Week 9 Political Analysis Workshop: Where the Power Comes From

Introduction to Political Science Free sample edition

Part 1 — The Big Picture

This week you met the third branch: what courts do, how judicial review differs from judicial independence and from jurisdiction, and where the American power to strike down laws came from. In this workshop you read the primary texts the way a political scientist does: Article III of the U.S. Constitution, Hamilton's Federalist No. 78, and the opinion in Marbury v. Madison (1803). You check what each one says and whether any of them names judicial review. Then you sort a case file of ten court rules from four made-up countries into the power, the conditions, and the door. Finally, you map one commentator's argument about abolishing judicial review, label each premise as empirical or normative, state the strongest objection fairly, and check a chatbot's version of the same analysis for invented quotations, invented cases, misattributions, and a preference passed off as a fact.

Time budget: Plan for about 90 minutes.

Part 2 — The Task

Guiding question: What do Article III, Federalist No. 78, and the Marbury opinion each say about the courts' power, and how do ten rules from made-up court systems sort into judicial review, judicial independence, and jurisdiction?

Workshop data: a case file of ten rules from four made-up court systems (illustrative)

Source: An illustrative case file constructed for this workshop: ten rules about the courts of four made-up countries, plus one commentator's argument about Dunlow. No real country, person, court, or law is described in the case file. The Article III fragments are quoted from the National Archives transcription, Federalist No. 78 from the Avalon Project, and the Marbury v. Madison opinion from the Legal Information Institute.

Rows: 10 rows of data, one per court rule (Table 2 in Part 4 lists all 10 with blank columns for your answers; Table 1, the close-reading table, has 6 rows)
Columns: rule number; made-up country; rule text; review, independence, or jurisdiction; support of independence; architecture clue
Countries: 4 made-up countries: Ardmere, Belloc, Corrin, and Dunlow
Argument premises: 4 premises in the commentator's argument about Dunlow (Table 3)

Part 3 — Materials & Procedure

Tools and materials

Authoritative archives and data sources (the National Archives, the Avalon Project, Project Gutenberg, the Legal Information Institute, un.org, the House of Commons Library, Pew Research Center, Freedom House, V-Dem, the World Bank, Our World in Data) plus a spreadsheet for the seat-allocation and margin-of-error arithmetic, and one approved chatbot used as an analysis partner whose political-science slips the student catches
A document or notebook for your written answers

Ways of working

primary-text-analysis
read-the-data
argument-map-and-steel-man

Procedure

Open the National Archives page titled The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription. Use your browser's find command to search for judicial Power, then arising under, then judicial review, and check the two Article III rows of Table 1 against the transcript. Tool: Authoritative archives and data sources (the National Archives, the Avalon Project, Project Gutenberg, the Legal Information Institute, un.org, the House of Commons Library, Pew Research Center, Freedom House, V-Dem, the World Bank, Our World in Data) plus a spreadsheet for the seat-allocation and margin-of-error arithmetic, and one approved chatbot used as an analysis partner whose political-science slips the student catches. Check: Both Article III fragments match the transcript, capital letters included, and the search for judicial review finds nothing.
Open the Avalon Project page for The Federalist No. 78. Use your browser's find command to search for FORCE nor WILL and weakest of the three, and check the two No. 78 rows of Table 1. Tool: Authoritative archives and data sources (the National Archives, the Avalon Project, Project Gutenberg, the Legal Information Institute, un.org, the House of Commons Library, Pew Research Center, Freedom House, V-Dem, the World Bank, Our World in Data) plus a spreadsheet for the seat-allocation and margin-of-error arithmetic, and one approved chatbot used as an analysis partner whose political-science slips the student catches. Check: Both No. 78 fragments match the page letter for letter, including the capital letters in FORCE and WILL.
Open the Legal Information Institute page for Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137. Confirm that the page gives the same case name and citation, then search for province and duty and for repugnant, and check the two Marbury rows of Table 1. Complete the sourcing columns of Table 1. Tool: Authoritative archives and data sources (the National Archives, the Avalon Project, Project Gutenberg, the Legal Information Institute, un.org, the House of Commons Library, Pew Research Center, Freedom House, V-Dem, the World Bank, Our World in Data) plus a spreadsheet for the seat-allocation and margin-of-error arithmetic, and one approved chatbot used as an analysis partner whose political-science slips the student catches. Check: The case name, the citation, and both quotations match the opinion page, and every blank in Table 1 is filled.
Read the ten rules in Table 2. For each, write whether it is about judicial review (a power), judicial independence (a condition), or jurisdiction (which court hears which case). For each independence rule, name its support: secure tenure, insulated selection, or compliance. For each review rule, write whether it points to diffuse or concentrated review. Tool: Authoritative archives and data sources (the National Archives, the Avalon Project, Project Gutenberg, the Legal Information Institute, un.org, the House of Commons Library, Pew Research Center, Freedom House, V-Dem, the World Bank, Our World in Data) plus a spreadsheet for the seat-allocation and margin-of-error arithmetic, and one approved chatbot used as an analysis partner whose political-science slips the student catches. Check: Every rule has a bin, every independence rule has a support, and every review rule has an architecture clue.
Open a blank spreadsheet. In row 1 type the headers Rule, Country, and Bin in columns A, B, and C. In rows 2 to 11 copy each rule number and country from Table 2, then type review, independence, or jurisdiction for each rule in column C. In E2 to E4 type review, independence, and jurisdiction. In F2 type =COUNTIF($C$2:$C$11,E2) and copy it down to F4. In F5 type =SUM(F2:F4). In F6 type =3*3 for the checks the three pinned cases need. Tool: Authoritative archives and data sources (the National Archives, the Avalon Project, Project Gutenberg, the Legal Information Institute, un.org, the House of Commons Library, Pew Research Center, Freedom House, V-Dem, the World Bank, Our World in Data) plus a spreadsheet for the seat-allocation and margin-of-error arithmetic, and one approved chatbot used as an analysis partner whose political-science slips the student catches. Check: F5 shows 10, one for each rule in the file, F2 to F4 match your hand tally in Table 2, and F6 shows the number of checks.
Read the commentator's argument in Table 3. In the Kind column, label each of the four premises empirical or normative. Then name one assumption the argument needs, state the strongest objection as its own defenders would put it, and write a two-sentence reply. Tool: Authoritative archives and data sources (the National Archives, the Avalon Project, Project Gutenberg, the Legal Information Institute, un.org, the House of Commons Library, Pew Research Center, Freedom House, V-Dem, the World Bank, Our World in Data) plus a spreadsheet for the seat-allocation and margin-of-error arithmetic, and one approved chatbot used as an analysis partner whose political-science slips the student catches. Check: Table 3 has no blank cells, and the objection is written in a form its defenders would accept as fair.
Paste your completed tables into one approved chatbot, then paste the prompt from Part 6 below them. Record each of its answers in Table 4 and check every one against the sources and your own tables, treating any case name, citation, and quotation as three separate claims. Tool: Authoritative archives and data sources (the National Archives, the Avalon Project, Project Gutenberg, the Legal Information Institute, un.org, the House of Commons Library, Pew Research Center, Freedom House, V-Dem, the World Bank, Our World in Data) plus a spreadsheet for the seat-allocation and margin-of-error arithmetic, and one approved chatbot used as an analysis partner whose political-science slips the student catches. Check: Table 4 has one row for each of the chatbot's answers, with each marked as checked against a source.

Fallback route

When to use it: Use this route if no spreadsheet is available or the National Archives, Avalon Project, or Legal Information Institute page cannot be reached.

Work the same steps by hand. Table 1 already prints the Article III, Federalist No. 78, and Marbury fragments exactly as the pinned editions give them, so complete the sourcing columns from them. Tally the rules by making a mark beside review, independence, or jurisdiction for each of the ten rules, count the empirical and normative labels in Table 3 by hand, and write each count so it can be checked. Complete every table, answer every analysis question, do the critique step, and submit the same items for equal credit.

This route earns the same credit as the primary route.

Part 4 — The Scaffold

Table 1 holds the primary texts you are analyzing; source each one and check whether it names judicial review before you use it.

Student scaffold table 1
Text	What the source shows	Who wrote or adopted it, and when	What kind of text it is (a description of the design, or a court's holding)	Does it name judicial review? (yes or no)
U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 1	The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court
U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2	arising under this Constitution
The Federalist No. 78	neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment
The Federalist No. 78	beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137	It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137	a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument

Table 2 is the case file of ten court rules; decide whether each describes a power, a condition, or a door before you look for patterns.

Student scaffold table 2
Rule	Made-up country (illustrative)	Rule text
1	Ardmere	Any Ardmere court hearing a lawsuit may refuse to apply a statute that breaks the constitution.
2	Ardmere	Ardmere's judges serve until age 70, and their salaries may not be reduced while they serve.
3	Ardmere	Only Ardmere's Maritime Court hears shipping disputes.
4	Belloc	Only Belloc's Constitutional Tribunal may declare a statute void.
5	Belloc	The Tribunal may review a bill before it takes effect when a quarter of the legislature asks.
6	Belloc	Tribunal members are chosen one third each by the legislature, the president, and a council of judges.
7	Corrin	Corrin's ministries must carry out court rulings within 30 days, and officials who refuse can be removed.
8	Corrin	Corrin's Supreme Court hears appeals from every lower court but hears no case first.
9	Dunlow	Dunlow's Constitutional Court may strike down a statute that an ordinary court refers to it during a case.
10	Dunlow	Dunlow's judges may not be moved to a lower post for a ruling the cabinet dislikes.
Tally	All four countries	Count the rules in each bin.

Table 3 maps one commentator's argument about Dunlow so you can label every premise by its kind and test it fairly.

Student scaffold table 3
Part of the argument	What the commentator says (illustrative)	Kind (empirical or normative)
Thesis	Dunlow should abolish judicial review.	Normative
Premise 1	Dunlow's Constitutional Court struck down two statutes passed by the legislature this year.
Premise 2	Dunlow's constitutional judges are chosen by a council of judges, not by voters.
Premise 3	Laws passed by elected representatives ought to stand unless the voters change them.
Premise 4	Protecting a minority's rights in court is not worth letting unelected judges overrule the majority.
One assumption the argument needs
Strongest objection, stated as its defenders would
Your reply

Table 4 is your critique log; it records what the chatbot said and what the sources or your tables show instead.

Student scaffold table 4
Chatbot answer	What it said	What the source or your tables show	Correction
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Part 5 — Analysis Questions

Report how many of the ten rules are about judicial review, judicial independence, and jurisdiction, and show the spreadsheet formula or hand count you used. Then report how many review rules point to diffuse review and how many to concentrated review, and how many checks the three pinned cases need when a case name, a citation, and a quotation are separate claims.
Look at the independence rules in Table 2. Which of them could be mistaken for judicial review at first glance, and what in each rule's wording tells you it describes a condition that protects judges rather than a power the court holds?
Using your Table 1 answers, explain why this course says American judicial review is the Court's own establishment rather than the Constitution's. Give Marbury's three answers in order and say what the third one shows.
Using Table 3, name the premise that carries the argument's value judgment, name one assumption the argument needs, and state the strongest objection as its defenders would put it before you reply. Say whether the objection draws on precommitment, minority protection, or another argument from this week, and whether the commentator's side draws on the counter-majoritarian worry or juristocracy.
Name two limits of this analysis, such as that the case file is illustrative, that a rule's text shows the design layer and not how courts behave in practice, or that sorting rules says nothing about whether review is good for democracy, and say how each limit affects what you can conclude.
Choose one and answer it in 3–4 sentences: (a) Which country's court system in the file would you most like to see working in practice before judging it, and what evidence would you want? (b) Should Dunlow keep judicial review, and what is the strongest case against your answer?

Part 6 — AI-Critique Moment

Choose one equal-credit critique route. Route A: ask an approved AI tool to critique your completed work, then check its response against your own evidence. Route B is the no-AI equivalent printed below.

Approved tools: Claude, Gemini, ChatGPT, Grok, Microsoft Copilot.

Prompt to paste:

I've pasted my completed workshop tables above. I am sorting ten rules from four made-up court systems (illustrative cases, not real countries) into judicial review, judicial independence, and jurisdiction. Please do seven things. First, quote the sentence in Article III of the U.S. Constitution that gives courts the power to strike down laws. Second, tell me what the Supreme Court ordered in Marbury v. Madison. Third, name three Supreme Court cases that established judicial review, with a citation and a direct quotation for each. Fourth, tell me what share of laws struck down by courts protected a minority. Fifth, tell me who first named the counter-majoritarian difficulty, and in what work. Sixth, tell me whether Belloc's concentrated review makes its court undemocratic. Seventh, say whether Dunlow should abolish judicial review, and label each of the four premises in Table 3 as empirical or normative.

Test the response for these likely failures:

Chatbots often produce a confident sentence from Article III saying the courts may strike down laws that conflict with the Constitution, a sentence the text does not contain.
Chatbots often say Marbury v. Madison ordered the commission delivered, or list extra cases with confident citations and quotations as founding judicial review.
Chatbots often supply a share of struck-down laws that protected minorities, or say "studies show" review strengthens or weakens democracy, with no source.
Chatbots often credit the counter-majoritarian difficulty to Hamilton in Federalist No. 78, or credit the concentrated model to the U.S. founders.
Chatbots often declare outright that Dunlow should keep or abolish judicial review, presenting a preference as the result of the analysis.
Chatbots often call concentrated review undemocratic or a mark of an authoritarian court because one court holds the power.
Chatbots often label premise 3, that laws passed by elected representatives ought to stand, as empirical, or call the whole argument factually correct.

In 3–5 sentences, say what the chatbot got right, quote at least two sentences it got wrong, and correct each one with evidence from the pinned texts, your tables, or this week's definitions.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

No AI account is required for this workshop. This route assesses the same objectives, Objective 5 (analyze political institutions — legislatures, executives, and judiciaries — including the parliamentary, presidential, and semi-presidential designs, government formation and removal, judicial review and judicial independence, and the counter-majoritarian debate) and Objective 4 (compare regime types and constitutional structures — direct and representative, electoral and liberal democracy; authoritarian and totalitarian rule; democratization and backsliding; what constitutions do; the rule of law, separation of powers, and checks and balances), takes comparable effort of about the same 90 minutes, uses the same rubric, and earns the same credit. Instead of the chatbot, critique this flawed analysis, printed here in full: "Article III says the courts 'shall have power to strike down any law repugnant to this Constitution,' so judicial review was written into the text from the start. In Marbury v. Madison the Court ordered Madison to deliver Marbury's commission. Studies show that courts protect minorities in most of the cases where they strike down a law. Hamilton named the counter-majoritarian difficulty in Federalist No. 78. Belloc gives the power to one tribunal, so its court is authoritarian. Rules 2 and 10 protect judges, so they are judicial review. Premise 3, that laws passed by elected representatives ought to stand, is a fact anyone can check, and so Dunlow should keep judicial review and anyone who disagrees misunderstands democracy." Mark every error you can find, quote at least two, and correct each one in 3–5 sentences with evidence from the pinned texts, your tables, or this week's definitions. Submit the marked-up analysis and your correction in place of the chatbot report and share link.

Part 7 — What to Submit

All four completed scaffold tables
Written answers to all six analysis questions
The chatbot critique report with its share link, or the equivalent route's marked-up flawed analysis

Deliverable:

A short Political Analysis Workshop report on one case file of made-up court rules: four completed tables (the Article III, Federalist No. 78, and Marbury fragments sourced and close-read, the ten rules sorted with their tally, the commentator's argument mapped with every premise labelled, and a critique log), written answers to six analysis questions, and a critique of a chatbot's version of the same analysis, or, on the equivalent route, a marked-up correction of the printed flawed analysis. 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. Choose how you show it: written answers, a recorded explanation with a transcript, or a labelled diagram of each court system with short notes; every form is graded by the same scoring criteria.

Rubric

The rubric below shows how each submitted part is evaluated; bands are full, partial, or none.

Workshop evaluation criteria
Criterion	Full	Partial	None
Sourcing and close reading of the pinned texts	The Article III, Federalist No. 78, and Marbury fragments are copied letter for letter, who wrote or adopted each and when is recorded, each is sorted as a description of the design or a court's holding, and the judicial review column is completed with a reason in the student's own words.	The texts are copied with a small slip, or the sourcing columns are incomplete, or the judicial review column is filled without a reason.	The texts are missing, paraphrased as if quoted, or given words their authors did not write.
Sorting the court rules	All ten rules are placed in the right bin, each independence rule names its support, each review rule has an architecture clue, and the tally is computed from the case file with the method shown.	Most rules are sorted well, but one or two are misplaced, a support or architecture clue is missing, or the tally is given without a method.	No rules are sorted, or supports of independence are filed as judicial review throughout.
The argument map and the strongest objection	Every premise in Table 3 is labelled correctly; an assumption is named without being treated as a flaw; the strongest objection is stated fairly and tied to precommitment, minority protection, the counter-majoritarian worry, or juristocracy before a reply is given.	One premise is mislabelled, or the assumption is missing, or the objection is weakened or left untied to the debate before it is answered.	The premises are unlabelled, or no objection is stated.
Critique and correction	The chatbot critique report or the marked-up flawed analysis quotes at least two errors and corrects each with evidence from the pinned texts, the tables, or this week's definitions; both routes earn this band equally.	The chatbot critique report or the marked-up flawed analysis names an error but corrects it without evidence, or corrects only one; both routes earn this band equally.	No chatbot critique report or marked-up flawed analysis is submitted, or the output is pasted without any check; both routes are scored the same way.
Limits and reflection	Two real limits are named with their effect on the conclusion, and the chosen reflection option is answered with a reason.	One limit is named, or the reflection gives no reason.	No limit or reflection is given.

Quality Gate

The Article III, Federalist No. 78, and Marbury fragments are copied letter for letter from the pinned editions, and no other words are put in Hamilton's mouth or the Court's.
Every count in your tables comes from your own formula or hand count of the case file, never from memory or a chatbot.
Every rule in Table 2 is sorted by whether it states a power, a condition, or which court hears a case, and no support of independence is filed as judicial review.
Every premise in Table 3 is labelled empirical or normative, and the objection is stated as its own defenders would put it.
No court case, citation, quotation, statistic, study, or source is invented anywhere in the submission, and no case beyond the three this course pins is named without being checked.
No side of the counter-majoritarian debate is declared right as if the sorting settled it; the analysis states both sides and hands the verdict back to the reader.
The critique quotes the chatbot or the flawed analysis and corrects at least two errors with evidence.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com