February 26, 2015

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 2/26 the class took exam #1. I'll return it, and we'll go over it, on Tuesday 3/17. Remember that your Bragg case brief will be due Thursday 3/19. The reading assignment for Tuesday 3/17 is to review Suggs v. Norris (p.44), previously assigned. Have a good and safe Spring Break.


POS 383 AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Thursday 2/26 the class took exam #1. I'll return it, and we'll go over it, on Tuesday 3/17. The reading assignment for Tuesday 3/17 is to read in the text Arizona v. U.S. (pp. 385-390), as well as today's handout of the Maine prescription drug law being struck down. Have a good and safe Spring Break.

February 24, 2015

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 2/24, I distributed three handouts: my version of the Katko v. Briney case brief, Assignment #1 (reproduced below, and due on the Thursday after break) and the Bragg case that you'll be briefing. I first gave some background to the issues in Bragg. We then finished up Katko, talking about the making of common law, the sources used by the Iowa Supreme Court in deciding what Iowa common law should be, jury instructions, and the consequences of a lawyer messing up. We then went through the Maine statutes regarding use of force (handed out last Thursday). (We did not get to Suggs v. Norris, and so that case will not be included in Thursday's test.) On Thursday 2/26 we'll have our first exam, open-book and open-note. It will cover all the material we've covered through today. If you're missing any handouts (check the blog to see if you've got them all) then you need to notify me by 9:00pm Wednesday night as to which ones you are missing and want me to bring for you. If you're taking the exam using a computer, remember that I want you to sit in the front of the class, with your back toward me, and that you can't use your computer to connect to the internet or do any word search, or do anything that you couldn't do with hard copy book or notes.

Assignment due Thursday March 19, 2015

The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the case of State v. Bragg, 2012 ME 102, 48 A.3d 769.

Brief all of the issues that you determine that the Court ruled on. Remember that the purpose of the brief is to be useful. Check your holdings to make sure that they give the most useful rules possible. Mere conclusory facts just tell us who won and who lost, but not what circumstances determine the winner and loser.

Follow the format from the Sample Briefs that I’ve distributed. Note especially that, after the “Issue” is composed, the “Facts” 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 Thursday 3/19, 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. Do not show your work to anyone else; do not look at anyone else’s work.

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 383 AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 2/24, I handed back the NFIB outlines, as well as handing out my version of the outline. We went over the outlines. We then talked about Missouri v. Holland, and Crosby v. NFTC. For Crosby, we followed Souter's outline and structure, and then filled in that structure with the ways in which the Court found the Massachusetts law to be preempted. We also looked at why Massachusetts' arguments were rejected. Finally, we looked at the Scalia and Thomas concurrence.
On Thursday 2/26 we'll have our first exam, open-book and open-note. It will cover all the material we've covered through today. If you're missing any handouts (check the blog to see if you've got them all) then you need to notify me by 9:00pm Wednesday night as to which ones you are missing and want me to bring for you. If you're taking the exam using a computer, remember that I want you to sit in the front of the class, with your back toward me, and that you can't use your computer to connect to the internet or do any word search, or do anything that you couldn't do with hard copy book or notes.

February 19, 2015

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 2/19, I distributed three handouts: my version of the Speelman brief, some Speelman hypotheticals, and the Maine criminal statutes regarding the use of force to protect your home and your stuff. We finished up the Speelman case, going through the State v. Nelson contentions by BHA, and then the other requirements for a preliminary injunction. We then did some hypotheticals regarding Speelman, including the duty to investigate the whereabouts of the addressee, how to manage how much information you've got, and how different timings might affect the due process analysis. We then started going through Katko, getting as far as the cause of action. We reviewed the concept of common law, the definition of a tort, and the components of damages. On Tuesday 2/24 we will finish Katko, go over the Maine statute regarding use of force (handout) and then go over the additional reading for Tuesday 2/24, which is to read and prepare to discuss the remainder of Chapter One of the text (Suggs v. Norris). (Then on Thursday 4/26, we'll have Exam #1).


POS 383 AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Thursday 2/19, the class took a practice exam to demonstrate the kinds of questions that you might expect on Exam #1 (Thursday 2/26). I collected the NFIB outlines, and we went over them. I hope to have them graded and ready to return on Tuesday. We then went over some hypotheticals regarding coercion, such as whether basic Medicaid itself is coercive because it's such a good deal for states that no state feels free to reject it. The assignment for Tuesday 2/24 is to read in the text pp. 376-384.

February 17, 2015

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 2/17, I first gave the class a sample test, in preparation for Exam #1 (which will be given Thursday 2/26). I also announced that the first graded case brief will be assigned before Spring break, but will not be due until after Spring Break. We then began going over the case brief for Speelman, getting as far as the first issue in the case: whether addressing a notice to an address that the sender knows is not where the addressee actually currently resides, is "reasonably calculated" to reach her. We will continue with the rest of the Speelman case brief on Thursday. The additional assignment for Thursday 2/19 is to read and do a case brief for yourself of Katko v. Briney (pp. 39-43).


POS 383 AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 2/17, we first went over schedules. I reminded the class that the NFIB outlines are due this Thursday 2/19. I also announced that the first exam (open-book and open-note) will be on Thursday 2/26. We also reviewed the current constitutional news regarding both Alabama's same-sex marriage compliance and the federal district court judge's preliminary injunction against Obama's immigration executive order. We then turned to Printz, finishing up that case. Along the way, we also talked about the difference between a concurrence in the judgment versus a concurrence in the opinion. We went on to S. Dakota v. Dole and saw how it sowed the seeds of the "coercion" doctrine. The harvest was reaped in NFIB v. Sebelius. The assignment for Thursday 2/26 is to finish work on your NFIB outline, due at the beginning of class Thursday.

February 12, 2015

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 2/12, we finished our discussion of Lawrence v. Texas. We went over the way do a brief of the case. We also discussed how Kennedy analyzed the right asserted, and the historical background, and finally whether the right asserted was "fundamental" or not. We talked about stages in law regarding homosexuals, looking at criminalization, then discrimination in employment and housing , and then same sex marriage. The assignment for Tuesday 2/17 is to read in the text pp. 33-38, and to do a case brief of the Speelman case (not handed in or graded).



POS 383 AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Thursday 2/12, I distributed three handouts: my version of the Printz outline, an article about Alabama's same-sex marriage situation, and Assignment #1 (reproduced below). We went over the requirements of the assignment. In the Alabama same-sex marriage case, we talked about the reasons given by Judge Moore for why Alabama judges should ignore the federal judge's order, and the way in which Judge Moore seems to be violating the U.S. Constitution. We started going through the Printz case and its outline, getting up to Scalia's argument about why New York is not distinguishable on the basis of basis of "policy-making" functions. We will pick up at that point on Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 2/17 is to read in the text South Dakota v. Dole (text pp. 539-543) and to begin work on your graded NFIB outline, assigned below.

ASSIGNMENT #1 due Thursday, February 19, 2015

The assignment is to do an outline of part of NFIB v. Sebelius. The case is found on pp. 543-550 of the text. I only want you to outline that part of the case dealing with Medicaid expansion. Thus, for Roberts’ opinion, start your outline at the top left of p. 546 (“The states also contend that the Medicaid expansion…”). Do all of Ginsburg’s opinion. And for the joint dissent, start at the bottom left of p. 549 (“We now consider respondents’ second challenge…”). Your outline should include all three opinions.

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.

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 Thursday 2/19, 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. Do not show your paper to anyone. Do not look at anyone else’s paper. 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 you do not get a reply, then I have not received the assignment.

February 10, 2015

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 2/10, Jim Tierney talked to our class about individual rights, the role and rule of law, federal and state power, religion and government, and much more. We will return to Lawrence v. Texas on Thursday, with the still extant assignment of trying to come up with a case brief of that case, written in your own words and constructed with your own sense of the structure of that opinion (not handed in or graded).


POS 383 AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 2/10, I distributed two handouts: my version of the outline of the dissent in N.Y. V. U.S., and the Order by Chief Justice Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court instructing the Alabama Judges of Probate (who issue marriage licenses) not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples (despite the U.S. District Court judge's order finding the Alabama ban on such marriages unconstitutional). We went over both the majority and dissenting opinions in N.Y. v. U.S. I corrected what I came to think of as my mistaken view of O'Connor's interpretation of the relationship between Congressional powers and the 10th Amendment. We also discussed the choices of following, distinguishing, or overruling precedent (in this case, Garcia). The assignment for Thursday 2/12 is to read the handouts, read Printz v. U.S. (starting on p. 357) and to outline all of the various opinions in Printz (not handed in or graded).

February 5, 2015

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 2/5, I distributed one handout, my version of the Lawrence v. Texas case brief. I went through a flow chart of how the Supreme Court has dealt with substantive due process claims, including both the high hurdles (if the asserted right is "fundamental") and the low hurdles (if not fundamental). We finished our discussion of Glucksberg, going through both the majority decision and Souter's concurrence. We talked about the difference between a concurrence in the judgment (Souter's concurrence) versus a concurrence in the opinion. We also talked about the treatment of precedent: following, distinguishing, or overruling it. We talked about three institutional conflicts, the government versus the individual, the federal power versus the state power, and the separation of powers between the three branches of government, all as involved in Souter's concurrence. We then went on to begin our discussion of Lawrence v. Texas. We went through the case brief as far as the prior proceedings. We discussed Bowers v. Hardwick, and we went over Kennedy's reasons for treating this as a due process claim rather than an equal protection claim. We will pick up with Kennedy's flowchart next time we discuss Lawrence. But on Tuesday 2/10 we will have a guest speaker in class, our distinguished alum, former Maine Attorney General Jim Tierney. I suspect that it will be the best class of the semester--don't miss it (and please be on time to class). The assignment then for Thursday 2/12 is to review Lawrence (previously assigned) and figure out how to do a case brief of it in the format I've given you.


POS 383 AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Thursday 2/5, I distributed one handout, my version of an outline of N.Y. v. U.S. We first finished up our discussion of McCulloch v. Maryland, and located the only point in Maryland's argument where Marshall did not say "no" to Maryland's contention (instead, he said that it doesn't matter). We talked about Marshall's use of dictum. We then discussed the Dred Scott decision. We looked at the rules for federal court jurisdiction, and how Taney found that the federal courts did not have jurisdiction over Scott's complaint for freedom. Taney then took his own turn at dictum regarding the power of Congress to make "free state" rules in the Missouri Compromise law, and found his answer in the word "the". (We also talked about how this same word was the basis of part of the Court of Appeals recent ruling in the recess appointments case, Noel Canning v. NLRB). We briefly discussed the dissenting opinion in the Dred Scott case, and then discussied the swinging of the 10th Amendment pendulum in the years up to N.Y. v. U.S. We began our discussion of that case, talking about the federal statutory scheme, and O'Connor's discussion of the relationship between the powers of Article I and the limitation of the 10th Amendment. We will pick up at that point next Tuesday. The additional assignment for Tuesday 2/10 is to prepare (write out for yourselves, although not handed in or graded) an outline of the dissenting opinion in N.Y. v. U.S.

February 3, 2015

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 2/3, I distributed two handouts: an article by Brittany Maynard written prior to her own assisted suicide last November, and my version of the Glucksberg case brief. We first talked about the concept of assisted suicide, as exemplified by Brittany Maynard's death. We then started the case brief of Glucksberg. We went over Supreme Court citation form (and the order in which the parties are listed). We went over the federal court system organization, including both the Court of Appeals three-judge panels, and the rehearings en banc. We went over the possible causes of action in any legal case, listing the six most common ones. In discussing the previous Cruzan case, we went over levels of persuasion (burden of proof) from beyond a reasonable doubt, down to clear and convincing evidence, to preponderance of the evidence. We went over the methodology used by the Court to decide if the constitution does forbid the criminalization of assisted suicide, both in how the right gets described, and the analysis of the historical record. Those were the first two issues that I thought the Glucksberg Court dealt with. We will continue with the rest of the Court's opinion, as well as Souter's concurrence, on Thursday. The assignment for Thursday 2/5 is to read the two handouts; review Glucksberg and the case brief, and read and prepare for yourself (not handed in or graded) a case brief of Lawrence v. Texas, pp. 68-72 of the text.


POS 383 AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 2/3, I distributed one handout, my version of an outline of McCulloch. I first discussed the textbook's praise of the division of power between the state and central government. We discussed the parallel federal and state court systems, and such examples of cooperative federalism as Obamacare. We then started going through the McCulloch opinion, looking for the structure of the opinion. We looked for what questions Marshall was addressing, and what his answers were. We got as far Marshall's reply to Maryland's plea that they can be trusted not to tax the federal bank out of existence ("confidence"). We will pick up at that point of McCulloch on Thursday, and then go on to discuss the Dred Scott case. The additional assignment for Thursday 2/5 is to read in the text through p. 356 and to try an outline (not handed in or graded) of New York v. U.S., following the format of my McCulloch outline. Also, please remember to bring your text to class each day.