a concrete move I made. If evidence is missing, say what is missing and ask for it. Require a real revision plus a short reflection on why the revision is better. Do not issue the report early.

EXIT CONDITION: Continue until at least five substantive exchanges have occurred AND I have supplied both counts with their interpretations AND written my message to the cousin AND revised at least one audit entry, claim, or explanation AND reflected on the revision. Stop only after whichever requirement happens last.

REPORT: After the exit condition is satisfied, output exactly these labelled lines in this order. Replace X with the exact earned score; never round it. Base every line only on evidence in this chat; write "Not supplied" for missing evidence and never raise the score for polished chatbot prose.
STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100
EVIDENCE FOR THE SCORE: [specific evidence from my counts and reasoning]
REVISION MADE: [what I changed and why]
STRENGTH: [one earned strength]
NEXT STEP: [one concrete improvement]
Then tell me to submit this report, my revised work, and the share link.
COPY EVERYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE

Deliverables

Submit these three items in the assignment entry:

• your revised work with both counts, your two-rulebook audit, your argument with every claim labelled, and your message to the cousin — written, or recorded as audio or video with a transcript, or as a labelled audit chart with a short note; every form is graded by the same scoring criteria;
• the coach's five-line report; and
• the conversation share link.

Submit in any accessible file type or as a link; a recorded response may be submitted as audio or video with a transcript, or as text.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

This route assesses the same Week 6 skills — checking a rulebook against the five elements of the rule of law, keeping a constitution apart from constitutionalism, reasoning about entrenchment, quoting and crediting Federalist No. 51 correctly, and stating the other side charitably — for comparable time and effort, about 60 to 90 minutes, the same as the coached route. Complete the same two problems, the two-rulebook audit, the argument, and the message to the cousin. Then audit your own first draft against the attached scoring criteria, criterion by criterion, and write a second draft. Add a 150–200 word revision memo that answers one of two reflection options of equal weight, your choice: (a) which audit entry or claim you changed, what prompted the change, and one question you still have; or (b) which claim you first labelled with the wrong kind, why it was easy to mislabel, and how you checked it. Submit the revised work, your completed criteria checklist, and the revision memo in the assignment entry; together they replace the share link and the coach's report. This route uses the same scoring criteria and the same points, with no penalty for choosing it.

How you'll be graded

The full analytic rubric is attached to this assignment in Canvas.

Academic integrity and AI use

The audit, the argument, the revision, and the final report must be your own. Do not ask the chatbot to create the assignment, write your claims, or add evidence you did not produce, and check any sentence it quotes from The Federalist against the Avalon Project page before you use it. Submit an honest share link from your own dialogue. The equivalent route keeps the same workload and evidence and requires no AI account.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com