POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 3/31, we first went over the Maine law regarding mandated reporting of child abuse. We then discussed the case of Glassford v. BrickKicker. Following that, I talked about two recent U.S. Supreme Court cases that involved arbitration clauses that barred class actions: AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, and American Express v. Italian Colors. The assignment for Thursday 4/2 is to read and prepare to discuss through the end of Chapter 2 of the text (including Caperton v. Massey Coal.
POS 383 AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 3/31, I began with a case study of what happens when a chief executive decides that the law he is charged with faithfully executing is, in fact, unconstitutional. We looked at how that situation played out on one day in 2013, in the two cases of U.S. v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry. We went through the line-item veto case, Clinton v. N.Y. In terms of the Appointment power, I began with a history of the Saturday Night Massacre, and why Congress passed the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. We then went through the majority decision in Morrison v. Olson, in which AAG Olson challenged the constitutionality of that Act. We left off at Scalia's dissent, which is where we'll pick up on Thursday. The additional assignment for Thursday 42 is to read through p. 227 of the text.
Tuesday, March 31, 2015
Thursday, March 26, 2015
March 26, 2015
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 3/26, I distributed one handout, the Maine statutes regarding common law crimes, hindering apprehension, and mandated reporting. We talked about the concept of unjust laws, and then went through the Mobbley case. We looked at the Maine statute regarding hindering apprehension. We talked about the concept of common law crimes, and misprision of a felony. We looked at Maine's statute regarding common law crimes, and then at the Massachusetts law that does criminalize the failure to report certain crimes in certain circumstances. We will begin next Tuesday by looking at the Maine statute regarding mandated reporting of child abuse or neglect. The additional assignment for Tuesday 3/31 is to read in the text through p.77.
POS 383 AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Thursday 3/26, I first reviewed the various opinions in Bush v. Gore. We then talked about "high crimes and misdemeanors" as the standard for removal from office. We went over the two different views of the powers of the executive, and the discussed the various issues in In re Neagle. We looked at Youngstown Steel, and the relationship between Congress and Executive powers. We started our discussion of the executive's obligation to enforce the law. I began the discussion of the defense of DOMA, and we will pick up next Tuesday with how Obama's decision not to defend DOMA played out differently from Schwarzenegger's decision in California not to defend the California law barring same-sex marriage. The additional assignment for Tuesday 3/31 is to read in the text through p.217.
In class today, Thursday 3/26, I distributed one handout, the Maine statutes regarding common law crimes, hindering apprehension, and mandated reporting. We talked about the concept of unjust laws, and then went through the Mobbley case. We looked at the Maine statute regarding hindering apprehension. We talked about the concept of common law crimes, and misprision of a felony. We looked at Maine's statute regarding common law crimes, and then at the Massachusetts law that does criminalize the failure to report certain crimes in certain circumstances. We will begin next Tuesday by looking at the Maine statute regarding mandated reporting of child abuse or neglect. The additional assignment for Tuesday 3/31 is to read in the text through p.77.
POS 383 AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Thursday 3/26, I first reviewed the various opinions in Bush v. Gore. We then talked about "high crimes and misdemeanors" as the standard for removal from office. We went over the two different views of the powers of the executive, and the discussed the various issues in In re Neagle. We looked at Youngstown Steel, and the relationship between Congress and Executive powers. We started our discussion of the executive's obligation to enforce the law. I began the discussion of the defense of DOMA, and we will pick up next Tuesday with how Obama's decision not to defend DOMA played out differently from Schwarzenegger's decision in California not to defend the California law barring same-sex marriage. The additional assignment for Tuesday 3/31 is to read in the text through p.217.
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
March 24, 2015
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 3/24, I handed back the Bragg case briefs, as well as three handouts: the Key to the Bragg Comments; my version of the Bragg case brief; and an article going over the 1972 case that almost got rid of the death penalty in the U.S. altogether. We went over some aspects of the case brief, and then finished both Suggs v. Norris and Gregg v. Georgia. The assignment for Thursday 3/26 is to read in the text pp. 59-66 (including Mobbley and Holland).
POS 383 AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 3/24 we began our discussion of the executive power. Before we got there, though, I went over a current Supreme Court case that challenges the right of the people to have reapportionment of Congressional seats done by an independent commission (Arizona Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission). We also talked about the meaning of "natural-born citizen" as a qualification for President. Then we went to Bush v. Gore, talking about what a chad is, and how it might hang or dimple, and what the per curiam opinion identified as the constitutional problem with the Florida Supreme Court's instructions. We also looked at how the dissenting Justices differed from the majority, as well as among themselves. Finally, we talked about the electoral college system, in terms of the electors themselves, the allocation of electoral votes among the states, the lack of constitutional protection for the right to vote for president, and the winner-take-all rules of most (but not all) states. The assignment for Thursday 3/26 is to read andprepare to discuss through p. 205 of the text.
In class today, Tuesday 3/24, I handed back the Bragg case briefs, as well as three handouts: the Key to the Bragg Comments; my version of the Bragg case brief; and an article going over the 1972 case that almost got rid of the death penalty in the U.S. altogether. We went over some aspects of the case brief, and then finished both Suggs v. Norris and Gregg v. Georgia. The assignment for Thursday 3/26 is to read in the text pp. 59-66 (including Mobbley and Holland).
POS 383 AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 3/24 we began our discussion of the executive power. Before we got there, though, I went over a current Supreme Court case that challenges the right of the people to have reapportionment of Congressional seats done by an independent commission (Arizona Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission). We also talked about the meaning of "natural-born citizen" as a qualification for President. Then we went to Bush v. Gore, talking about what a chad is, and how it might hang or dimple, and what the per curiam opinion identified as the constitutional problem with the Florida Supreme Court's instructions. We also looked at how the dissenting Justices differed from the majority, as well as among themselves. Finally, we talked about the electoral college system, in terms of the electors themselves, the allocation of electoral votes among the states, the lack of constitutional protection for the right to vote for president, and the winner-take-all rules of most (but not all) states. The assignment for Thursday 3/26 is to read andprepare to discuss through p. 205 of the text.
Thursday, March 19, 2015
March 19, 2015
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 3/19, I collected the Bragg case briefs, and we went over them. I plan to return those case briefs next Tuesday. Along the way, we went over the concept of dictum. We then started our discussion of Suggs v. Norris, getting through the cause of action. We will finish Suggs next Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 3/24 is to review Suggs (again) and additionally to read through p.59 of the text (Gregg v. Georgia).
POS 383 AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today. Thursday 3/19, I first went over two areas of law in which the coercion theory of federalism might soon appear, the Clean Air Act and Federal Emergency Management Agency rules. We then returned to an area that shows far less solicitousness of the power of the states, preemption. We went over the fate of the four parts of the Arizona law in Arizona v. U.S., and how each part faired under the Supreme Court majority. We also went through the other three opinions in the case. We discussed the previously distributed article on the Maine law that permitted the importation of foreign prescription drugs. I then went over three recent Supreme Court case regarding preemption of state law claims against pharmaceutical companies, Wyeth v. Levine, Pliva v. Mensing, and Mutual Pharmaceutical v. Bartlett. With those cases, we end our concentration on federal/state relations. Our next subject is the power of the executive, and the assignment for Tuesday 3/24 is to read and prepare to discuss pp. 183- 194 of the text.
In class today, Thursday 3/19, I collected the Bragg case briefs, and we went over them. I plan to return those case briefs next Tuesday. Along the way, we went over the concept of dictum. We then started our discussion of Suggs v. Norris, getting through the cause of action. We will finish Suggs next Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 3/24 is to review Suggs (again) and additionally to read through p.59 of the text (Gregg v. Georgia).
POS 383 AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today. Thursday 3/19, I first went over two areas of law in which the coercion theory of federalism might soon appear, the Clean Air Act and Federal Emergency Management Agency rules. We then returned to an area that shows far less solicitousness of the power of the states, preemption. We went over the fate of the four parts of the Arizona law in Arizona v. U.S., and how each part faired under the Supreme Court majority. We also went through the other three opinions in the case. We discussed the previously distributed article on the Maine law that permitted the importation of foreign prescription drugs. I then went over three recent Supreme Court case regarding preemption of state law claims against pharmaceutical companies, Wyeth v. Levine, Pliva v. Mensing, and Mutual Pharmaceutical v. Bartlett. With those cases, we end our concentration on federal/state relations. Our next subject is the power of the executive, and the assignment for Tuesday 3/24 is to read and prepare to discuss pp. 183- 194 of the text.
Tuesday, March 17, 2015
March 17, 2015the
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 3/17, I handed back the exams, and we went over them. We then went over some questions about and aspects of the Bragg case brief. The assignment for Thursday 3/19 is to finish the Bragg case briefs, due at the beginning of Thursday's class. If you cannot be in class Thursday, you can email your case brief to me. I will confirm the receipt of the case brief (no confirmation means no receipt). Also on Thursday, we'll go over Suggs v.Norris, previously assigned.
POS 383 AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 3/17, I handed back the exams, and we went over them. For the remainder of the class I discussed how the oral argument in the ACA subsidy case, King v. Burwell, indicated that the fate of the ACA subsidies for individual policies may well hinge on the concept of coercion. The assignment for Thursday 3/19 is to review the previous assignment, Arizona v. U.S. (p. 385) and the handout about federal preemption of Maine's law allowing the importation of drugs from foreign pharmacies.
In class today, Tuesday 3/17, I handed back the exams, and we went over them. We then went over some questions about and aspects of the Bragg case brief. The assignment for Thursday 3/19 is to finish the Bragg case briefs, due at the beginning of Thursday's class. If you cannot be in class Thursday, you can email your case brief to me. I will confirm the receipt of the case brief (no confirmation means no receipt). Also on Thursday, we'll go over Suggs v.Norris, previously assigned.
POS 383 AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 3/17, I handed back the exams, and we went over them. For the remainder of the class I discussed how the oral argument in the ACA subsidy case, King v. Burwell, indicated that the fate of the ACA subsidies for individual policies may well hinge on the concept of coercion. The assignment for Thursday 3/19 is to review the previous assignment, Arizona v. U.S. (p. 385) and the handout about federal preemption of Maine's law allowing the importation of drugs from foreign pharmacies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)