Week 6 Discussion — Can Paper Bind Power? — Traditional alternative (no AI)
Instructors: publish this instead of the adaptive version if you prefer, and unpublish or delete the adaptive one.
Hook
A written rule can stop a treasurer, a landlord, or a president in their tracks, or it can sit unread while they do as they please. This week gave you the words to say which is happening: constitution or constitutionalism, rule of law or rule by law.
Your discussion question — choose Option A or Option B; they carry the same weight and the same rubric, and you say which you picked.
Option A: Pick one written rulebook you have lived under (a club's bylaws, a lease, a workplace handbook, or a campus charter). Did it actually bind the people in charge, and what made it bind or fail to bind? Then take a position: does your case support the coordination case (a written text gives everyone a shared, visible standard) or the parchment-barrier critique (words on paper do not enforce themselves) when you think about a country's constitution? State the strongest case for the other side as its own defenders would put it.
Option B: Ostrel (an illustrative country) has a written constitution and practices rule by law. A reform group proposes a longer, more detailed constitution with stricter entrenchment. Take a position: would a better text help bind Ostrel's rulers, or does the answer lie mainly outside the text? Say which of the five rule-of-law elements your answer targets, argue from the coordination case or from the parchment-barrier and constitutional-hardball critique, and state the other side's strongest reply at full strength.
There is no single right answer. Thoughtful people defend the coordination case and thoughtful people press the parchment-barrier critique, and others call text and enforcement complements; your job is to argue your side well and to state the other side fairly.
Expectations
Activity format: one initial post followed by two substantive peer replies. Plan on about 45 minutes across the two deadlines; your instructor sets both due dates in Canvas.
Your initial post — by the first due date (early in the module week):
- Say which option you chose.
- State your position in one clear sentence, and say whether the rulebook in your case binds the people in charge.
- Give at least one reason, and label each claim you rely on as empirical or normative.
- State the strongest case for the other side, as its own defenders would put it, before you answer it.
- Use at least two of this week's terms (constitution, constitutionalism, written constitution, unwritten constitution, convention, entrenchment, rule of law, rule by law, separation of powers, checks and balances, coordination case, parchment barrier, constitutional hardball) correctly, and keep a constitution apart from constitutionalism.
- Length: roughly 150–250 words if written. You may instead record your post as audio or video (about two minutes) and attach a transcript; both forms are scored by the same rubric.
Your replies — by the second due date (the end of the module week):
- Reply substantively to at least two classmates.
- A substantive reply does more than agree: check whether a poster separated what the rules say from what actually happens, test whether a claim labelled empirical could really be checked, or state the side the poster did not take at its strongest. "Nice point!" on its own does not count.
What a strong post looks like:
I chose Option B, and I argue that a longer text would not, by itself, bind Ostrel's rulers. My claim that Ostrel's president can dismiss any judge is empirical, and it shows the independent-enforcement element failing in practice. My claim that a charter is worth little without someone outside the rulers' control to apply it is normative. The strongest reply, from the coordination case, is that a clearer text would give Ostrel's citizens a shared line they could all see being crossed, which is how people act together.
Notice how it takes a side, labels each claim by kind, names the rule-of-law element at stake, and states the other side fairly before answering it. That is the bar.
Participation rubric
This discussion is worth 10 points. The three criteria below look at your initial post and your peer replies.
| Criterion | Strong | Developing | Missing |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quality of the initial post (4 pts) | A clear position says whether the rulebook binds, gives reasons with claims labelled by kind, and states the other side at its strongest | A position is present, but the rulebook and its practice are blurred, the claims are unlabelled, or the other side is weakened | Missing, off-topic, or no reasoning about whether rules bind |
| Use of course concepts (3 pts) | Uses this week's terms precisely, keeps a constitution apart from constitutionalism, and keeps the rule of law apart from rule by law | Uses a term loosely or with a small error | No course terms, or used incorrectly |
| Engagement with peers (3 pts) | Two or more substantive replies that extend or fairly challenge a classmate's reasoning | One substantive reply, or replies that only agree | No replies, or "I agree" with nothing added |
Post early if you can — the best threads happen when people have time to reply before the second due date.
Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com