POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 2/25, we went over the City of Chicago brief in the McDonald case. We looked at issues that included the nature of the asserted fundamental right, the characterization of the rules as a "ban", the question of states' rights as affected by incorporation, and the possible attempts to gain Justice Kennedy's attention. The assignment for Tuesday March 16 (when we reconvene after Spring Break) is to read the transcript of the oral argument of the March 2 hearing in the McDonald case.
I have that you have a safe and enjoyable break.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
February 23, 2010
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 2/23, we spent the period going over the McDonald brief in the McDonald v. City of Chicago Second Amendment case. The assignment for Thursday 2/25 is to read the City of Chicago brief in the same case.
In class today, Tuesday 2/23, we spent the period going over the McDonald brief in the McDonald v. City of Chicago Second Amendment case. The assignment for Thursday 2/25 is to read the City of Chicago brief in the same case.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
February 18, 2010
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 2/18, I went over three habeus corpus cases from the current term. I then went over the Supreme Court's oral argument schedule for next week, after its February slumber. Next week, I will go over the rest of the oral argument schedule for the time that the University is on spring break. The assignment for Tuesday 2/23 is to read the petitioner McDonald's brief in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago. That case will be argued on Tuesday March 2. Start at the Supreme Court's site (www.supremecourtus.gov); select "Merits briefs" and then "On-line merits briefs"; scroll down the alphabetical list until you select McDonald v. City of Chicago; then select "Brief for Petitioner". The reading is 91 pages long.
In class today, Thursday 2/18, I went over three habeus corpus cases from the current term. I then went over the Supreme Court's oral argument schedule for next week, after its February slumber. Next week, I will go over the rest of the oral argument schedule for the time that the University is on spring break. The assignment for Tuesday 2/23 is to read the petitioner McDonald's brief in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago. That case will be argued on Tuesday March 2. Start at the Supreme Court's site (www.supremecourtus.gov); select "Merits briefs" and then "On-line merits briefs"; scroll down the alphabetical list until you select McDonald v. City of Chicago; then select "Brief for Petitioner". The reading is 91 pages long.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
February 16, 2010
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 2/16, I returned the papers, and we went over them. We discussed both the substance of the papers, and a number of common grammatical problems. We then went over a portion of the Toobin book, discussing the labels of "conservative" and "liberal" on the Court. I discussed one habeus corpus case,McDaniel v. Brown, regarding the "prosecutor's fallacy". The assignment for Thursday 2/18 is to read Part 3 of the Toobin book, pages 211-295.
In class today, Tuesday 2/16, I returned the papers, and we went over them. We discussed both the substance of the papers, and a number of common grammatical problems. We then went over a portion of the Toobin book, discussing the labels of "conservative" and "liberal" on the Court. I discussed one habeus corpus case,McDaniel v. Brown, regarding the "prosecutor's fallacy". The assignment for Thursday 2/18 is to read Part 3 of the Toobin book, pages 211-295.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
February 11, 2010
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 2/11, I collected the Citizens United papers, and we spent most of the class discussing them. I also briefly went over a part of the opinions that was not assigned, the evaluation of the 3 rationales for the Congressional restrictions. I plan to return the papers on Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday is to read in Toobin's book through p. 210.
In class today, Thursday 2/11, I collected the Citizens United papers, and we spent most of the class discussing them. I also briefly went over a part of the opinions that was not assigned, the evaluation of the 3 rationales for the Congressional restrictions. I plan to return the papers on Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday is to read in Toobin's book through p. 210.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
February 9, 2010
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 2/9, I did not do the Supreme Court's recent habeus cases, but instead talked more about the Citizens United case. I went over the commentary regarding whether this decision will make a big difference in elections, or not such a big difference; how this decision will affect other issues not directly decided, such as foreign influence in our elections, application to labor unions, and the continuing validity such prior cases as Buckley; and some proposed fixes, both constitutional and statutory, of those who want to limit the reach of the Citizens United decision. The assignment for Thursday 2/11 is to finish your paper on the Citizens United case; your paper is due at the beginning of class on Thursday.
In class today, Tuesday 2/9, I did not do the Supreme Court's recent habeus cases, but instead talked more about the Citizens United case. I went over the commentary regarding whether this decision will make a big difference in elections, or not such a big difference; how this decision will affect other issues not directly decided, such as foreign influence in our elections, application to labor unions, and the continuing validity such prior cases as Buckley; and some proposed fixes, both constitutional and statutory, of those who want to limit the reach of the Citizens United decision. The assignment for Thursday 2/11 is to finish your paper on the Citizens United case; your paper is due at the beginning of class on Thursday.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
February 4, 2010
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday, 2/4, we began by going over some misconceptions about the Citizens United case. We then discussed the meaning of the "strict scrutiny" test that Justice Kennedy applied to the campaign finance law, and used the Bellotti case to illustrate how strict scrutiny works. Next week I will go over some other recent decisions of the Court. The assignment for Tuesday is to continue working on Assignment #1, which is due a week from today, Thursday 2/11.
In class today, Thursday, 2/4, we began by going over some misconceptions about the Citizens United case. We then discussed the meaning of the "strict scrutiny" test that Justice Kennedy applied to the campaign finance law, and used the Bellotti case to illustrate how strict scrutiny works. Next week I will go over some other recent decisions of the Court. The assignment for Tuesday is to continue working on Assignment #1, which is due a week from today, Thursday 2/11.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
February 2, 2010
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 2/2, I distributed one handout, Assignment #1, which is reproduced below. We began with announcements about the Maine Public Policy Scholars Program and the Graton Constitutional Essay Contest, both programs that are worthy of your attention. After going over the writing assignment due Thursday 2/11, we went on to discussing some points in the Citizens United case, such as the way in which the Supreme Court reached the constitutional issue, the other issues that were discussed in the sections of the opinion that I did not assign, and the role of majority and concurring opinions.
Assignment #1
For this assignment, I would like you to write a paper about your own agreement or disagreement with the two assigned portions of the Citizen’s United decision (Part III of each opinion). Do you agree with Justice Kennedy, or with Justice Stevens (or neither one, or portions of both)? What makes one viewpoint more persuasive than the other?
I’m not looking for an introduction to the case, or a summary of it—all of that is assumed. I’m looking for your recognition of the specific points on which Kennedy and Stevens clash, and a reasoned analysis about why you find one viewpoint more persuasive than the other. The paper should also briefly go over any major points on which the two opinions agree.
The writing should be your own words. I don’t want long quotations dropped into the paper. Any quotations that you use should just be snippets. When you do quote, be sure to provide a page citation. For example, you might write:
Kennedy distinguished some previous cases that did allow speech restrictions based on who was speaking. He said that those cases were all based on allowing governments to “perform their functions”. Kennedy at p. 24.
Make sure that you deal specifically with the issues raised by the party that is opposed to your view of the case. For example, if you think that Steven’s position on the “government functions” cases is correct, how do you answer Kennedy’s points about how those cases are different?
Your papers will not be graded on which view of the case you take, but rather on how well you support your position. The paper will also be graded on how well you write English, and how clearly you organize your thoughts. I like short clear sentences better than long complicated ones. I like correct grammar. I encourage you to use the UM writing center to help with your English.
The paper should be a minimum of 3 pages long, and no more than 5 pages (double spaced). Brevity should be seen as an asset, not a liability. It will be due at the beginning of the class on Thursday, February 11. If you are unable to attend class on that date, you should e-mail the paper to me by the beginning of class. (If your computer uses the newer doc.x format, please copy and paste the paper into the e-mail, rather than attaching it). I will acknowledge receipt of any e-mailed papers--if you don’t get an acknowledgment, that means that I didn’t get the paper. If you do not have the paper done on time, be in touch with me right away.
The work should be entirely your own. See the syllabus regarding plagiarism.
In class today, Tuesday 2/2, I distributed one handout, Assignment #1, which is reproduced below. We began with announcements about the Maine Public Policy Scholars Program and the Graton Constitutional Essay Contest, both programs that are worthy of your attention. After going over the writing assignment due Thursday 2/11, we went on to discussing some points in the Citizens United case, such as the way in which the Supreme Court reached the constitutional issue, the other issues that were discussed in the sections of the opinion that I did not assign, and the role of majority and concurring opinions.
Assignment #1
For this assignment, I would like you to write a paper about your own agreement or disagreement with the two assigned portions of the Citizen’s United decision (Part III of each opinion). Do you agree with Justice Kennedy, or with Justice Stevens (or neither one, or portions of both)? What makes one viewpoint more persuasive than the other?
I’m not looking for an introduction to the case, or a summary of it—all of that is assumed. I’m looking for your recognition of the specific points on which Kennedy and Stevens clash, and a reasoned analysis about why you find one viewpoint more persuasive than the other. The paper should also briefly go over any major points on which the two opinions agree.
The writing should be your own words. I don’t want long quotations dropped into the paper. Any quotations that you use should just be snippets. When you do quote, be sure to provide a page citation. For example, you might write:
Kennedy distinguished some previous cases that did allow speech restrictions based on who was speaking. He said that those cases were all based on allowing governments to “perform their functions”. Kennedy at p. 24.
Make sure that you deal specifically with the issues raised by the party that is opposed to your view of the case. For example, if you think that Steven’s position on the “government functions” cases is correct, how do you answer Kennedy’s points about how those cases are different?
Your papers will not be graded on which view of the case you take, but rather on how well you support your position. The paper will also be graded on how well you write English, and how clearly you organize your thoughts. I like short clear sentences better than long complicated ones. I like correct grammar. I encourage you to use the UM writing center to help with your English.
The paper should be a minimum of 3 pages long, and no more than 5 pages (double spaced). Brevity should be seen as an asset, not a liability. It will be due at the beginning of the class on Thursday, February 11. If you are unable to attend class on that date, you should e-mail the paper to me by the beginning of class. (If your computer uses the newer doc.x format, please copy and paste the paper into the e-mail, rather than attaching it). I will acknowledge receipt of any e-mailed papers--if you don’t get an acknowledgment, that means that I didn’t get the paper. If you do not have the paper done on time, be in touch with me right away.
The work should be entirely your own. See the syllabus regarding plagiarism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)