Perhaps it is a result of my undergraduate training in philosophy, but I seem to have a persistent desire to break down difficult subjects into the most fundamental issues that are involved. These are some of the questions that I like to get my students to think about when beginning their study of the Constitution.

1. How do we manage competing interests in a democratic society?

Most complex free societies are composed of a diverse range of interests which are often opposed to each other. In this regard, think of the environment and industry. We certainly want to preserve the environment, but what level of environmental protection is worth how much in terms of economic costs? This is only one example, there are many others. Where the proper balance is to be struck in these contexts is a difficult matter which requires analysis of a multitude of factors, and is often times informed, to a great extent, by ideology. Think of the debate of global warming-there is perhaps no other issue that is significantly informed by ideology as this one. If your ideology leans more towards the socialist, anti-business, constantly bemoaning the unfairness of capitalism, variety you will be much more likely to support policies that seek to stem the tide of global "climate change."

2. How do we strike the balance between federal and state power?

For better or worse, in my view for the better, there are two parallel systems of governmental power in the United States-the federal and state governments. Both systems are designed to have a certain level of authority, but determining the nature and degree, and scope of that authority is a difficult matter. An excellent example of this was Oregon's Death With Dignity Act which allowed individuals with terminal illness's to end their lives with physician advice and consent. John Ashcroft, the current Attorney General at the time disapproved of this practice and sought to prevent physician-assisted suicides from taking place under the Act by exercising his federal authority under the Controlled Substances Act. This case eventually went to the Supreme Court, which found in favor of the state of Oregon. While this particular lawsuit was settled, the fundamental question as to the proper balance between federal and state power still remains. States that wish to legalize marijuana for medical purposes present a similar problem. There are also major issues concerning the extent to which the federal government should be able to "force" states into adopting particular laws or regulatory programs-like a mandatory drinking age for example.

3. How do we protect the minority in a majority rule system?

I believe that this is an important question because it focuses our attention on one of the inherent flaws of democratic political structures-what I could be called the "mob rule" or "demogogue" phenomenon. Many of the Framers were acutely aware of the dangers involved in one particular group, or in James Madison's words, "faction" gaining too much control in the political process. On Madison's view, the systems of representative government and separation of powers were designed to mitigate against the possibility of a demagogue rising to power by appealing to people's emotions, rather than a concern for what is good for society as a whole.

In my view, the courts play a critical role in striking this balance. One important case I discuss in my classes is Ashcroft vs. Free Speech Coalition. In the very justified attempt to combat the evils of child pornography, Congress passed the Child Pornography Protection Act which extended the definition of child pornography to include not only images of actual children, but also images of adults made up to look like children or even purely digital, computer-generated images of childeren as well. In fact, you did not even have to show a child engaged in actual sexual activity to run afoul of the statute, but any kind of depiction of what appears to be a minor engaging in sexual activity. Fortunately, in my view, the Supreme Court struck down the law, noting that movies such as Traffic and American Beauty, not to mention, some presentations of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet would suddenly become contraband.

Imagine being a legislator, subject to the whims popular opinion, and bill called "The Child Pornography Protection Act" comes across your desk. Are you going to stand up for the interests of the minority interest at stake, the adult entertainment industry, and vote against the law due to First Amendment concerns? What if you did? I am sure come election time your opponent would not hesitate to call you out for supporting the adult entertainment industry at the expense of protecting our children. People can get whipped up into a frenzy, trampling on important rights, even in cases where their motives may be in the right place.

4. How, and to what extent, do we secure the rights of individuals to pursue their own happiness?

This question concerns the problem of when one person's fundamental rights infringe on another's. People have the right to protest at the Democratic National Convention, for example, but do not have the right to impede traffic in doing so. People have the right to not be subject to unreasonable searches and seizures, but there is also a legitimate need to obtain evidence against individuals who pose a threat to the public and protect police officers when apprehending dangerous people.

The "war on terror," at least what it was called under the Bush Administration, raises new questions when it comes to balancing civil liberties. Where do we strike the proper balance between civil rights protections and national security.