We squabble and debate over the interpretation of the Constitution, but how often do we step back and consider whether it should have been approved in the first place? Not very often…yet Michael Faber makes this the focus of his research.
Press play to learn:
Associate professor in the Department of Political Science at Texas State University, Michael Faber, splits his time between research and teaching. While his teaching is primarily on American political institutions and the presidency, his research is focused on American political development—with particular emphasis on anti-federalists and their opposition to the Constitution. He investigates why they were against the Constitution, and how relevant the anti-federalist position is to us today. The debate raised by anti-federalists—of whether or not to approve the Constitution—is one that Faber says is glossed over in most history classes, but one of importance nonetheless.
Faber dives into the details of Congress versus the presidency, including which is easier to study and why, what it even means to “study” the presidency, and what motivates individual behaviors. He also compares and contrasts the Senate and the House of Representatives, discussing how the 17th Amendment eliminated some key differences between the two, perspectives on politics, political theory, presidential rhetoric, why the dynamic between the senators and representatives is antagonistic by “design,” the president’s pardoning power (and whether it is too broad), and more.
Tune in for all the details, learn more about Faber at
https://www.polisci.txstate.edu/people/faculty-bios/faber.html, and feel free to email your questions to him at Faber@txstate.edu.