POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Monday 3/31, I distributed one handout, the Maine statute regarding ski resort liability and a release used by some of Maine's ski resorts. We went through the Reardon case, and then looked at three Maine cases about the public policy of enforcing releases: Doyle v. Bowdoin College, Emery Waterhouse v. Lea, and Hardly v. St. Clair. We then looked at the operation of the Maine statutes regarding liability for both horse riding stables and ski resorts. The assignment for Wednesday 4/2 is to read and prepare to discuss through p. 80 of the text, Caperton v. Massey Coal.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 3/31, I handed back the Black outlines, and I also distributed my own version of the outline. I first drew Venn diagrams of possibilities of exactly how O'Connor saw this case: as all cross burnings being threats (and therefore within Scalia's exceptions), or as some cross burnings not being threats (as Souter had said) but with those ideological cross-burnings being not covered by the statute. We then turned our attention to Snyder v. Phelps. I went over the history of the Supreme Court extension of free speech protection to state common law torts like defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. We talked about N.Y. Times v. Sullivan and its progeny, and the reach of First Amendment protection to matters of public concern. We will continue with Snyder v. Phelps on Wednesday. Also today, the class voted on our future direction in terms of civil liberties studies. The class voted to move on to Second Amendment issues; therefore, the assignment for Wednesday 4/2 is to read Chapter 9 of the text (pp. 387 - 396).
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Monday 3/31, I began with a brief synopsis of the recent Supreme Court argument regarding patent protection for certain computer software. We then returned to Hobby Lobby. We concentrated on the first threshhold issue in the case, whether for-profit corporations can exercise religion. We looked at how Ginsburg used the unanimity of the RFRA vote to suggest that Congress couldn't have intended to include for-profits. We also discussed how the issue of who decides the religious conviction of a corporation got discussed, as well as whether a court can question the sincerity of the religious conviction of a corporation. We also looked at Roberts' suggestion to limit this case to closely-held corporations. Behind most of the questioning was the question of how often for-profits might end up using the religious objection to claim exemption from many laws. The assignment for Wednesday 4/2 is to go through the oral argument again and find how the question of whether the contraceptive coverage represents a "substantial burden" was discussed.
Monday, March 31, 2014
Friday, March 28, 2014
March 28, 2014
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Friday 3/28, we finished our discussion of Lawrence v. Texas. We went over O'Connor's concurring opinion, and Kennedy's allusion to same-sex marriage. We then talked about the 2013 case of U.S. v. Windsor which struck down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). We discussed how the guarantee of equal protection of the laws came to be applied as a restriction against the federal (not just state) government, despite the absence of language in the constitution to that effect. We talked about the part of DOMA that still is good law. We then began our discussion of Reardon by looking at the three types of law involved in the case, common-law torts, contracts, and statutory limitations on liability. The assignment for Monday 3/31 is to review Reardon and do a case brief of the case (for yourself, not to hand in).
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Friday 3/28, I collected the Virginia v. Black outlines, and we went over them. I hope to return them on Monday. The assignment for Monday 3/31 to to read Snyder v. Phelps, through p. 263.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Friday 3/28, we first talked about how not only the sincerity of religious beliefs themselves are not subject to review, but also the sincerity of acceptable level of complicity with others' sins is not subject to review. We went over some free exercise history, going over the cases of Wisconsin v. Yoder (Amish not sending their kids to school) U.S. v. Lee (Amish not paying social security taxes) and Thomas v. Review Board (Jehovah's Witness not building tanks). We started going through four basic clashes between the government and Hobby Lobby. We talked about the views of whether a for-profit corporation is a person that can "exercise religion" (looking also at four different types of corporations); we also outlined the arguments on whether (assuming that this corporation can exercise religion) this contraceptive mandate is a substantial burden. We will continue with the other two major issues (compelling interest and least restrictive alternative) on Monday. The assignment for Monday 3/31 is to read and listen to the oral argument in this case.
In class today, Friday 3/28, we finished our discussion of Lawrence v. Texas. We went over O'Connor's concurring opinion, and Kennedy's allusion to same-sex marriage. We then talked about the 2013 case of U.S. v. Windsor which struck down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). We discussed how the guarantee of equal protection of the laws came to be applied as a restriction against the federal (not just state) government, despite the absence of language in the constitution to that effect. We talked about the part of DOMA that still is good law. We then began our discussion of Reardon by looking at the three types of law involved in the case, common-law torts, contracts, and statutory limitations on liability. The assignment for Monday 3/31 is to review Reardon and do a case brief of the case (for yourself, not to hand in).
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Friday 3/28, I collected the Virginia v. Black outlines, and we went over them. I hope to return them on Monday. The assignment for Monday 3/31 to to read Snyder v. Phelps, through p. 263.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Friday 3/28, we first talked about how not only the sincerity of religious beliefs themselves are not subject to review, but also the sincerity of acceptable level of complicity with others' sins is not subject to review. We went over some free exercise history, going over the cases of Wisconsin v. Yoder (Amish not sending their kids to school) U.S. v. Lee (Amish not paying social security taxes) and Thomas v. Review Board (Jehovah's Witness not building tanks). We started going through four basic clashes between the government and Hobby Lobby. We talked about the views of whether a for-profit corporation is a person that can "exercise religion" (looking also at four different types of corporations); we also outlined the arguments on whether (assuming that this corporation can exercise religion) this contraceptive mandate is a substantial burden. We will continue with the other two major issues (compelling interest and least restrictive alternative) on Monday. The assignment for Monday 3/31 is to read and listen to the oral argument in this case.
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
March 26, 2014
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Wednesday 3/26, we went over Lawrence v. Texas. We talked about treatment of precedent, the two constitutional issues that the Court could have tackled and how they chose which one to tackle, the flow chart of questions, strict scrutiny v. rational basis review, and the role of morality in legislation. The only piece of Lawrence that we didn't get to discuss was the question of gay marriage, which is something I'll start with on Friday. The assignment for Friday 3/28 is to read through p. 75 of the text (Reardon).
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Wednesday 3/26, we went over both the O'Connor and Souter opinions in Virginia v. Black. We talked about the flow chart that R.A.V. created, and how this law fits into that flow chart. We discussed the points on which O'Connor and Souter agreed, as well as the point at which they disagreed. We also talked about the level of detail needed in the outline, and the overall length. I shared with the class that my outline for both opinions was 2 pages. The assignment for Friday 3/28 is to finish up work on your outlines, due at the beginning of class on Friday.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Wednesday 3/26, I distributed one handout, a cartoon of what might happen if your employer's religion determines what kind of health insurance you get. We discussed whether a religious objection to doctors and standard Western medicine would necessarily fare the same as Hobby Lobby's objection to contraception. Along the way I went over the history of how we got to an employer based health insurance market, the ACA innovation of government telling employers what must be covered in the insurance plans, the biology of different methods of contraception, the role of both Congress and the Department of Health and Human Services in making the current contraceptive coverage rules, and why Hobby Lobby made a good plaintiff for the case. We talked about the acceptance of the employer's invocation of a sincerely held religious belief, and left off with the parallel question of the acceptance of the employer's invocation of how much of a burden the government is placing on the religious belief (complicity). We will begin on Friday with that question, and with the 1982 case of U.S. v. Lee. The assignment for Friday 3/28 is to read the Respondent's brief in Hobby Lobby.
In class today, Wednesday 3/26, we went over Lawrence v. Texas. We talked about treatment of precedent, the two constitutional issues that the Court could have tackled and how they chose which one to tackle, the flow chart of questions, strict scrutiny v. rational basis review, and the role of morality in legislation. The only piece of Lawrence that we didn't get to discuss was the question of gay marriage, which is something I'll start with on Friday. The assignment for Friday 3/28 is to read through p. 75 of the text (Reardon).
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Wednesday 3/26, we went over both the O'Connor and Souter opinions in Virginia v. Black. We talked about the flow chart that R.A.V. created, and how this law fits into that flow chart. We discussed the points on which O'Connor and Souter agreed, as well as the point at which they disagreed. We also talked about the level of detail needed in the outline, and the overall length. I shared with the class that my outline for both opinions was 2 pages. The assignment for Friday 3/28 is to finish up work on your outlines, due at the beginning of class on Friday.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Wednesday 3/26, I distributed one handout, a cartoon of what might happen if your employer's religion determines what kind of health insurance you get. We discussed whether a religious objection to doctors and standard Western medicine would necessarily fare the same as Hobby Lobby's objection to contraception. Along the way I went over the history of how we got to an employer based health insurance market, the ACA innovation of government telling employers what must be covered in the insurance plans, the biology of different methods of contraception, the role of both Congress and the Department of Health and Human Services in making the current contraceptive coverage rules, and why Hobby Lobby made a good plaintiff for the case. We talked about the acceptance of the employer's invocation of a sincerely held religious belief, and left off with the parallel question of the acceptance of the employer's invocation of how much of a burden the government is placing on the religious belief (complicity). We will begin on Friday with that question, and with the 1982 case of U.S. v. Lee. The assignment for Friday 3/28 is to read the Respondent's brief in Hobby Lobby.
Monday, March 24, 2014
March 24, 2014
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today. Monday 3/24, we went over the three Maine statutes included in the handout from last week. We discussed Holland v. Florida, and the creation of common law crimes. We then began our discussion of Lawrence v. Texas by going over the fast-changing historical arc of legal treatment of gays and lesbians. We also discussed the 1986 case of Bowers v. Hartwick. The assignment for Wednesday 3/26 is to review Lawrence v. Texas, previously assigned.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today. Monday 3/24, I first clarified a few aspects of the outline assignment that's due this Friday. First, in terms of format of the outline, I clarified that if there's a "1,2,3" under an "A", then the "A" only needs to be a question, and not a question and answer. Also we went over how, if a Justice is implicitly, rather than explicitly, addressing a question, you can (and should) include that question in your outline. We then turned to the R.A.V. handouts. We went over White's analysis of overbreadth, and how the St. Paul ordinance might have been fixed to address his concerns. We then turned to Scalia's explanation of how it still is permissible to criminalize some content-based subsets of unprotected speech, even though St. Paul's subset was not constitutional. The assignment for Wednesday 3/26 is to continue working on your outlines. To the extent that you have time, also read Snyder v. Phelps, up to p. 263 of the text.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today. Monday 3/24, after returning the Lozano papers, I also distributed one handout, the text of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). I went over a brief history of the Free Exercise clause, the Emplyment Division v. Smith decision, and RFRA. We then went through the first 3 pieces (roman numerals) of the Petitioner's argument in Hobby Lobby. The assignment for Wednesday 3/26 is to review the Petitioner's brief in Hobby Lobby, previously assigned.
In class today. Monday 3/24, we went over the three Maine statutes included in the handout from last week. We discussed Holland v. Florida, and the creation of common law crimes. We then began our discussion of Lawrence v. Texas by going over the fast-changing historical arc of legal treatment of gays and lesbians. We also discussed the 1986 case of Bowers v. Hartwick. The assignment for Wednesday 3/26 is to review Lawrence v. Texas, previously assigned.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today. Monday 3/24, I first clarified a few aspects of the outline assignment that's due this Friday. First, in terms of format of the outline, I clarified that if there's a "1,2,3" under an "A", then the "A" only needs to be a question, and not a question and answer. Also we went over how, if a Justice is implicitly, rather than explicitly, addressing a question, you can (and should) include that question in your outline. We then turned to the R.A.V. handouts. We went over White's analysis of overbreadth, and how the St. Paul ordinance might have been fixed to address his concerns. We then turned to Scalia's explanation of how it still is permissible to criminalize some content-based subsets of unprotected speech, even though St. Paul's subset was not constitutional. The assignment for Wednesday 3/26 is to continue working on your outlines. To the extent that you have time, also read Snyder v. Phelps, up to p. 263 of the text.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today. Monday 3/24, after returning the Lozano papers, I also distributed one handout, the text of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). I went over a brief history of the Free Exercise clause, the Emplyment Division v. Smith decision, and RFRA. We then went through the first 3 pieces (roman numerals) of the Petitioner's argument in Hobby Lobby. The assignment for Wednesday 3/26 is to review the Petitioner's brief in Hobby Lobby, previously assigned.
Friday, March 21, 2014
March 21, 2014
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Friday 3/21, I distributed one handout, Maine's statutes regarding common law crimes, hindering apprehension, and mandated reporting of child abuse or neglect. I first discussed a number of U.S. Supreme Court decisions about groups that are not subject to capital punishment. We looked at Coker v. Georgia, Enmund v. Florida, Ford v. Wainwright, Thompson v. Oklahoma, Atkins v. Virginia, Roper v. Simmons, and Kennedy v. Louisiana. We also discussed the current Supreme Court case of Hall v. Florida. We then went over the Mobbley case, going over both the majority and the dissenting opinions. We will pick up with the Holland case (previously assigned) on Monday. The assignment for Monday 3/24 is to read the handout, and to read in the text through p. 70 (Lawrence v. Texas).
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Friday 3/21, I distributed two handouts, the assignment (copied below) and the case of Virginia v. Black. We first finished going over White's opinion in R.A.V.in the text, and then started discussing the handout from last time that included more of both Scalia's and White's opinions. We got as far as the question in White's opinion as to who is entitled to raise an overbreadth claim. We will go over the rest of the White opinion from the handout, and Scalia's handout opinion, on Monday. The assignment for Monday 3/24 is to begin work on your Va. v. Black outline, due Friday 3/28.
The assignment is to do an outline of Virginia v. Black (also distributed to the class today).
Follow the format from the Sample Outlines that I’ve distributed. Your outlines will be evaluated on the format, as well as the specific content. Note that the basic format is Title (for the Roman numerals); and then Question and Answer for the other elements. Add elements to the outline as necessary in order to cover the points raised by the Justices. Outline both the O’Connor opinion and the Souter opinion.
The assignment will be graded on both the structure and the content of your outline. The outline 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.
Please make two copies of your outline, 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 assignment. 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 3/28, you should still e-mail me your assignment by the beginning of class time. If you do that, you will not have any grade deducted from your grade for the outline. 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.
The work should be entirely your own, with no collaboration or plagiarism. Don’t look at other student’s outlines, and don’t show your outline to anyone. See the syllabus regarding plagiarism and collaboration.
IMPORTANT: If you e-mail your assignment 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 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Friday 3/21, I collected the Lozano papers, and we discussed them. I hope to be able to return the papers on Monday. We spent the class period going over the arguments of the parties, and how the class decided to resolve them. The assignment for Monday 3/24 is to read the brief of Petitioner Sebelius in the case of Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby (13-354)(available from the supremecourt.gov website).
In class today, Friday 3/21, I distributed one handout, Maine's statutes regarding common law crimes, hindering apprehension, and mandated reporting of child abuse or neglect. I first discussed a number of U.S. Supreme Court decisions about groups that are not subject to capital punishment. We looked at Coker v. Georgia, Enmund v. Florida, Ford v. Wainwright, Thompson v. Oklahoma, Atkins v. Virginia, Roper v. Simmons, and Kennedy v. Louisiana. We also discussed the current Supreme Court case of Hall v. Florida. We then went over the Mobbley case, going over both the majority and the dissenting opinions. We will pick up with the Holland case (previously assigned) on Monday. The assignment for Monday 3/24 is to read the handout, and to read in the text through p. 70 (Lawrence v. Texas).
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Friday 3/21, I distributed two handouts, the assignment (copied below) and the case of Virginia v. Black. We first finished going over White's opinion in R.A.V.in the text, and then started discussing the handout from last time that included more of both Scalia's and White's opinions. We got as far as the question in White's opinion as to who is entitled to raise an overbreadth claim. We will go over the rest of the White opinion from the handout, and Scalia's handout opinion, on Monday. The assignment for Monday 3/24 is to begin work on your Va. v. Black outline, due Friday 3/28.
The assignment is to do an outline of Virginia v. Black (also distributed to the class today).
Follow the format from the Sample Outlines that I’ve distributed. Your outlines will be evaluated on the format, as well as the specific content. Note that the basic format is Title (for the Roman numerals); and then Question and Answer for the other elements. Add elements to the outline as necessary in order to cover the points raised by the Justices. Outline both the O’Connor opinion and the Souter opinion.
The assignment will be graded on both the structure and the content of your outline. The outline 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.
Please make two copies of your outline, 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 assignment. 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 3/28, you should still e-mail me your assignment by the beginning of class time. If you do that, you will not have any grade deducted from your grade for the outline. 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.
The work should be entirely your own, with no collaboration or plagiarism. Don’t look at other student’s outlines, and don’t show your outline to anyone. See the syllabus regarding plagiarism and collaboration.
IMPORTANT: If you e-mail your assignment 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 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Friday 3/21, I collected the Lozano papers, and we discussed them. I hope to be able to return the papers on Monday. We spent the class period going over the arguments of the parties, and how the class decided to resolve them. The assignment for Monday 3/24 is to read the brief of Petitioner Sebelius in the case of Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby (13-354)(available from the supremecourt.gov website).
Wednesday, March 19, 2014
March 19, 2014
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Wednesday 3/19, we first went over the article about the history of the Furman decision. We then went through the text's three Gregg v. Georgia opinions. I will begin on Friday with some updates about the imposition of capital punishment and the meaning of cruel and unusual punishment. The assignment for Friday 3/21 is to read through p. 64 of the text (Mobbley and Holland).
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Wednesday 3/19, I distributed two handouts: my version of the R.A.V. outline, and further excerpts from both Scalia's and White's opinions in the case. We went through Scalia's opinion, and got up to the point in White's opinion in which he explains how Scalia got the entire concept of the rationale of fighting words wrong. We will pick up on Friday with White's view of the particular problems with Scalia's analysis. Also on Friday, I plan to distribute an writing assignment regarding a later cross-burning case, Virginia v. Black. The assignment for Friday 3/21 is to review in the textbook White's R.A.V. concurrence, and to review the R.A.V. outline and read the additional R.A.V. excerpts handed out today.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Wednesday 3/19, we went over some of the specific issues that were part of the oral argument in Greece v. Galloway. I then discussed another recent oral argument, Schuette v. BAMN, about the Michigan constitutional change that banned affirmative action in Michigan after the Grutter Supreme Court decision that had found certain affirmative action constitutional. We looked at prior Supreme Court Equal Protection cases about political restructuring. I'll go over some more of the oral argument when we next talk about Schuette. The assignment for Friday 3/21 is to finish up your Lozano papers due at the beginning of the class on Friday.
In class today, Wednesday 3/19, we first went over the article about the history of the Furman decision. We then went through the text's three Gregg v. Georgia opinions. I will begin on Friday with some updates about the imposition of capital punishment and the meaning of cruel and unusual punishment. The assignment for Friday 3/21 is to read through p. 64 of the text (Mobbley and Holland).
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Wednesday 3/19, I distributed two handouts: my version of the R.A.V. outline, and further excerpts from both Scalia's and White's opinions in the case. We went through Scalia's opinion, and got up to the point in White's opinion in which he explains how Scalia got the entire concept of the rationale of fighting words wrong. We will pick up on Friday with White's view of the particular problems with Scalia's analysis. Also on Friday, I plan to distribute an writing assignment regarding a later cross-burning case, Virginia v. Black. The assignment for Friday 3/21 is to review in the textbook White's R.A.V. concurrence, and to review the R.A.V. outline and read the additional R.A.V. excerpts handed out today.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Wednesday 3/19, we went over some of the specific issues that were part of the oral argument in Greece v. Galloway. I then discussed another recent oral argument, Schuette v. BAMN, about the Michigan constitutional change that banned affirmative action in Michigan after the Grutter Supreme Court decision that had found certain affirmative action constitutional. We looked at prior Supreme Court Equal Protection cases about political restructuring. I'll go over some more of the oral argument when we next talk about Schuette. The assignment for Friday 3/21 is to finish up your Lozano papers due at the beginning of the class on Friday.
Monday, March 17, 2014
March 17, 2014
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Monday 3/17, I returned the exams, and we went over them. I also distributed one handout, an article about the history of the Supreme Court's opinions in Furman, the case that preceded Gregg v. Georgia. After we went over the exams, we talked about the idea of morality and law, and we briefly discussed capital punishment in Maine and in the rest of the Western world. We will begin our discussion of Furman (the article I distributed) and Gregg (textbook) on Wednesday. The assignment for Wednesday 3/19 is to review Gregg (previously assigned) and to read the article I handed out today.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 3/17, I returned the exams, and we went over them. I then introduced the discussion about hate speech by looking at the 1952 case of Beauharnais v. Illinois, which sustained the Illinois hate speech law against a free speech attack. The assignment for Wednesday 3/19 is to review the R.A.V. case, previously assigned.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today. Monday 3/17, I first reminded the class of the Lozano assignment, due this Friday 3/21. I then discussed the current establishment clause case of Town of Greece v. Galloway. We first went over the 1971 case of Lemon v. Kurtzman, and the the 1983 case of Marsh v. Chambers. We talked about some potential differences between the state legislature in Marsh and the city council meeting in Town of Greece. The assignment for Wednesday 3/19 is to continue work on your Lozano paper, previously assigned.
In class today, Monday 3/17, I returned the exams, and we went over them. I also distributed one handout, an article about the history of the Supreme Court's opinions in Furman, the case that preceded Gregg v. Georgia. After we went over the exams, we talked about the idea of morality and law, and we briefly discussed capital punishment in Maine and in the rest of the Western world. We will begin our discussion of Furman (the article I distributed) and Gregg (textbook) on Wednesday. The assignment for Wednesday 3/19 is to review Gregg (previously assigned) and to read the article I handed out today.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 3/17, I returned the exams, and we went over them. I then introduced the discussion about hate speech by looking at the 1952 case of Beauharnais v. Illinois, which sustained the Illinois hate speech law against a free speech attack. The assignment for Wednesday 3/19 is to review the R.A.V. case, previously assigned.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today. Monday 3/17, I first reminded the class of the Lozano assignment, due this Friday 3/21. I then discussed the current establishment clause case of Town of Greece v. Galloway. We first went over the 1971 case of Lemon v. Kurtzman, and the the 1983 case of Marsh v. Chambers. We talked about some potential differences between the state legislature in Marsh and the city council meeting in Town of Greece. The assignment for Wednesday 3/19 is to continue work on your Lozano paper, previously assigned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)