POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 9/30, I returned the Katko briefs and distributed two handouts; one was the key to the my comments on the Katko brief, and the other was the Maine criminal statute regarding criminal responsibility in situations similar to that in Katko. We went over the Katko briefs, and I stressed the importance of following the case brief format I have assigned. We discussed the use of secondary authority in the Katko opinion (Prosser and the Restatement), and the use of persuasive authority as well (Iowa case with different circumstances --"key facts"--and cases from different jurisdictions). We discussed those things that are not "facts" at all. I went over one additional case, Pappas v. Clark, 494 N.W. 2d 245 (Iowa App. 1992) which rejected recovery for a wrong-doer due to public policy. I went over the Cruzan case, going over particular questions like "citation" and "trial court defense", and then discussing different standards for the burden of persuasion, and the idea of substituted judgment. The assignment for Tuesday 10/5 is to write up and prepare to hand in at the beginning of class the Cruzan brief previously assigned.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
September 28, 2010
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 9/28, I distributed two handouts: my version of the Katko case brief, and the graded assignment for next Tuesday that is reproduced below. We went over the Connecticut v. Doe case, and the began our discussion of the Katko case. We will continue with that case on Thursday. The assignment for Thursday 9/30 is to begin work on the assignment below:
Assignment due at the beginning of class on Tuesday, October 5, 2010
The assignment is to do a Case Brief of the case of Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health. The case can be found on the website of our textbook.
To access the case, go to
http://college.hmco.com/pic/schubert9e
select “instructor companion site”
select “general resources”
select “retired cases”
select Cruzan v. Director
The Brief should be in exactly the format used in the Sample Brief Template distributed in class, and the Case Briefs distributed (AAC, Glucksberg and Katko).
In addition to the usual segments of the brief, though, include a few sentences that explain the view of the Dissenting Justices; no particular format is needed for this section.
Please make two copies of your brief, one to hand in at the beginning of class, and the other for you to have during class for our discussion.
You may e-mail me if you have questions about the brief. The more time that I have to answer our questions, the more likely it is that i can be helpful.
If you cannot be in class on Tuesday 10/5, you should still e-mail me your brief by the beginning of class time. If you do that, you will not have any grade deducted from your grade for the brief. If you do not, you should still contact me as soon as possible to see what options are available to you. (Generally, I do not want to accept assignments after we have discussed them in class). See the Syllabus for the class rules regarding late papers.
IMPORTANT: If you e-mail your paper to me, I will reply to confirm that I have received your assignment. If I do not reply, then I have not received the assignment.
In class today, Tuesday 9/28, I distributed two handouts: my version of the Katko case brief, and the graded assignment for next Tuesday that is reproduced below. We went over the Connecticut v. Doe case, and the began our discussion of the Katko case. We will continue with that case on Thursday. The assignment for Thursday 9/30 is to begin work on the assignment below:
Assignment due at the beginning of class on Tuesday, October 5, 2010
The assignment is to do a Case Brief of the case of Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health. The case can be found on the website of our textbook.
To access the case, go to
http://college.hmco.com/pic/schubert9e
select “instructor companion site”
select “general resources”
select “retired cases”
select Cruzan v. Director
The Brief should be in exactly the format used in the Sample Brief Template distributed in class, and the Case Briefs distributed (AAC, Glucksberg and Katko).
In addition to the usual segments of the brief, though, include a few sentences that explain the view of the Dissenting Justices; no particular format is needed for this section.
Please make two copies of your brief, one to hand in at the beginning of class, and the other for you to have during class for our discussion.
You may e-mail me if you have questions about the brief. The more time that I have to answer our questions, the more likely it is that i can be helpful.
If you cannot be in class on Tuesday 10/5, you should still e-mail me your brief by the beginning of class time. If you do that, you will not have any grade deducted from your grade for the brief. If you do not, you should still contact me as soon as possible to see what options are available to you. (Generally, I do not want to accept assignments after we have discussed them in class). See the Syllabus for the class rules regarding late papers.
IMPORTANT: If you e-mail your paper to me, I will reply to confirm that I have received your assignment. If I do not reply, then I have not received the assignment.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
September 23, 2010
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday, 9/23, we finished going over the case of Lawrence v. Texas. We looked at the flow chart of "fundamental" personal interests and "legitimate" governmental interests, the treatment of precedent such as the Casey case, and the use of "morality" in making law. I also discussed three recent decisions of lower courts that looked to Lawrence in their treatment of various gay rights issues: Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78817 (gay marriage); Log Cabin Republicans v. Gates, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93612 (don't ask, don't tell); and Florida Department of Children and Families v. In re: Matter of Adoption of X.X.G., 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 14014 (gay adoptions). We will continue with Connecticut v. Doe (previously assigned) next Tuesday. The additional assignment for Tuesday 9/28 is to read the rest of Chapter One of the text. Then write out (to be handed in, but not graded) a case brief of the case of Katko v. Briney p. 47. Follow the case brief template that was previously distributed.
In class today, Thursday, 9/23, we finished going over the case of Lawrence v. Texas. We looked at the flow chart of "fundamental" personal interests and "legitimate" governmental interests, the treatment of precedent such as the Casey case, and the use of "morality" in making law. I also discussed three recent decisions of lower courts that looked to Lawrence in their treatment of various gay rights issues: Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78817 (gay marriage); Log Cabin Republicans v. Gates, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93612 (don't ask, don't tell); and Florida Department of Children and Families v. In re: Matter of Adoption of X.X.G., 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 14014 (gay adoptions). We will continue with Connecticut v. Doe (previously assigned) next Tuesday. The additional assignment for Tuesday 9/28 is to read the rest of Chapter One of the text. Then write out (to be handed in, but not graded) a case brief of the case of Katko v. Briney p. 47. Follow the case brief template that was previously distributed.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
September 21, 2010
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 9/21, I distributed one handout, my version of the Issues in the Glucksberg case. I stressed the importance of making sure that you either check your maine.edu e-mail account, or else forward that mail to an account that you do check. We finished going over the Glucksberg case, including a lesson in how a court treats precedent: following, distinguishing, reversing or overruling it. We also went over the difference between concurring in the Opinion of the court, versus concurring just in the court's Judgment. We went over the 1986 decision of Bowers v. Hartwick, and began our discussion of Lawrence v. Texas. We will conclude our discussion of Lawrence on Thursday. The additional assignment for Thursday 9/23 is to read through p. 46 of the text, preparing again (write out, but not to hand in) the Issues in Connecticut v. Doe.
In class today, Tuesday 9/21, I distributed one handout, my version of the Issues in the Glucksberg case. I stressed the importance of making sure that you either check your maine.edu e-mail account, or else forward that mail to an account that you do check. We finished going over the Glucksberg case, including a lesson in how a court treats precedent: following, distinguishing, reversing or overruling it. We also went over the difference between concurring in the Opinion of the court, versus concurring just in the court's Judgment. We went over the 1986 decision of Bowers v. Hartwick, and began our discussion of Lawrence v. Texas. We will conclude our discussion of Lawrence on Thursday. The additional assignment for Thursday 9/23 is to read through p. 46 of the text, preparing again (write out, but not to hand in) the Issues in Connecticut v. Doe.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
September 16, 2010
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 9/16, I distributed one handout, the Maine statute regarding assisted suicide and the penalties for it, and we went over correct citation form for Maine statutes. I went over the history of the Maine referendum question regarding assisted suicide, and the new law in Washington. We discussed the policy and institutional power relationships involved in a federal constitutional challenge to such a state law. We then went into the exact issues raised by Chief Justice Rehnquist: whether the asserted right was "fundamental"; and (since the right to assisted suicide is not fundamental) whether the state ban on assisted suicide is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest. We will pick up next Tuesday with a discussion of the treatment of precedent, and of how Justice Souter characterized the right asserted by the doctors. For next Tuesday, September 21, I have sent e-mails to the class changing the assignment from what I had assigned in class. Instead of reading to the end of Chapter 1, I want you to read the case of Lawrence v. Texas, pp. 82-88 of the text, and take a shot at writing out (not to hand in) the Issues as framed by Justice Kennedy (using our case brief format).
In class today, Thursday 9/16, I distributed one handout, the Maine statute regarding assisted suicide and the penalties for it, and we went over correct citation form for Maine statutes. I went over the history of the Maine referendum question regarding assisted suicide, and the new law in Washington. We discussed the policy and institutional power relationships involved in a federal constitutional challenge to such a state law. We then went into the exact issues raised by Chief Justice Rehnquist: whether the asserted right was "fundamental"; and (since the right to assisted suicide is not fundamental) whether the state ban on assisted suicide is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest. We will pick up next Tuesday with a discussion of the treatment of precedent, and of how Justice Souter characterized the right asserted by the doctors. For next Tuesday, September 21, I have sent e-mails to the class changing the assignment from what I had assigned in class. Instead of reading to the end of Chapter 1, I want you to read the case of Lawrence v. Texas, pp. 82-88 of the text, and take a shot at writing out (not to hand in) the Issues as framed by Justice Kennedy (using our case brief format).
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
September 14, 2010
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 9/14, we continued our discussion of the AAC case and how to brief that case. We looked at the Augusta and Bangor parade ordinances as well, and I went over the First Circuit case of Sullivan v. Augusta from 2007, as well as the 1997 case challenging the Bangor ordinance. The assignment for Thursday 9/16 is to read pp. 28-42 of the text. In addition, write out the Facts, Issues, and Holdings for the majority opinion in Glucksberg (to discuss, but not to hand in.)
In class today, Tuesday 9/14, we continued our discussion of the AAC case and how to brief that case. We looked at the Augusta and Bangor parade ordinances as well, and I went over the First Circuit case of Sullivan v. Augusta from 2007, as well as the 1997 case challenging the Bangor ordinance. The assignment for Thursday 9/16 is to read pp. 28-42 of the text. In addition, write out the Facts, Issues, and Holdings for the majority opinion in Glucksberg (to discuss, but not to hand in.)
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
September 7, 2010
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 9/7, I distributed two handouts, one my Sample Brief of the AAC v. Dearborn case, and the other, excerpts from the Augusta and Bangor parade Ordinances. I began today by discussing the program that the class will watch on Thursday, a history of the 14th Amendment from the end of the Civil War to the time of the New Deal under FDR. Look for issues of Judicial power versus Legislative power, federal power versus state power, and individual rights versus corporate rights. We went over some of the history of the interpretation of the 14th Amendment's three major clauses, Privileges and Immunities, Due Process, and Equal Protection, as well as the doctrine of Incorporation of the Bill of Rights under the Due Process clause. We then went back to the case brief of the AAC v. Dearborn case in the text, and we got through the first of the Issues in the case, the 30 day notice requirement. The class will watch the Supreme Court program on Thursday 9/9, and the we will continue with the AAC brief on Tuesday 9/14. There is no specific assignment for Thursday 9/9, but you certainly could start on the assignment for Tuesday 9/14, which is to review the Sample AAC Brief, and also the look over the Augusta and Bangor Ordinances and decide whether either of those ordinances is subject to the same constitutional shortcomings as the 6th Circuit decided applied to the Dearborn Ordinance.
In class today, Tuesday 9/7, I distributed two handouts, one my Sample Brief of the AAC v. Dearborn case, and the other, excerpts from the Augusta and Bangor parade Ordinances. I began today by discussing the program that the class will watch on Thursday, a history of the 14th Amendment from the end of the Civil War to the time of the New Deal under FDR. Look for issues of Judicial power versus Legislative power, federal power versus state power, and individual rights versus corporate rights. We went over some of the history of the interpretation of the 14th Amendment's three major clauses, Privileges and Immunities, Due Process, and Equal Protection, as well as the doctrine of Incorporation of the Bill of Rights under the Due Process clause. We then went back to the case brief of the AAC v. Dearborn case in the text, and we got through the first of the Issues in the case, the 30 day notice requirement. The class will watch the Supreme Court program on Thursday 9/9, and the we will continue with the AAC brief on Tuesday 9/14. There is no specific assignment for Thursday 9/9, but you certainly could start on the assignment for Tuesday 9/14, which is to review the Sample AAC Brief, and also the look over the Augusta and Bangor Ordinances and decide whether either of those ordinances is subject to the same constitutional shortcomings as the 6th Circuit decided applied to the Dearborn Ordinance.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
September 2, 2010
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 9/2, I distributed one handout, a Sample Brief Template. We then went into a discussion of the ideas in the introductory part of the text. We discussed the recent U.S. District Court decision striking down California's constitutional ban on gay marriage, the concept of "common law", and the idea of equitable relief. I went over the structure of the Federal Court system, and the structure of the Maine Court system. I also went over citation form for the the three levels of the Federal system and the Maine Supreme Court. We then started working together on using the Sample Brief Template to construct a brief of the AAC v. Dearborn case from the text. We got into the "Cause of Action" segment, and will complete the brief next week. The assignment for Tuesday, September 7 is to brief the AAC v. Dearborn case, using the Template to guide you as to what belongs in each segment. The assignment will not be graded or handed in, but it still should be done.
In class today, Thursday 9/2, I distributed one handout, a Sample Brief Template. We then went into a discussion of the ideas in the introductory part of the text. We discussed the recent U.S. District Court decision striking down California's constitutional ban on gay marriage, the concept of "common law", and the idea of equitable relief. I went over the structure of the Federal Court system, and the structure of the Maine Court system. I also went over citation form for the the three levels of the Federal system and the Maine Supreme Court. We then started working together on using the Sample Brief Template to construct a brief of the AAC v. Dearborn case from the text. We got into the "Cause of Action" segment, and will complete the brief next week. The assignment for Tuesday, September 7 is to brief the AAC v. Dearborn case, using the Template to guide you as to what belongs in each segment. The assignment will not be graded or handed in, but it still should be done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)