Course: Introduction to Political Science (POLS 1) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Halloran
Module: Week 9 of 16 · Fall 2026 · in-person, two 75-minute sessions
Objectives covered: Objective 5 — analyze political institutions — legislatures, executives, and judiciaries — including the parliamentary/presidential/semi-presidential distinction, government formation and removal, judicial review, and judicial independence. (This week completes Objective 5 with the judicial branch.)

This file holds two pieces: (A) the Module 9 Overview page ("Start Here") and (B) the Welcome Announcement that drips out when the module opens. Dates below assume a Tuesday/Thursday pattern with Week 9 meeting Tue Oct 27 and Thu Oct 29, with end-of-week work due Sunday Nov 1, 11:59 p.m. Adjust the day-of-week and times to match your section.

(A) Module 9 Overview — Start Here

Welcome to Week 9: Judiciaries, Courts & Judicial Review

This is your home base for the week. Last week you reviewed and sat the midterm; welcome back to new material. We closed Week 7 on legislatures and executives — the branches that write and enforce law. This week we finish the trio with the branch that interprets it: courts. You'll meet the American invention that let unelected judges strike down acts of Congress, trace how the idea spread around the world, and sit with one of the discipline's oldest, sharpest arguments — is that power a democracy's shield, or its quiet override?

The week's big question

Does judicial review — the power of courts to strike down laws that conflict with the constitution — strengthen democracy, or work against it?

By the end of this week, you can…

• [ ] Explain the judicial function — what courts do (resolve disputes, interpret law, in many systems check the other branches) and how "courts and politics" are not two separate things.
• [ ] State what judicial review is, and where the U.S. version comes from — trace it to Marbury v. Madison (1803) and state the actual holding precisely, not the popular oversimplification.
• [ ] Compare diffuse and concentrated judicial review — the American model (any court can review) versus the European/Kelsen model (one specialized constitutional court), and name judicial independence's core supports (tenure, selection, compliance).
• [ ] Present the counter-majoritarian debate evenhandedly — the rights-protection/precommitment case FOR judicial review and the counter-majoritarian/juristocracy case AGAINST it, each in its strongest form, without declaring a winner.

What's due this week, and when

A reminder: your approved chatbot (Gemini, Claude, or ChatGPT) is required on the Tutorial, Discussion, Assignment, and Workshop this week — and banned on the Quiz. This week's AI-critique moment is a big one: chatbots are notorious for inventing entire court cases that sound completely real. You'll learn to catch it.

Late policy reminder: 10% off per day late. If life happens, reach out before the deadline — I'd much rather hear from you early.

You made it through the midterm, and now you're back to a subject with real teeth: the branch of government that gets the final word on what the constitution means. Some of you will find that reassuring. Others will find it unsettling. Both reactions are exactly right, and that tension is this week's real subject. See you Tuesday.

(B) Welcome Announcement — Module 9

Release setting: post on the module's start day (offset = 0 days), i.e., Monday, October 26 — not before. If your platform won't preserve the scheduled date on import, post this as a draft labeled "Release: Mon Oct 26."

Subject: ⚖️ Week 9 — The Branch That Says What the Law Is

Hi everyone, and welcome back to Introduction to Political Science!

Nice work getting through the midterm. This week we pick back up with the third branch of government — the one that doesn't write laws or enforce them, but gets to say what they mean, and in the American system, whether they're even allowed to stand.

This week is Judiciaries, Courts & Judicial Review, and the big question is: does judicial review strengthen democracy, or work against it? You'll meet Marbury v. Madison (1803) — the case that invented American judicial review — read Chief Justice Marshall's own words, and trace how the idea spread to courts around the world in a different form.

Three things not to miss:
1. The Political Analysis Workshop — you'll read the real Marbury holding (not the popular oversimplified version), corroborate it with Federalist No. 78, and catch your chatbot inventing a court case that doesn't exist. This is the sharpest AI-critique moment of the term so far.
2. The Discussion — "Does judicial review strengthen or weaken democracy?" is one of the oldest live debates in the field. Come with a position; leave having stated the other side fairly.
3. The Assignment — a coached thesis on the "counter-majoritarian difficulty," built on Marbury and Federalist No. 78. Any well-argued position earns full marks.

One promise, right up front: this course studies the most argued-about subjects there are, and it will never tell you what to conclude. Ideologies get defined fairly, contested questions get the strongest case for every side, and your grade never depends on which side you take — only on your evidence and reasoning. That promise matters especially this week, because judicial review is genuinely, respectably argued about by serious people on every side.

Dig in, and bring your questions to lecture.

See you soon,
Prof. Halloran