POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
Today, Wednesday 2/27, the class took Exam #1. I will return the exams on Friday, and we will go over them. The additional reading for Friday 3/1 is to read through p. 62 of the text (Mobbley).
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
Today, Wednesday 2/27, the class took Exam #1. I will return the exams on Friday, and we will go over them. The additional reading for Friday 3/1 is to read pp. 197-202 of the text (Schenck).
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Monday, February 25, 2013
February 25, 2013
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Monday 2/25, we started with the various opinions in the 1972 case of Furman v. Georgia. We then went over the case of Gregg v. Georgia in detail, looking at the plurality decision and the two dissents. I then discussed some of the more recent cruel and unusual cases: Coker v. Georgia, Atkins v. Virginia, Roper v. Simmons, Graham v. Florida, and Miller v. Alabama. On Wednesday 2/27 we will have Exam #1, open-book and open-note. Please be in touch with me as soon as possible if you will not be able to make it to class on Wednesday (the window for a make-up exam is very small). We will then go over the exam on Friday 3/1.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 2/25, we went over the case of Moore v. Madigan. We basically compared and contrasted the opinions of the majority and the dissenting opinions. I also discussed the Second Circuit case of Kachalsky v. Westchester. On Wednesday 2/27 we will have Exam #1, open-book and open-note. Please be in touch with me as soon as possible if you will not be able to make it to class on Wednesday (the window for a make-up exam is very small). We will then go over the exam on Friday 3/1.
In class today, Monday 2/25, we started with the various opinions in the 1972 case of Furman v. Georgia. We then went over the case of Gregg v. Georgia in detail, looking at the plurality decision and the two dissents. I then discussed some of the more recent cruel and unusual cases: Coker v. Georgia, Atkins v. Virginia, Roper v. Simmons, Graham v. Florida, and Miller v. Alabama. On Wednesday 2/27 we will have Exam #1, open-book and open-note. Please be in touch with me as soon as possible if you will not be able to make it to class on Wednesday (the window for a make-up exam is very small). We will then go over the exam on Friday 3/1.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 2/25, we went over the case of Moore v. Madigan. We basically compared and contrasted the opinions of the majority and the dissenting opinions. I also discussed the Second Circuit case of Kachalsky v. Westchester. On Wednesday 2/27 we will have Exam #1, open-book and open-note. Please be in touch with me as soon as possible if you will not be able to make it to class on Wednesday (the window for a make-up exam is very small). We will then go over the exam on Friday 3/1.
Friday, February 22, 2013
February 22, 2013
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Friday 2/22, we continued our discussion of Suggs v. Norris. We went through the three basic issues discussed by the Court. We examined the types of authority relied on by the Court to decide the policy issue of whether any contract like this one with an unmarried couple would be enforceable, and then looked at the evidentiary issues regarding the the characterization of this contract, and the evidence about whether there was such a contract in the circumstances of this case. We will start with the case of Gregg v. Georgia, previously assigned, on Monday.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Friday 2/22, I distributed two handouts; an article about the actual limitations imposed by Heller, and an abridged version of the recent Seventh Circuit gun rights case of Moore v. Madigan. We finished our discussion of the Heller case, going over both the methods used by the Court in determining the meaning of the Second Amendment, and the specific restrictions that were put beyond governmental power to abridge. I then very briefly went over the incorporation of this Bill of Rights protection to the states in the McDonald case. The assignment for Monday 2/25 is to read and prepare to discuss the Moore v. Madigan handout. If you missed class today, you can (and should) email me to have me send you the edited version of the Opinion. Alternatively, you can read the unedited version of the 12/11/12 Moore v. Madigan Opinion available from Lexis.
In class today, Friday 2/22, we continued our discussion of Suggs v. Norris. We went through the three basic issues discussed by the Court. We examined the types of authority relied on by the Court to decide the policy issue of whether any contract like this one with an unmarried couple would be enforceable, and then looked at the evidentiary issues regarding the the characterization of this contract, and the evidence about whether there was such a contract in the circumstances of this case. We will start with the case of Gregg v. Georgia, previously assigned, on Monday.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Friday 2/22, I distributed two handouts; an article about the actual limitations imposed by Heller, and an abridged version of the recent Seventh Circuit gun rights case of Moore v. Madigan. We finished our discussion of the Heller case, going over both the methods used by the Court in determining the meaning of the Second Amendment, and the specific restrictions that were put beyond governmental power to abridge. I then very briefly went over the incorporation of this Bill of Rights protection to the states in the McDonald case. The assignment for Monday 2/25 is to read and prepare to discuss the Moore v. Madigan handout. If you missed class today, you can (and should) email me to have me send you the edited version of the Opinion. Alternatively, you can read the unedited version of the 12/11/12 Moore v. Madigan Opinion available from Lexis.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
February 20, 2013
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Wednesday 2/20, I distributed one handout, my version of the Smith case brief. We first did an exercise applying the Maine statute regarding use of force in defense of premises to the current case of the South African runner Oscar Pistorius. We then went back to the Smith case, going through the brief of that case. We began the Suggs case, getting to the Cause of Action in that case. We will continue with Suggs on Friday. The assignment for Friday 2/22 is to read through p. 56 of the text, Gregg v. Georgia.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Wednesday 2/20, I distributed one handout, the Maine statute regarding persons in Maine who are not allowed to possess firearms. I went over the history of the Maine constitutional provision regarding the right to keep and bear arms. We went over the case of State v. Friel, the 1987 constitutional amendment, and then State v. Brown. We then began our discussion of D.C. v. Heller, getting through that part of the decision that decided that the right protected was an individual right, not a militia-related collective defense right. We will pick up on Friday with the nature of that individual right, and the limitations on the right. The assignment for Friday 2/22 is to review Heller, previously assigned.
In class today, Wednesday 2/20, I distributed one handout, my version of the Smith case brief. We first did an exercise applying the Maine statute regarding use of force in defense of premises to the current case of the South African runner Oscar Pistorius. We then went back to the Smith case, going through the brief of that case. We began the Suggs case, getting to the Cause of Action in that case. We will continue with Suggs on Friday. The assignment for Friday 2/22 is to read through p. 56 of the text, Gregg v. Georgia.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Wednesday 2/20, I distributed one handout, the Maine statute regarding persons in Maine who are not allowed to possess firearms. I went over the history of the Maine constitutional provision regarding the right to keep and bear arms. We went over the case of State v. Friel, the 1987 constitutional amendment, and then State v. Brown. We then began our discussion of D.C. v. Heller, getting through that part of the decision that decided that the right protected was an individual right, not a militia-related collective defense right. We will pick up on Friday with the nature of that individual right, and the limitations on the right. The assignment for Friday 2/22 is to review Heller, previously assigned.
Monday, February 18, 2013
February 18, 2013
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Monday 2/18, I reminded the class that we would have Exam #1, open-book and open-note, on Wednesday, 2/27. We finished up our look at the Maine statutes regarding use of force in defense of premises and property. we began our discussion of the Smith case, getting up to the prior proceedings in the case. We will continue with the remainder of Smith on Wednesday. The additional assignment for Wednesday 2/20 is to read the remainder of Chapter 1 of the text, pp. 42-45 (Suggs v. Norris).
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 2/18, I reminded the class that we would have Exam #1, open-book and open-note, on Wednesday, 2/27. I handed back the Free Exercise papers, and we briefly went over them. I went over the decision by the Law Court in the invasion of privacy case (Strong) that we listened to last week. I also finished the discussion of Hibbs and Coleman that we had started earlier regarding congruence and proportionality, and pointed out how the two different results in those cases made no sense really to any of the Justices. We began our discussion of the Second Amendment with some sharing of opinions about what policies made sense for control of guns. We will continue on Wednesday 2/20 with an examination of D.C. v. Heller, previously assigned.
In class today, Monday 2/18, I reminded the class that we would have Exam #1, open-book and open-note, on Wednesday, 2/27. We finished up our look at the Maine statutes regarding use of force in defense of premises and property. we began our discussion of the Smith case, getting up to the prior proceedings in the case. We will continue with the remainder of Smith on Wednesday. The additional assignment for Wednesday 2/20 is to read the remainder of Chapter 1 of the text, pp. 42-45 (Suggs v. Norris).
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 2/18, I reminded the class that we would have Exam #1, open-book and open-note, on Wednesday, 2/27. I handed back the Free Exercise papers, and we briefly went over them. I went over the decision by the Law Court in the invasion of privacy case (Strong) that we listened to last week. I also finished the discussion of Hibbs and Coleman that we had started earlier regarding congruence and proportionality, and pointed out how the two different results in those cases made no sense really to any of the Justices. We began our discussion of the Second Amendment with some sharing of opinions about what policies made sense for control of guns. We will continue on Wednesday 2/20 with an examination of D.C. v. Heller, previously assigned.
Friday, February 15, 2013
February 15, 2013
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Friday 2/15, we started by finishing off the Katko case. We discussed the punitive damages issue, both as the majority and as the dissent dealt with it, and then went back and looked at the question of intent. We went through the four levels of mental state defined by Maine law, ranging from intent down to negligence. We then turned to the Maine statutes regarding the uses of force in defense of premises and in defense of property. We went over proper Maine statutory citation form. We looked at the definitions of deadly and non-deadly force, and also the force that is justified in defense of property. We will pick up with the justification regarding defense of premises on Monday. The assignment for Monday 2/18 is to review at Maine statutory handout, and to review the Smith case, previously assigned.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Friday 2/15, I collected the Free Exercise papers. I also distributed one more handout with an article about gun rights. We spent the class going over the parts of the Free Exercise paper. I plan to return the papers on Monday. The assignment for Monday 2/18 is to read pp. 387-396 of the text.
In class today, Friday 2/15, we started by finishing off the Katko case. We discussed the punitive damages issue, both as the majority and as the dissent dealt with it, and then went back and looked at the question of intent. We went through the four levels of mental state defined by Maine law, ranging from intent down to negligence. We then turned to the Maine statutes regarding the uses of force in defense of premises and in defense of property. We went over proper Maine statutory citation form. We looked at the definitions of deadly and non-deadly force, and also the force that is justified in defense of property. We will pick up with the justification regarding defense of premises on Monday. The assignment for Monday 2/18 is to review at Maine statutory handout, and to review the Smith case, previously assigned.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Friday 2/15, I collected the Free Exercise papers. I also distributed one more handout with an article about gun rights. We spent the class going over the parts of the Free Exercise paper. I plan to return the papers on Monday. The assignment for Monday 2/18 is to read pp. 387-396 of the text.
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
February 13, 2013
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Wednesday 2/13, I distributed two handouts: an article about law school reform (it's just for your information--not on the test), and the Maine statutes regarding use of force in defense of premises and property. We the launched back into Katko. We discussed the idea of common law, jury instructions, and the meaning of a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. We went over the different kinds of authority looked at by the Iowa Court. We looked at primary authority versus secondary authority; mandatory authority versus persuasive authority; and distinguishing, following and extending precedent. We will begin on Friday with the Court's discussion of punitive damages. The assignment for Friday 2/15 is to review Katko, (one more time) including the dissent, look at the Maine statute I passed out and think about how the Katko facts would be resolved under that statute, and also read and prepare to discuss Smith v. Idaho, p. 34.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Wednesday 2/13, I distributed five handouts: one about the Law Court oral argument that we listened to today, and four articles about gun control. We the listened to the live stream of today's oral argument in State v. Strong, regarding the reach of the Maine statute against videotaping people in settings in which they have an expectation of privacy. I then clarified some questions that students had about the Free Exercise paper. For the first section of the paper, I do want the specific points made by Scalia. You can pretty much go paragraph by paragraph through his opinion. In grading, I will be asking whether you demonstrated an understanding of what points he's making, and what points O'Connor makes in response. For the second part, I am looking for an analysis under the Free Exercise Clause; but Korte did have other Causes of Action, and to the extent that you find those other Causes of Action to be significant to your Free Exercise discussion, they can play a role in your answer. For the third section, you have free reign to come up with an interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause that makes sense to you, but you should be clear as to how you are treating precedent: following distinguishing, overruling. etc., the major theories of how the Clause should be interpreted. The assignment for Friday 2/15 is to finish the Free Exercise paper (due at the beginning of Friday's class) and also to read the handouts on gun control.
In class today, Wednesday 2/13, I distributed two handouts: an article about law school reform (it's just for your information--not on the test), and the Maine statutes regarding use of force in defense of premises and property. We the launched back into Katko. We discussed the idea of common law, jury instructions, and the meaning of a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. We went over the different kinds of authority looked at by the Iowa Court. We looked at primary authority versus secondary authority; mandatory authority versus persuasive authority; and distinguishing, following and extending precedent. We will begin on Friday with the Court's discussion of punitive damages. The assignment for Friday 2/15 is to review Katko, (one more time) including the dissent, look at the Maine statute I passed out and think about how the Katko facts would be resolved under that statute, and also read and prepare to discuss Smith v. Idaho, p. 34.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Wednesday 2/13, I distributed five handouts: one about the Law Court oral argument that we listened to today, and four articles about gun control. We the listened to the live stream of today's oral argument in State v. Strong, regarding the reach of the Maine statute against videotaping people in settings in which they have an expectation of privacy. I then clarified some questions that students had about the Free Exercise paper. For the first section of the paper, I do want the specific points made by Scalia. You can pretty much go paragraph by paragraph through his opinion. In grading, I will be asking whether you demonstrated an understanding of what points he's making, and what points O'Connor makes in response. For the second part, I am looking for an analysis under the Free Exercise Clause; but Korte did have other Causes of Action, and to the extent that you find those other Causes of Action to be significant to your Free Exercise discussion, they can play a role in your answer. For the third section, you have free reign to come up with an interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause that makes sense to you, but you should be clear as to how you are treating precedent: following distinguishing, overruling. etc., the major theories of how the Clause should be interpreted. The assignment for Friday 2/15 is to finish the Free Exercise paper (due at the beginning of Friday's class) and also to read the handouts on gun control.
Monday, February 11, 2013
February 11, 2013
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Monday 2/11, I distributed two handouts: my version of the Prescott case brief, and the Prescott Comment Key. I returned the Prescott case briefs.I announced that the plan is to have the first exam on Wednesday, February 27th. We went over the Prescott case brief, emphasizing what makes a brief useful in the first place. I also talked about the difference between an objective test versus a subjective test, regarding the feeling of being compelled to answer questions. We discussed how the police might use the lessons of the Prescott case to conduct a more admissible interrogation of a suspect. We then began our discussion of the Katko case. We talked about the story of the case, and got through the cause of action. We will pick up at that point on Wednesday. The assignment for Wednesday 2/13 is to review the Katko opinion (again).
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 2/11, I distributed one handout, a newspaper article regarding guns on the campus of University of Colorado. We reviewed the majority opinion in Boerne, and then went through all of the concurring and dissenting opinions. I went over two follow-up cases regarding the scope of Congress' Section 5 power, Hibbs and Coleman . We will finish those two cases on Wednesday. The assignment for Wednesday 2/13 is to read the distributed article, and to continue work on your Free Expression paper, previously assigned, due Friday 2/15.
In class today, Monday 2/11, I distributed two handouts: my version of the Prescott case brief, and the Prescott Comment Key. I returned the Prescott case briefs.I announced that the plan is to have the first exam on Wednesday, February 27th. We went over the Prescott case brief, emphasizing what makes a brief useful in the first place. I also talked about the difference between an objective test versus a subjective test, regarding the feeling of being compelled to answer questions. We discussed how the police might use the lessons of the Prescott case to conduct a more admissible interrogation of a suspect. We then began our discussion of the Katko case. We talked about the story of the case, and got through the cause of action. We will pick up at that point on Wednesday. The assignment for Wednesday 2/13 is to review the Katko opinion (again).
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 2/11, I distributed one handout, a newspaper article regarding guns on the campus of University of Colorado. We reviewed the majority opinion in Boerne, and then went through all of the concurring and dissenting opinions. I went over two follow-up cases regarding the scope of Congress' Section 5 power, Hibbs and Coleman . We will finish those two cases on Wednesday. The assignment for Wednesday 2/13 is to read the distributed article, and to continue work on your Free Expression paper, previously assigned, due Friday 2/15.
Friday, February 8, 2013
February 8, 2013
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today. Friday 2/8, I collected the Prescott briefs, and we discussed them pretty much the entire class period. I plan on returning them on Monday (barring a heart attack from shoveling). The assignment for Monday 2/11 is to review Katko, previously assigned.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today Friday 2/8, I distributed two handouts: one was Assignment #1, reproduced below, which will be due at the beginning of class on Friday 2/15. We went over the requirements of the assignment. The second handout was a ballot for the class to decide what subjects you want to cover (in addition to free speech) for the remainder of the semester. The winners were (in order of votes) the Second Amendment, the right to be free from discrimination, and the freedom of the press. We then discussed the Boerne case, trying to translate into English exactly what the Court found that Congress had done wrong. We will continue with Boerne and its progeny on Monday. The assignment for Monday 2/11 is to begin work on the assignment, and to review Boerne.
Assignment #1
For this assignment, I'm asking you to do some explication and discussion of the Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence that we've covered. I’m asking you for three brief sections, identified as such (number the sections of your responses).
First, I would like you to make a “he said” (Scalia) /“she said” (O’Connor) chart of Smith. Using your own words, briefly identify each proposition of Scalia in the case (use the order in which he presented them in his opinion), and then identify O’Connor’s response.
You should be listing such areas as the nature of the protections offered by the Free Exercise Clause, treatment of precedent (in detail), the nature of the scrutiny to which government policies are subjected, etc. It’s pretty much paragraph by paragraph in Scalia’s opinion. Then list O’Connor’s response. If she doesn’t have one, but Blackmun does, use his (and indicate that you’re doing so).
Here’s an (inaccurate) example of what I’m looking for:
Scalia:
1. The Free Exercise Clause protects only beliefs, never actions.
O’Connor:
1. No, the Free Exercise Clause protects all actions, as long as the actions are religiously motivated.
Second, start with the facts of the Korte case. Using the Free Exercise clause (instead of RFRA) make the best argument that you can that the Kortes should prevail under Smith. In other words, can you in some way distinguish Smith? Use particular concepts or language from Scalia’s opinion to make your point.
Third, briefly give (and explain) your own opinion about whether the Kortes should win their case under the Free Exercise Clause. If they should win, is this because Smith should be distinguished (as you’ve tried to do in Part Two); because Smith uses the wrong test; etc. Explain how you think the Free Exercise Clause should apply to their situation, being free to follow, distinguish, overrule precedent at will (in other words, pretend that you’re Justice Thomas).
Your papers will not be graded on which view of the issues you take, but rather on how well you complete the assignment and 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.
The paper should be a minimum of 2 pages long, and no more than 3 pages (double spaced). Brevity should be seen as an asset, not a liability. Just respond to the questions I’ve asked, rather than providing an introduction of any sort.
The paper will be due at the beginning of the class on Friday, February 15. If you are unable to attend class on that date, you should e-mail the paper to me by the beginning of class. 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, with no collaboration or plagiarism. If you have any questions about what it is that I am looking for, I’m the person to contact. See the syllabus regarding plagiarism and collaboration.
In class today. Friday 2/8, I collected the Prescott briefs, and we discussed them pretty much the entire class period. I plan on returning them on Monday (barring a heart attack from shoveling). The assignment for Monday 2/11 is to review Katko, previously assigned.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today Friday 2/8, I distributed two handouts: one was Assignment #1, reproduced below, which will be due at the beginning of class on Friday 2/15. We went over the requirements of the assignment. The second handout was a ballot for the class to decide what subjects you want to cover (in addition to free speech) for the remainder of the semester. The winners were (in order of votes) the Second Amendment, the right to be free from discrimination, and the freedom of the press. We then discussed the Boerne case, trying to translate into English exactly what the Court found that Congress had done wrong. We will continue with Boerne and its progeny on Monday. The assignment for Monday 2/11 is to begin work on the assignment, and to review Boerne.
Assignment #1
For this assignment, I'm asking you to do some explication and discussion of the Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence that we've covered. I’m asking you for three brief sections, identified as such (number the sections of your responses).
First, I would like you to make a “he said” (Scalia) /“she said” (O’Connor) chart of Smith. Using your own words, briefly identify each proposition of Scalia in the case (use the order in which he presented them in his opinion), and then identify O’Connor’s response.
You should be listing such areas as the nature of the protections offered by the Free Exercise Clause, treatment of precedent (in detail), the nature of the scrutiny to which government policies are subjected, etc. It’s pretty much paragraph by paragraph in Scalia’s opinion. Then list O’Connor’s response. If she doesn’t have one, but Blackmun does, use his (and indicate that you’re doing so).
Here’s an (inaccurate) example of what I’m looking for:
Scalia:
1. The Free Exercise Clause protects only beliefs, never actions.
O’Connor:
1. No, the Free Exercise Clause protects all actions, as long as the actions are religiously motivated.
Second, start with the facts of the Korte case. Using the Free Exercise clause (instead of RFRA) make the best argument that you can that the Kortes should prevail under Smith. In other words, can you in some way distinguish Smith? Use particular concepts or language from Scalia’s opinion to make your point.
Third, briefly give (and explain) your own opinion about whether the Kortes should win their case under the Free Exercise Clause. If they should win, is this because Smith should be distinguished (as you’ve tried to do in Part Two); because Smith uses the wrong test; etc. Explain how you think the Free Exercise Clause should apply to their situation, being free to follow, distinguish, overrule precedent at will (in other words, pretend that you’re Justice Thomas).
Your papers will not be graded on which view of the issues you take, but rather on how well you complete the assignment and 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.
The paper should be a minimum of 2 pages long, and no more than 3 pages (double spaced). Brevity should be seen as an asset, not a liability. Just respond to the questions I’ve asked, rather than providing an introduction of any sort.
The paper will be due at the beginning of the class on Friday, February 15. If you are unable to attend class on that date, you should e-mail the paper to me by the beginning of class. 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, with no collaboration or plagiarism. If you have any questions about what it is that I am looking for, I’m the person to contact. See the syllabus regarding plagiarism and collaboration.
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
February 6, 2013
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Wednesday 2/6, I distributed two handouts: one was an explanation of the kind of things that can be a "fact" in a case brief, and the other was my version of the Katko case brief. We spent most of the class going over Prescott, making sure that everyone understood what the Court was deciding, and what the "facts" for the case brief would look like. We did manage to finish our discussion of Glucksberg. The assignment for Friday 2/8 is to finish the Prescott case brief, due at the beginning of class, and also review Katko. The question was also asked about what would happen if all UMaine classes were cancelled on Friday on account of snow. In that unlikely event, I decided, the assignment will not be due until Monday. See you Friday.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Wednesday 2/6, I distributed one handout, a critique of Hosanna-Tabor. We finished our discussion of the the concurring and dissenting opinions in Smith, and then went on to Hosanna-Tabor and the way in which it distinguished Smith. On Friday, we will return to the fallout from Smith, RFRA and then Boerne. On Friday I also plan to distribute Assignment #1. We will also look at what particular civil rights the class would like to concentrate on for the upcoming weeks (e.g., establishment clause, free press, second amendment). The assignment for Friday 2/8 is to read today's handout, and to review City of Boerne, previously assigned.
In class today, Wednesday 2/6, I distributed two handouts: one was an explanation of the kind of things that can be a "fact" in a case brief, and the other was my version of the Katko case brief. We spent most of the class going over Prescott, making sure that everyone understood what the Court was deciding, and what the "facts" for the case brief would look like. We did manage to finish our discussion of Glucksberg. The assignment for Friday 2/8 is to finish the Prescott case brief, due at the beginning of class, and also review Katko. The question was also asked about what would happen if all UMaine classes were cancelled on Friday on account of snow. In that unlikely event, I decided, the assignment will not be due until Monday. See you Friday.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Wednesday 2/6, I distributed one handout, a critique of Hosanna-Tabor. We finished our discussion of the the concurring and dissenting opinions in Smith, and then went on to Hosanna-Tabor and the way in which it distinguished Smith. On Friday, we will return to the fallout from Smith, RFRA and then Boerne. On Friday I also plan to distribute Assignment #1. We will also look at what particular civil rights the class would like to concentrate on for the upcoming weeks (e.g., establishment clause, free press, second amendment). The assignment for Friday 2/8 is to read today's handout, and to review City of Boerne, previously assigned.
Monday, February 4, 2013
February 4, 2013
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Monday 2/4, we continued our discussion of Glucksberg and the Glucksberg case brief. We went over the arguments regarding fundamental rights, and the different ways that the holdings of prior cases could be expanded or limited. We will continue on Wednesday with rational basis review of the Washington law. The assignment for Wednesday 2/6 is to review Glucksberg, review Katko, (previously assigned) and continue your work on the Prescott case brief, due Friday 2/8.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 2/4,we reviewed Scalia's opinion in Smith, and then went through O'Connor's criticism of that opinion. We made a chart of winning and losing free exercise claims, and looked at how both Scalia and O'Connor categorized them. We will continue on Wednesday with how O'Connor ended up concurring, rather than dissenting, in Smith, and also look at the views of the dissenting Justices. The additional reading assignment for Wednesday 2/6 is to read pp.191-196 of the text, the Hosanna-Tabor case, with particular emphasis on the discussion about Smith on p. 194.
In class today, Monday 2/4, we continued our discussion of Glucksberg and the Glucksberg case brief. We went over the arguments regarding fundamental rights, and the different ways that the holdings of prior cases could be expanded or limited. We will continue on Wednesday with rational basis review of the Washington law. The assignment for Wednesday 2/6 is to review Glucksberg, review Katko, (previously assigned) and continue your work on the Prescott case brief, due Friday 2/8.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 2/4,we reviewed Scalia's opinion in Smith, and then went through O'Connor's criticism of that opinion. We made a chart of winning and losing free exercise claims, and looked at how both Scalia and O'Connor categorized them. We will continue on Wednesday with how O'Connor ended up concurring, rather than dissenting, in Smith, and also look at the views of the dissenting Justices. The additional reading assignment for Wednesday 2/6 is to read pp.191-196 of the text, the Hosanna-Tabor case, with particular emphasis on the discussion about Smith on p. 194.
Friday, February 1, 2013
February 1, 2013
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Friday 2/1, I distributed two handouts: my version of the Glucksberg case brief, and Assignment #1, reproduced below. I discussed the assignment, going over the concepts involved in Miranda and in the Terry investigatory stop. I finished going over the opinions in the Brown v. EMA Supreme Court case. We began our discussion of the Glucksberg case brief, getting up to the Plaintiff's Cause of Action, which is where we'll pick up next Monday. The assignment for Monday 2/4 is to review the Glucksberg case brief, read and do a brief for yourself of the textbook case of Katko v. Briney, pp. 38-41, and begin work on the graded Prescott case brief
Assignment due Friday, February 8, 2013
The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the case of State v. Prescott, 2012 ME 96, 48 A3d. 218. The case can be found on the website of the Maine Supreme Court.
To access the case, go to
http://www.courts.state.me.us/opinions_orders/supreme/publishedopinions.shtml
--scroll down to “Previous years’ opinions”
--select 2012 ME 96, State of Maine v. Rachel Prescott, (7/17/12)
Brief all of the issues that you determine that the Court ruled on.
Follow the format from the Sample Briefs that I’ve distributed. Note especially that the Facts, Issues, and Holding are copied and pasted. Everything that you put into the Fact section should appear exactly in your Issue and Holding sections as well. Your Issue and Holding sections should be identical to each other, except that the issue is a question, and the Holding is the answer to that question. Your briefs will be evaluated on the format, as well as the specific content.
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 specific questions about the brief. The more time that I have to answer your questions, the more likely it is that I can be helpful.
If you cannot be in class on Friday 2/8, 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.
Remember to work by yourselves; do not collaborate.
IMPORTANT: If you e-mail your brief 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.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Friday 2/1, we went over the Yoder case, and then Thomas (p. 112) and Lee (p. 113). We went over the conflict involved when an individual asserts that the government may not prohibit him or her from engaging in activity, and contrasted that with the conflicts involved in separation of powers questions, and federalism questions. We then went over the Smith majority opinion, in which we came to understand that we had failed to understand all along the correct question to be asking. We will continue with the concurring and dissenting Smith opinions on Monday. The additional assignment for Monday 2/4 is to read through p. 128 of the text.
In class today, Friday 2/1, I distributed two handouts: my version of the Glucksberg case brief, and Assignment #1, reproduced below. I discussed the assignment, going over the concepts involved in Miranda and in the Terry investigatory stop. I finished going over the opinions in the Brown v. EMA Supreme Court case. We began our discussion of the Glucksberg case brief, getting up to the Plaintiff's Cause of Action, which is where we'll pick up next Monday. The assignment for Monday 2/4 is to review the Glucksberg case brief, read and do a brief for yourself of the textbook case of Katko v. Briney, pp. 38-41, and begin work on the graded Prescott case brief
Assignment due Friday, February 8, 2013
The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the case of State v. Prescott, 2012 ME 96, 48 A3d. 218. The case can be found on the website of the Maine Supreme Court.
To access the case, go to
http://www.courts.state.me.us/opinions_orders/supreme/publishedopinions.shtml
--scroll down to “Previous years’ opinions”
--select 2012 ME 96, State of Maine v. Rachel Prescott, (7/17/12)
Brief all of the issues that you determine that the Court ruled on.
Follow the format from the Sample Briefs that I’ve distributed. Note especially that the Facts, Issues, and Holding are copied and pasted. Everything that you put into the Fact section should appear exactly in your Issue and Holding sections as well. Your Issue and Holding sections should be identical to each other, except that the issue is a question, and the Holding is the answer to that question. Your briefs will be evaluated on the format, as well as the specific content.
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 specific questions about the brief. The more time that I have to answer your questions, the more likely it is that I can be helpful.
If you cannot be in class on Friday 2/8, 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.
Remember to work by yourselves; do not collaborate.
IMPORTANT: If you e-mail your brief 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.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Friday 2/1, we went over the Yoder case, and then Thomas (p. 112) and Lee (p. 113). We went over the conflict involved when an individual asserts that the government may not prohibit him or her from engaging in activity, and contrasted that with the conflicts involved in separation of powers questions, and federalism questions. We then went over the Smith majority opinion, in which we came to understand that we had failed to understand all along the correct question to be asking. We will continue with the concurring and dissenting Smith opinions on Monday. The additional assignment for Monday 2/4 is to read through p. 128 of the text.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)