POS 282--INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 12/8, we finished our discussion of the McIntyre v. Nicastro Supreme Court decision. I then went over two cases regarding the ownership of land in Maine as a basis for personal jurisdiction, Commerce Bank v. Dworman and Tidwell v. Zawacki. We switched to subject-matter jurisdiction, and went over the Edwards v. Direct Access case from the textbook. Finally, I went over a case recently argued before, but not yet decided by, the U.S. Supreme Court, Mims v. Arrow Financial. We will have exam #2, open-book and open-note, at 9:30 - 10:45 on Thursday 12/15. If there is an emergency that prevents your attendance at the exam, you must e-mail me as soon as possible.
POS 359--THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Thursday 12/8, I distributed one handout, the oral argument schedule that the Court has followed for the past two weeks. We spent a little time going over the Zivotofsky paper, which is due by e-mail at noon on Thursday 12/15. I clarified that you must reach and discuss the Congressional power issue, even if your view is that the case is not justiciable. If you would like to get your paper back at the beginning of next semester, let me know. I then went over the highlight reel of the last two weeks' worth of Supreme Court oral arguments. I wish you all a good holiday break.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
December 6, 2011
POS 282--INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 12/6, I handed back the Schroeder case briefs. I also distributed two handouts; the comment key to the briefs, and my own version of the Schroeder brief. The class did class evaluations. We went over the Bohlander personal jurisdiction case. I went over the three methods of obtaining general personal jurisdiction over a defendant, and contrasted general jurisdiction with specific jurisdiction. We then started going over the recent U.S. Supreme Court case of McIntyre v. Nicastro. I discussed the plurality opinion that said it was not enough to foresee that a product would enter the stream of commerce; instead, there must be specific targeting into a particular state. I will contrast this with the concurring and dissenting opinions on Thursday. On Thursday as well I will discuss some Maine personal jurisdiction cases. We will also go over the previously assigned subject-matter jurisdiction case of Edwards. There is no additional reading for Thursday; just review Edwards.
POS 359--THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
UPDATE: The final vote was 6-5 saying that the case was justiciable, and also 6-5 saying that Congress does have the power to direct the State Department in this way. Zivotofsky wins!
In class today, Tuesday 12/6, I distributed one handout, Assignment #3 which is reproduced below. The class filled out class evaluations. We then did our Case Conference. The votes were as follows: 5-3 to find that the case is justiciable; and 4-4 on whether Congress has the power to direct the State Department in this matter. After polling the absent class members, I will update this blog regarding the final vote. That vote will tell you whether you are writing a majority or dissenting opinion for Assignment #3.
Assignment #3
You are the 10th Supreme Court Justice. Your job as a Justice is to write an opinion in the Zivotofsky v. Clinton case.
What you write for an opinion will be based on your view of how the case should be decided. What type of opinion you will be writing (majority; concurring; dissenting; combination) will depend on how the class votes at our case conference on Tuesday 12/6.
Here are some guidelines for writing that I want you to observe:
• You should deal specifically with the issues raised by the side that is opposed to your view of the case. What’s wrong with the positions taken by the other Justices?
• You should have at least three specific references to the oral argument. Your citations to the oral argument transcript should give page and line numbers.
• If it fits into you Opinion, you should include a reference to the class oral argument (posted on the blog) and to the class Case Conference.
• You should deal specifically with both issues that were the issues presented in the case; justiciability (should the Court be hearing this case in the first place?) and distribution of powers (was Congress acting within its powers when it passed the law?)
• You should deal with other sub-issues as you locate them in the briefing and the oral argument.
You should use primarily your own words, quoting only in snippets when the particular words of an exchange or a brief are crucial.
Here’s a fictitious example to demonstrate the format that I’m looking for:
This Court rejects Clinton’s position that the Executive branch has exclusive power to decide what the contents of a passport are. While her brief argues that Congress has no constitutional right to conduct foreign policy, at oral argument Verilli conceded that the Government’s only textual claim was based on the authority of the Executive to receive foreign ambassadors (17:6). This is too thin a reed to bear the weight of exclusive executive passport authority.
The paper should be a minimum of 3 pages long, and no more than 5 pages. Brevity should be seen as an asset, not a liability. It will be due at noon on Thursday December 15. You should e-mail the paper to me by that time. I will acknowledge receipt of papers--if you don’t get an acknowledgment, that means that I didn’t get the paper. See the syllabus for more information, or if you do not have the paper done on time.
The paper will not be graded on whether I agree with your analysis of how the case should be decided, but rather by how well you identify specific sub-issues, evaluate them, and support your position. The paper will also be graded on how well you write English, and how clearly you organize your thoughts. Try using an outline. I encourage you to use the UM writing center to help with your English.
The work should be entirely your own, with no collaboration, and no plagiarism.
In class today, Tuesday 12/6, I handed back the Schroeder case briefs. I also distributed two handouts; the comment key to the briefs, and my own version of the Schroeder brief. The class did class evaluations. We went over the Bohlander personal jurisdiction case. I went over the three methods of obtaining general personal jurisdiction over a defendant, and contrasted general jurisdiction with specific jurisdiction. We then started going over the recent U.S. Supreme Court case of McIntyre v. Nicastro. I discussed the plurality opinion that said it was not enough to foresee that a product would enter the stream of commerce; instead, there must be specific targeting into a particular state. I will contrast this with the concurring and dissenting opinions on Thursday. On Thursday as well I will discuss some Maine personal jurisdiction cases. We will also go over the previously assigned subject-matter jurisdiction case of Edwards. There is no additional reading for Thursday; just review Edwards.
POS 359--THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
UPDATE: The final vote was 6-5 saying that the case was justiciable, and also 6-5 saying that Congress does have the power to direct the State Department in this way. Zivotofsky wins!
In class today, Tuesday 12/6, I distributed one handout, Assignment #3 which is reproduced below. The class filled out class evaluations. We then did our Case Conference. The votes were as follows: 5-3 to find that the case is justiciable; and 4-4 on whether Congress has the power to direct the State Department in this matter. After polling the absent class members, I will update this blog regarding the final vote. That vote will tell you whether you are writing a majority or dissenting opinion for Assignment #3.
Assignment #3
You are the 10th Supreme Court Justice. Your job as a Justice is to write an opinion in the Zivotofsky v. Clinton case.
What you write for an opinion will be based on your view of how the case should be decided. What type of opinion you will be writing (majority; concurring; dissenting; combination) will depend on how the class votes at our case conference on Tuesday 12/6.
Here are some guidelines for writing that I want you to observe:
• You should deal specifically with the issues raised by the side that is opposed to your view of the case. What’s wrong with the positions taken by the other Justices?
• You should have at least three specific references to the oral argument. Your citations to the oral argument transcript should give page and line numbers.
• If it fits into you Opinion, you should include a reference to the class oral argument (posted on the blog) and to the class Case Conference.
• You should deal specifically with both issues that were the issues presented in the case; justiciability (should the Court be hearing this case in the first place?) and distribution of powers (was Congress acting within its powers when it passed the law?)
• You should deal with other sub-issues as you locate them in the briefing and the oral argument.
You should use primarily your own words, quoting only in snippets when the particular words of an exchange or a brief are crucial.
Here’s a fictitious example to demonstrate the format that I’m looking for:
This Court rejects Clinton’s position that the Executive branch has exclusive power to decide what the contents of a passport are. While her brief argues that Congress has no constitutional right to conduct foreign policy, at oral argument Verilli conceded that the Government’s only textual claim was based on the authority of the Executive to receive foreign ambassadors (17:6). This is too thin a reed to bear the weight of exclusive executive passport authority.
The paper should be a minimum of 3 pages long, and no more than 5 pages. Brevity should be seen as an asset, not a liability. It will be due at noon on Thursday December 15. You should e-mail the paper to me by that time. I will acknowledge receipt of papers--if you don’t get an acknowledgment, that means that I didn’t get the paper. See the syllabus for more information, or if you do not have the paper done on time.
The paper will not be graded on whether I agree with your analysis of how the case should be decided, but rather by how well you identify specific sub-issues, evaluate them, and support your position. The paper will also be graded on how well you write English, and how clearly you organize your thoughts. Try using an outline. I encourage you to use the UM writing center to help with your English.
The work should be entirely your own, with no collaboration, and no plagiarism.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
December 1, 2011
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 12/1, the class handed in the Schroeder case briefs, and we went over them. I distributed one handout, hypotheticals which can be used to test which facts were the key ones for the Court. I plan to hand back those Schroeder case briefs on Tuesday. We will also get over the previously assigned Bohlander case on Tuesday. The additional assignment for Tuesday 12/6 is to read the Edwards case on p. 157 of the text.
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 12/1, the class had our own oral argument in the Zivotofsky v. Clinton case. Following is a summary of that oral argument. The assignment for Tuesday 12/6 is to prepare for a judicial conference on the case. The class will share their opinions, try to persuade others, and then vote on how the case will be decided. This vote will form the basis of the final paper assignment, which will be to write an opinion, which will be some form of majority, concurrence, and dissent.
December 1, 2011
ORAL ARGUMENT OF 10-699, ZIVOTOFSKY V. CLINTON
Question 1 (to Clinton advocates): In Israel, there is only one international airport. It was said by government advocates that people would be offended by putting Jerusalem, Israel on passports. My question is whom would it offend in this case? Who would know?
Answer 1: It would offend Palestinians, because there is recognition that Jerusalem is Israel’s territory, and distinctly not Palestine’s. There may be Palestinians traveling through Israel, who are from Jerusalem, and it would identify them as being born in Israel. This land is at dispute between these two different countries. Recognizing the city as distinctly being on one side is playing favorites. This court’s decision will be made public immediately; this information is not private. Everyone could know.
Question 2 (to Clinton advocates): With the executive not wanting or not recognizing the capital of Israel being Jerusalem, isn’t it by default saying that it doesn’t belong to Israel and instead belongs to Palestine?
Answer 2: We believe that the United States should see Jerusalem as neutral, as controlled by neither Palestine nor Israel. Put neither Israel nor Palestine on the passport
Question 3 (To Clinton advocates): Question 4: Do you think the President is the one who should make the decision? It could change every four years. Even the neutrality you suggest is dependent upon future president’s reaffirming it.
Answer 3: We do support the idea that the President should decide. We are trying to maintain diplomatic ties with all countries. I think it is an executive decision. If we stay neutral, we can let them take care of it themselves. It is the position we are in now, and we feel that staying neutral is the best course of action. The executive branch is the best choice when dealing with volatile situations because he doesn’t have to deal with the bureaucracy of a congressional body.
Question 4 (to Clinton advocates): How do Palestinians have an argument when they aren’t recognized as a state? How are you giving a choice if Israel is recognized and Palestine is not? Isn’t cutting funding for a branch of the UN for their recognition of Palestine a bigger show of support than listing a city on a passport?
Answer 4: Just because we don’t recognize Palestine as a state, that doesn’t mean it isn’t an area with a civilization. It doesn’t mean they aren’t dangerous. We want to stay neutral, so we aren’t picking favorites or taking sides, especially in the Middle East. As far as the cutting of the UN branch’s funding, it’s debatable if that is a bigger show of choosing sides.
Question 5: (to Clinton advocates) Do you think Congress has the power of recognition?
Answer 5: No we do not.
Question 6: (to Zivotofsky advocates) What’s the role of Congress in the decision-making process? Congress has exercised power over passports before.
Answer 6: Congress intentionally gave some power to the president, under the assumption that the President has the power to recognize foreign nations.
Question 7: (to Zivotofsky advocates) What about the rest of the world? Is this a bigger reflection about our foreign policy? What happens when foreign airports see these passports?
Answer 7: We are trying to give people a choice. We aren’t trying to decide what Israel owns and what they don’t own. We are giving them the opportunity to say they are from Israel, which they could use in place of Jerusalem on their passports.
Question 8: (to Zivotofsky advocates) What is the line between Presidential and Legislative power? Where does it fall? Would Congress be able to recognize states?
Answer 8: We do believe that this falls within Congress’ power. We aren’t implying that Congress should have full power over foreign relations. The executive has power when it comes to foreign policy. We are looking to maintain recognition.
Question 9: (to Zivotofsky advocates) This isn’t just an Israel / Palestine issue, this passport can travel the world. This is a reflection on our foreign policy to the entire world.
Answer 9: It’s up to the individual American citizen. The passport wouldn’t be offensive; it would only read “Israel”.
Question 10 (to Zivotofsky advocates): In your ideal ruling what is the line between the President and Congress on the issue of passports?
Answer 10: Congress has all power over passports.
In class today, Thursday 12/1, the class handed in the Schroeder case briefs, and we went over them. I distributed one handout, hypotheticals which can be used to test which facts were the key ones for the Court. I plan to hand back those Schroeder case briefs on Tuesday. We will also get over the previously assigned Bohlander case on Tuesday. The additional assignment for Tuesday 12/6 is to read the Edwards case on p. 157 of the text.
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 12/1, the class had our own oral argument in the Zivotofsky v. Clinton case. Following is a summary of that oral argument. The assignment for Tuesday 12/6 is to prepare for a judicial conference on the case. The class will share their opinions, try to persuade others, and then vote on how the case will be decided. This vote will form the basis of the final paper assignment, which will be to write an opinion, which will be some form of majority, concurrence, and dissent.
December 1, 2011
ORAL ARGUMENT OF 10-699, ZIVOTOFSKY V. CLINTON
Question 1 (to Clinton advocates): In Israel, there is only one international airport. It was said by government advocates that people would be offended by putting Jerusalem, Israel on passports. My question is whom would it offend in this case? Who would know?
Answer 1: It would offend Palestinians, because there is recognition that Jerusalem is Israel’s territory, and distinctly not Palestine’s. There may be Palestinians traveling through Israel, who are from Jerusalem, and it would identify them as being born in Israel. This land is at dispute between these two different countries. Recognizing the city as distinctly being on one side is playing favorites. This court’s decision will be made public immediately; this information is not private. Everyone could know.
Question 2 (to Clinton advocates): With the executive not wanting or not recognizing the capital of Israel being Jerusalem, isn’t it by default saying that it doesn’t belong to Israel and instead belongs to Palestine?
Answer 2: We believe that the United States should see Jerusalem as neutral, as controlled by neither Palestine nor Israel. Put neither Israel nor Palestine on the passport
Question 3 (To Clinton advocates): Question 4: Do you think the President is the one who should make the decision? It could change every four years. Even the neutrality you suggest is dependent upon future president’s reaffirming it.
Answer 3: We do support the idea that the President should decide. We are trying to maintain diplomatic ties with all countries. I think it is an executive decision. If we stay neutral, we can let them take care of it themselves. It is the position we are in now, and we feel that staying neutral is the best course of action. The executive branch is the best choice when dealing with volatile situations because he doesn’t have to deal with the bureaucracy of a congressional body.
Question 4 (to Clinton advocates): How do Palestinians have an argument when they aren’t recognized as a state? How are you giving a choice if Israel is recognized and Palestine is not? Isn’t cutting funding for a branch of the UN for their recognition of Palestine a bigger show of support than listing a city on a passport?
Answer 4: Just because we don’t recognize Palestine as a state, that doesn’t mean it isn’t an area with a civilization. It doesn’t mean they aren’t dangerous. We want to stay neutral, so we aren’t picking favorites or taking sides, especially in the Middle East. As far as the cutting of the UN branch’s funding, it’s debatable if that is a bigger show of choosing sides.
Question 5: (to Clinton advocates) Do you think Congress has the power of recognition?
Answer 5: No we do not.
Question 6: (to Zivotofsky advocates) What’s the role of Congress in the decision-making process? Congress has exercised power over passports before.
Answer 6: Congress intentionally gave some power to the president, under the assumption that the President has the power to recognize foreign nations.
Question 7: (to Zivotofsky advocates) What about the rest of the world? Is this a bigger reflection about our foreign policy? What happens when foreign airports see these passports?
Answer 7: We are trying to give people a choice. We aren’t trying to decide what Israel owns and what they don’t own. We are giving them the opportunity to say they are from Israel, which they could use in place of Jerusalem on their passports.
Question 8: (to Zivotofsky advocates) What is the line between Presidential and Legislative power? Where does it fall? Would Congress be able to recognize states?
Answer 8: We do believe that this falls within Congress’ power. We aren’t implying that Congress should have full power over foreign relations. The executive has power when it comes to foreign policy. We are looking to maintain recognition.
Question 9: (to Zivotofsky advocates) This isn’t just an Israel / Palestine issue, this passport can travel the world. This is a reflection on our foreign policy to the entire world.
Answer 9: It’s up to the individual American citizen. The passport wouldn’t be offensive; it would only read “Israel”.
Question 10 (to Zivotofsky advocates): In your ideal ruling what is the line between the President and Congress on the issue of passports?
Answer 10: Congress has all power over passports.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)