POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 4/30, I first reminded the class that Exam #2 will be Thursday 5/7 beginning at 8:45. If you are missing any handouts, email me with your requests by 9:00 pm on Wednesday 5/6. The discussion of subject-matter jurisdiction continued from Tuesday with the U.S. Supreme Court case of Bowles v. Russell. I then compared that approach with the approach taken by the Maine Supreme Court in the Landmark Realty case that we talked about on Tuesday. We also went over the consequences of having something labeled as subject matter jurisdiction, in terms of waiver, excuse, and sua sponte raising of the issue. We then switched to personal jurisdiction. I went over four usual ways in which the forum state acquires jurisdiction over a defendant: service of process within the state, domicile, consent, and the doing of certain acts with the state. We looked at the long-arm statute in the text, and then talked about how the U.S. Constitution limits the ability of states to haul out-of-staters into the forum's courts. We contrasted the idea of personal jurisdiction versus subject-matter jurisdiction in terms of waiver, etc. and in terms of constitutional uniformity. We also differentiated the concept of personal jurisdiction from the concept of choice of law rules. We went over the Swoboda case. Finally, I talked about the U.S. Supreme Court case of Walden v. Fiore, and we went over general jurisdiction versus specific jurisdiction. See you Thursday 5/7.
POS 383 AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Thursday 4/30, I first reminded the class that Exam #2 will be Tuesday 5/5 beginning at 10:30. If you are missing any handouts, email me with your requests by 9:00 pm on Monday 5/4. I collected the Zivotofsky papers, and plan to return them on Tuesday. We talked about Kennedy's vote in the case, and then about how you thought that the case should come out. After that, I talked about part 2 of the oral argument in the same sex marriage case, Obergefell v. Hodges. Part 2 asked whether the 14th Amendment required a state to recognize a same sex marriage performed in another state. We first talked about DOMA and what it has to say about state to state recognition. We talked about the Full Faith and Credit clause, and how it's been interpreted by the Supreme Court. And we talked about how the issue, as framed by the Court, seemed to skirt both of these sources of law. We looked at the differences between recognition versus licensing, in terms of which was a greater intrusion onto state sovereignty. And we looked at some unusual sources of hostile questioning, both from the liberal and from the conservatives.
See you Tuesday 5/5.
Thursday, April 30, 2015
Tuesday, April 28, 2015
April 28, 2015
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 4/28, the first thing we decided was that we have have our exam (on Thursday 5/7) not starting at 8:00 as originally scheduled, but rather starting at 8:45. I distributed one handout, the Schroeder Comment Key. I handed back the Schroeder case briefs, and we briefly talked about them. I then talked a little about today's U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Obergefell v. Hodges, the same sex marriage cases. I talked about how the Supreme Court will consider non-recognition of other state's same-sex marriages, and how that relates to the Full Faith and Credit issue that we studied in Finstuen. We then went on the Chapter IV of the text. I talked about Maine's court organization (unique in the country), and the concepts of both subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction (and compared the latter with the concept of conflict of laws). We went over the Cheap Escape case, and, after we translated the case to English, went over how good lawyering could lead to surprisingly good results for a deadbeat debtor. We also discussed the difference between the concept of venue versus the concept of subject matter jurisdiction. I then went over a Maine Supreme Court case, Landmark Realty v. Leasure, which clarified what we mean in Maine by "subject matter jurisdiction", and why it matters so much whether that label attaches or not. I plan to begin on Thursday with a U.S. Supreme Court case that addressed the same issue for the federal courts. We will then go on to our final subject, personal jurisdiction. The assignment for Thursday 4/30 is to review Swoboda, previously assigned.
POS 383 AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 4/28, we first went over the schedule for our exam next week. It will be on Tuesday 5/5 from 10:30 until 11:45 (not until 12:30). I then talked about two recent Supreme Court constitutional law cases. In one, Oneok v. LearJet, the Court issued an opinion last week about the question of whether federal regulation of the natural gas market preempted state anti-trust regulation of that same market. In the other, the Supreme Court heard oral argument last week in Horne v. Dept. of Agriculture, which raised the question of whether federal regulation of the raisin market amounted to an unconstitutional taking without just compensation. The assignment for Thursday 4/30 is to finish your Zivotofsky papers, previously assigned, which are due at the beginning of class.
In class today, Tuesday 4/28, the first thing we decided was that we have have our exam (on Thursday 5/7) not starting at 8:00 as originally scheduled, but rather starting at 8:45. I distributed one handout, the Schroeder Comment Key. I handed back the Schroeder case briefs, and we briefly talked about them. I then talked a little about today's U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Obergefell v. Hodges, the same sex marriage cases. I talked about how the Supreme Court will consider non-recognition of other state's same-sex marriages, and how that relates to the Full Faith and Credit issue that we studied in Finstuen. We then went on the Chapter IV of the text. I talked about Maine's court organization (unique in the country), and the concepts of both subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction (and compared the latter with the concept of conflict of laws). We went over the Cheap Escape case, and, after we translated the case to English, went over how good lawyering could lead to surprisingly good results for a deadbeat debtor. We also discussed the difference between the concept of venue versus the concept of subject matter jurisdiction. I then went over a Maine Supreme Court case, Landmark Realty v. Leasure, which clarified what we mean in Maine by "subject matter jurisdiction", and why it matters so much whether that label attaches or not. I plan to begin on Thursday with a U.S. Supreme Court case that addressed the same issue for the federal courts. We will then go on to our final subject, personal jurisdiction. The assignment for Thursday 4/30 is to review Swoboda, previously assigned.
POS 383 AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 4/28, we first went over the schedule for our exam next week. It will be on Tuesday 5/5 from 10:30 until 11:45 (not until 12:30). I then talked about two recent Supreme Court constitutional law cases. In one, Oneok v. LearJet, the Court issued an opinion last week about the question of whether federal regulation of the natural gas market preempted state anti-trust regulation of that same market. In the other, the Supreme Court heard oral argument last week in Horne v. Dept. of Agriculture, which raised the question of whether federal regulation of the raisin market amounted to an unconstitutional taking without just compensation. The assignment for Thursday 4/30 is to finish your Zivotofsky papers, previously assigned, which are due at the beginning of class.
Thursday, April 23, 2015
April 23, 2015
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 4/23, I distributed one handout, my version of the Schroeder case brief. We went over that case brief, concluding with the question of what options Schroeder might still have for the pursuing the case. I plan to grade the case briefs this weekend, and return them on Tuesday. After finishing Schroeder, we went over the handout from last time, the Maine statute regarding adoption, and we saw how Maine dealt with the language that limited adoptions here to husband and wife. I will start on Tuesday with the 2011 5th Circuit case about same-sex adoption, as well as the Obergefell Supreme Court case that will be argued on Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 4/28 is to read in the text through p. 135 (Cheap Escape and Swoboda).
POS 383 AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Thursday 4/23, I distributed two handouts: Assignment #2, (reproduced below), and and Article about Congressional decision-making in foreign policy. We went over the requirements of the assignment, and also talked briefly about broad policy-making questions in Congressional assertion of foreign-policy decisions. We then dove back into the Zivotofsy oral argument, getting to p. 41. We will pick up at that point on Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 4/28 is to begin work on the Zivotofsky paper, due Thursday 4/30.
Assignment due Thursday, April 30, 2015
This assignment has two parts.
I. As we have gone through the Zivotofsky oral argument, it seems probable that Justice Kennedy will be casting a key vote in the case. So, the first part of this assignment will focus on Kennedy’s participation in that oral argument.
Here is an index to the oral argument for Kennedy: (the format is page:line) (I’ve edited out references to Kennedy that don’t reflect his questions):
Kennedy 3:20 5:6 18:9 19:4 22:17,21 28:16,23 36:5 42:20 43:9 44:15
(also note 43:21--this is Roberts, so don’t analyze it, but I think it’s helpful in understanding Kennedy).
Here’s what I want: for each of Kennedy’s 10 questions or comments above, explain what the point was that Kennedy was trying to make (in plain, clear simple English), and then what this might indicate about which side he thinks should win, and why.
Here’s an example of the format that I’m looking for, based on a Ginsburg question:
At 6:6, Ginsburg was telling Lewin that Lewin had taken her entire argument out of the law’s context, because the entirety of the law made clear that Congress was asserting that the U.S. recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. This indicates that Ginsburg sees the law as asserting the U.S. position on the borders of Israel, and not simply as an exercise of Congressional authority over passports. Presumably she thinks the President, and not Congress, has power over the U.S. position on the borders that the U.S. recognizes. This indicates that she thinks Kerry should win.
So what I’m looking for is 10 paragraphs of roughly that length.
II.
The second part of the paper asks how you think the case should come out (not a prediction, but your own analysis). Analyze this not as a foreign policy question (is it good policy for Congress to pass such a law, or the President to resist it), but as a matter of constitutional power: 1) is this law a constitutional exercise of Congress’s authority over passports and their use as identification and 2) if the law is best viewed as an assertion by Congress that it can recognize borders over Presidential objections, does Congress have the power, under the constitution, to make such a law? Do the cases from the text shed any light on the question? Is the language of Curtiss-Wright helpful, or is it mere dictum?
I foresee this section of the paper taking about one page.
The assignment will be graded on the content and analysis contained in your paper. 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.
Please make two copies of your paper, 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 4/30, 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.
In class today, Thursday 4/23, I distributed one handout, my version of the Schroeder case brief. We went over that case brief, concluding with the question of what options Schroeder might still have for the pursuing the case. I plan to grade the case briefs this weekend, and return them on Tuesday. After finishing Schroeder, we went over the handout from last time, the Maine statute regarding adoption, and we saw how Maine dealt with the language that limited adoptions here to husband and wife. I will start on Tuesday with the 2011 5th Circuit case about same-sex adoption, as well as the Obergefell Supreme Court case that will be argued on Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 4/28 is to read in the text through p. 135 (Cheap Escape and Swoboda).
POS 383 AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Thursday 4/23, I distributed two handouts: Assignment #2, (reproduced below), and and Article about Congressional decision-making in foreign policy. We went over the requirements of the assignment, and also talked briefly about broad policy-making questions in Congressional assertion of foreign-policy decisions. We then dove back into the Zivotofsy oral argument, getting to p. 41. We will pick up at that point on Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 4/28 is to begin work on the Zivotofsky paper, due Thursday 4/30.
Assignment due Thursday, April 30, 2015
This assignment has two parts.
I. As we have gone through the Zivotofsky oral argument, it seems probable that Justice Kennedy will be casting a key vote in the case. So, the first part of this assignment will focus on Kennedy’s participation in that oral argument.
Here is an index to the oral argument for Kennedy: (the format is page:line) (I’ve edited out references to Kennedy that don’t reflect his questions):
Kennedy 3:20 5:6 18:9 19:4 22:17,21 28:16,23 36:5 42:20 43:9 44:15
(also note 43:21--this is Roberts, so don’t analyze it, but I think it’s helpful in understanding Kennedy).
Here’s what I want: for each of Kennedy’s 10 questions or comments above, explain what the point was that Kennedy was trying to make (in plain, clear simple English), and then what this might indicate about which side he thinks should win, and why.
Here’s an example of the format that I’m looking for, based on a Ginsburg question:
At 6:6, Ginsburg was telling Lewin that Lewin had taken her entire argument out of the law’s context, because the entirety of the law made clear that Congress was asserting that the U.S. recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. This indicates that Ginsburg sees the law as asserting the U.S. position on the borders of Israel, and not simply as an exercise of Congressional authority over passports. Presumably she thinks the President, and not Congress, has power over the U.S. position on the borders that the U.S. recognizes. This indicates that she thinks Kerry should win.
So what I’m looking for is 10 paragraphs of roughly that length.
II.
The second part of the paper asks how you think the case should come out (not a prediction, but your own analysis). Analyze this not as a foreign policy question (is it good policy for Congress to pass such a law, or the President to resist it), but as a matter of constitutional power: 1) is this law a constitutional exercise of Congress’s authority over passports and their use as identification and 2) if the law is best viewed as an assertion by Congress that it can recognize borders over Presidential objections, does Congress have the power, under the constitution, to make such a law? Do the cases from the text shed any light on the question? Is the language of Curtiss-Wright helpful, or is it mere dictum?
I foresee this section of the paper taking about one page.
The assignment will be graded on the content and analysis contained in your paper. 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.
Please make two copies of your paper, 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 4/30, 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.
Tuesday, April 21, 2015
April 21, 2015
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 4/21, I distributed one handout, Maine statutes regarding adoptions. We spent the class period discussing the Schroeder case brief. We went over the legal questions addressed by the Court, and the facts that separated the winners from the losers regarding those issues.
We went over the concept of winner's facts and loser's facts, and I added the element of the loser's facts (in the format of "...even though...") to what would make the brief useful. Here's a format example: Under the rules of our class, do you get an "A" for your brief when you follow the format and provide as "facts" that which the Court points to as the line between winners and losers (even though you can come up with more useful formulations than just the conclusions the Court sticks us with). The idea is that the holding say not only that which is sufficient to make a winner, but that it also include that which is insufficient to do so.
We went through the various legal questions posed in the flow chart of the case, stressing the need to have defined limited legal questions so that you end up with holdings that actually help you tell the winners from the losers.
The assignment for Thursday 4/23 is to complete the Schroeder case brief, due at the beginning of class. Make two copies of your case brief. If you cannot be in class, make sure to email your case brief to me before the beginning of class, and make sure that you get my confirmation.
POS 383 AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 4/21, I first announced the plan for the second assignment. I'll distribute that assignment on Thursday (4/23) and it will be due on the last day of class (4/30). If there's a decision in the Zivotofsky case tomorrow (Wednesday) then the assignment will involve the decision; if there's no decision tomorrow. the the assignment will involve the briefs and the oral argument.
In terms of the oral argument, we continued our journey through it, reading the tea leaves about the implications of the Justices' questions for how they might then vote. We got through p. 27 of the argument, which is where we'll pick up on Thursday. The assignment for Thursday 4/23 is to review the remainder of the Zivotofsky oral argument.
In class today, Tuesday 4/21, I distributed one handout, Maine statutes regarding adoptions. We spent the class period discussing the Schroeder case brief. We went over the legal questions addressed by the Court, and the facts that separated the winners from the losers regarding those issues.
We went over the concept of winner's facts and loser's facts, and I added the element of the loser's facts (in the format of "...even though...") to what would make the brief useful. Here's a format example: Under the rules of our class, do you get an "A" for your brief when you follow the format and provide as "facts" that which the Court points to as the line between winners and losers (even though you can come up with more useful formulations than just the conclusions the Court sticks us with). The idea is that the holding say not only that which is sufficient to make a winner, but that it also include that which is insufficient to do so.
We went through the various legal questions posed in the flow chart of the case, stressing the need to have defined limited legal questions so that you end up with holdings that actually help you tell the winners from the losers.
The assignment for Thursday 4/23 is to complete the Schroeder case brief, due at the beginning of class. Make two copies of your case brief. If you cannot be in class, make sure to email your case brief to me before the beginning of class, and make sure that you get my confirmation.
POS 383 AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 4/21, I first announced the plan for the second assignment. I'll distribute that assignment on Thursday (4/23) and it will be due on the last day of class (4/30). If there's a decision in the Zivotofsky case tomorrow (Wednesday) then the assignment will involve the decision; if there's no decision tomorrow. the the assignment will involve the briefs and the oral argument.
In terms of the oral argument, we continued our journey through it, reading the tea leaves about the implications of the Justices' questions for how they might then vote. We got through p. 27 of the argument, which is where we'll pick up on Thursday. The assignment for Thursday 4/23 is to review the remainder of the Zivotofsky oral argument.
Thursday, April 16, 2015
April 16, 2015
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 4/16, I distributed two handouts: Assignment #2 (reproduced below) and the case you'll be briefing, Schroeder v. Rynel, 1998 ME 259. (If you weren't in class today, you can get the case by going to
http://courts.maine.gov/opinions_orders/supreme/opinions_1998.html
and scrolling down to case 259).
We finished our discussion of Land v. Yamaha, going over the difference between a statute of repose v. a statute of limitations, and federal court power over the conflict of laws rules v. state court power. I then discussed a Maine case regarding our conflict of laws rule, Collins v. Trius. I went over the background of our case to brief, specifically the reasons to incorporate in Delaware, the contract that Schroeder had with his employer Rynel, and the difference between a breach of contract cause of action and this statutory cause of action. We began our discussion of the Finstuen case, going over the difference in Full Faith and Credit analysis between laws v. court judgments, and the significance of birth certificates and adoption decrees. On Tuesday we will go over questions about the Schroeder case brief, and also finish up Finstuen. The assignment for Tuesday 4/21 is to begin work on the Schroeder brief, and to review Finstuen.
Assignment #2 due Thursday April 23, 2015
The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the case of Schroeder v. Rynel, 998 ME 259, 720 A.2d 1164.
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 4/23, 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, Thursday 4/16, we went over the transcript of the Zivotofsky oral argument. We basically looked at the questions by the Justices, and tried, by the tenor of the question, to put each participating Justice in the pro- or anti- Zivotofsky camp. We got as far as p.15, where Alito joined in. We will pick up at that point next Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 4/21 is to read the rest of the oral argument transcript (with audio is best), trying to get the point of each question and locating where that question puts the Justice in the vote tally.
In class today, Thursday 4/16, I distributed two handouts: Assignment #2 (reproduced below) and the case you'll be briefing, Schroeder v. Rynel, 1998 ME 259. (If you weren't in class today, you can get the case by going to
http://courts.maine.gov/opinions_orders/supreme/opinions_1998.html
and scrolling down to case 259).
We finished our discussion of Land v. Yamaha, going over the difference between a statute of repose v. a statute of limitations, and federal court power over the conflict of laws rules v. state court power. I then discussed a Maine case regarding our conflict of laws rule, Collins v. Trius. I went over the background of our case to brief, specifically the reasons to incorporate in Delaware, the contract that Schroeder had with his employer Rynel, and the difference between a breach of contract cause of action and this statutory cause of action. We began our discussion of the Finstuen case, going over the difference in Full Faith and Credit analysis between laws v. court judgments, and the significance of birth certificates and adoption decrees. On Tuesday we will go over questions about the Schroeder case brief, and also finish up Finstuen. The assignment for Tuesday 4/21 is to begin work on the Schroeder brief, and to review Finstuen.
Assignment #2 due Thursday April 23, 2015
The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the case of Schroeder v. Rynel, 998 ME 259, 720 A.2d 1164.
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 4/23, 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, Thursday 4/16, we went over the transcript of the Zivotofsky oral argument. We basically looked at the questions by the Justices, and tried, by the tenor of the question, to put each participating Justice in the pro- or anti- Zivotofsky camp. We got as far as p.15, where Alito joined in. We will pick up at that point next Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 4/21 is to read the rest of the oral argument transcript (with audio is best), trying to get the point of each question and locating where that question puts the Justice in the vote tally.
Tuesday, April 14, 2015
April 14, 2015
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 4/14, I distributed one handout, articles about retroactive application (Miller and Wisconsin Chief Justice status). We then went over Hubbard v. Greeson. We covered the different substantive laws of Indiana and Illinois, the different choice of law rules for the two states, and the decision by the Indiana Supreme Court to change its choice of rules right before our eyes. We also discussed the two-step process chosen by the Indiana Supreme Court as its new choice of law rule. We then began our discussion of Land v. Yamaha. We went over federal trial court jurisdiction (federal question and diversity), federal court organization, and federal court citation format. We went over the Erie doctrine. We got as far in the Land case brief as the plaintiff's cause of action, which is where we'll pick up on Thursday. The additional assignment for Thursday 4/16 is to finish reading Chapter III of the text (Finstuen v. Crutcher).
POS 383 AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 4/14, I distributed one handout, the transcript of the oral argument in Zivotofsky. We went through the two assigned briefs in the case. Among the questions we discussed were: why doesn't Kerry's brief use the word "unconstitutional"; what was Bush's signing statement, and what is its relationship to the flow chart of the constitution; what were the two major points of Petitioner's position, and how did Kerry respond. The assignment for Thursday 4/16 is to read through p. 24 of the oral argument (and I suggested listening as well, at supremecourt.gov; oral arguments; argument audio; argument session November 3-12)
In class today, Tuesday 4/14, I distributed one handout, articles about retroactive application (Miller and Wisconsin Chief Justice status). We then went over Hubbard v. Greeson. We covered the different substantive laws of Indiana and Illinois, the different choice of law rules for the two states, and the decision by the Indiana Supreme Court to change its choice of rules right before our eyes. We also discussed the two-step process chosen by the Indiana Supreme Court as its new choice of law rule. We then began our discussion of Land v. Yamaha. We went over federal trial court jurisdiction (federal question and diversity), federal court organization, and federal court citation format. We went over the Erie doctrine. We got as far in the Land case brief as the plaintiff's cause of action, which is where we'll pick up on Thursday. The additional assignment for Thursday 4/16 is to finish reading Chapter III of the text (Finstuen v. Crutcher).
POS 383 AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 4/14, I distributed one handout, the transcript of the oral argument in Zivotofsky. We went through the two assigned briefs in the case. Among the questions we discussed were: why doesn't Kerry's brief use the word "unconstitutional"; what was Bush's signing statement, and what is its relationship to the flow chart of the constitution; what were the two major points of Petitioner's position, and how did Kerry respond. The assignment for Thursday 4/16 is to read through p. 24 of the oral argument (and I suggested listening as well, at supremecourt.gov; oral arguments; argument audio; argument session November 3-12)
Thursday, April 9, 2015
April 9, 2015
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 4/9, we first discussed ex post fact laws and sex offender registry laws. We moved on to the Butler case, and the status of dictum. I talked about the outcome of the 1971 U.S. Supreme Court case, Harris v. U.S., and then we looked at the lineup of Justices that were on both the Miranda and the Harris courts. We moved on to retroactive application of court decisions. I made a little chart of how the U.S. Supreme Court has viewed questions of retroactive v. prospective application for the federal courts, and we examined how the Dempsey Court decided the issue under Montana law. I'm not having the class read the Strunk case (p. 110) and so I gave a short explanation of the issue and the resolution in that case. The assignment for Tuesday 4/14 is to read in the text and prepare to discuss pp. 113-116 (choice of law and Greeson) and pp. 144-146 (Erie doctrine and Land).
POS 383 AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Thursday 4/9, I distributed two handouts: the Petitioner's Brief and the Respondent's Brief in the Zivotofsky Supreme Court case. Before discussing the Curtiss-Wright opinion, we first looked at the non-delegation cases that Curtiss-Wright was relying on, Panama Oil and Schechter Poultry (p. 261). We went over the distribution of foreign affairs powers in the text of the constitution itself. We explored the Curtiss-Wright opinion (both parts in the text). The assignment for Tuesday 4/14 is to read the two Zivotofsky briefs.
In class today, Thursday 4/9, we first discussed ex post fact laws and sex offender registry laws. We moved on to the Butler case, and the status of dictum. I talked about the outcome of the 1971 U.S. Supreme Court case, Harris v. U.S., and then we looked at the lineup of Justices that were on both the Miranda and the Harris courts. We moved on to retroactive application of court decisions. I made a little chart of how the U.S. Supreme Court has viewed questions of retroactive v. prospective application for the federal courts, and we examined how the Dempsey Court decided the issue under Montana law. I'm not having the class read the Strunk case (p. 110) and so I gave a short explanation of the issue and the resolution in that case. The assignment for Tuesday 4/14 is to read in the text and prepare to discuss pp. 113-116 (choice of law and Greeson) and pp. 144-146 (Erie doctrine and Land).
POS 383 AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Thursday 4/9, I distributed two handouts: the Petitioner's Brief and the Respondent's Brief in the Zivotofsky Supreme Court case. Before discussing the Curtiss-Wright opinion, we first looked at the non-delegation cases that Curtiss-Wright was relying on, Panama Oil and Schechter Poultry (p. 261). We went over the distribution of foreign affairs powers in the text of the constitution itself. We explored the Curtiss-Wright opinion (both parts in the text). The assignment for Tuesday 4/14 is to read the two Zivotofsky briefs.
Tuesday, April 7, 2015
April 7, 2015
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 4/7, I first gave short history of the Supreme Court's interpretation of the interstate commerce clause. I then went into the policies behind the ACA. We went through Roberts' opinion in detail, and more briefly, through Ginsburg's dissent and the "joint dissent". The assignment for Thursday 4/9 is to read through p.110 of the text (including both Butler and Dempsey).
POS 383 AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 4/7, I first talked about the concept of "privilege", and the lack of textual sources for the concept of executive privilege. We went through U.S. v. Nixon. We then talked about Mississippi v. Johnson and when the judiciary can force the executive to either do or refrain from doing its job. We compared the approaches of the U.S. v. Nixon Court with that of the Mississippi v. Johnson Court. We're going to move on to the power of the legislative and executive branches regarding foreign policy. The assignment for Thursday 4/9 is to read in the text pp. 171-175 and 252-256.
In class today, Tuesday 4/7, I first gave short history of the Supreme Court's interpretation of the interstate commerce clause. I then went into the policies behind the ACA. We went through Roberts' opinion in detail, and more briefly, through Ginsburg's dissent and the "joint dissent". The assignment for Thursday 4/9 is to read through p.110 of the text (including both Butler and Dempsey).
POS 383 AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 4/7, I first talked about the concept of "privilege", and the lack of textual sources for the concept of executive privilege. We went through U.S. v. Nixon. We then talked about Mississippi v. Johnson and when the judiciary can force the executive to either do or refrain from doing its job. We compared the approaches of the U.S. v. Nixon Court with that of the Mississippi v. Johnson Court. We're going to move on to the power of the legislative and executive branches regarding foreign policy. The assignment for Thursday 4/9 is to read in the text pp. 171-175 and 252-256.
Thursday, April 2, 2015
April 2, 2015
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 4/2, we first went over the Caperton case. We discussed the background of the case, the standard that Justice Benjamin believed governed his conduct, the standard established by the Supreme Court majority, the application of that standard, and the view of the dissenting Justices. I then talked about a case involving ethical standards for lawyers, Board of Overseers of the Bar v. Warren, and the obligation to turn in untrustworthy lawyers. The assignment for Tuesday 4/7 is to read in the textbook through p. 98 (all of the NFIB v. Sebelius opinions).
POS 383 AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Thursday 4/2, we first reviewed the majority decision in Morrison v. Olson, and then contrasted it with the Scalia dissent. We went over Myers v. U.S., both the majority and dissenting opinions, and discussed why Congress's plan for Senate oversight in removal was found to be unconstitutional. Finally, we saw how the Court in Humphrey's Executor distinguished Myers. The assignment for Tuesday 4/7 is to read and prepare to discuss through p. 236 of the text.
In class today, Thursday 4/2, we first went over the Caperton case. We discussed the background of the case, the standard that Justice Benjamin believed governed his conduct, the standard established by the Supreme Court majority, the application of that standard, and the view of the dissenting Justices. I then talked about a case involving ethical standards for lawyers, Board of Overseers of the Bar v. Warren, and the obligation to turn in untrustworthy lawyers. The assignment for Tuesday 4/7 is to read in the textbook through p. 98 (all of the NFIB v. Sebelius opinions).
POS 383 AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Thursday 4/2, we first reviewed the majority decision in Morrison v. Olson, and then contrasted it with the Scalia dissent. We went over Myers v. U.S., both the majority and dissenting opinions, and discussed why Congress's plan for Senate oversight in removal was found to be unconstitutional. Finally, we saw how the Court in Humphrey's Executor distinguished Myers. The assignment for Tuesday 4/7 is to read and prepare to discuss through p. 236 of the text.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)