POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 9/29, I distributed three handouts: Maine Rules of Civil Procedure and statues regarding juries; my version of the Speelman case brief; and a set of hypotheticals concerning the Speelman case. We first looked at the Maine Rules of Court and the Maine statutes regarding size and unanimity on Maine civil juries. We then went through the case brief of the Speelman case. Along the way, we looked at the concept of mandatory versus persuasive authority, as well as reviewing the concepts of following, distinguishing, or overruling precedent. Finally, we speculated about defenses that might be used for Speelman now that she's going to get that hearing that she wanted. The assignment for Thursday 10/1 is to read and prepare to discuss the Speelman hypotheticals, and to read and prepare for yourselves a case brief of Katko v. Briney (up to p. 43 of the text). In addition, I let the class know that the plan is to distribute the first assigned case brief on Thursday 10/1, to be due on Thursday 10/8.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Tuesday 9/29, I distributed two handouts, an article about a recent case that rejected the accommodation for religious non-profits cited in Hobby Lobby, and the form used (or maybe not) to request that accommodation. I first reminded the class of the Hobby Lobby outline due Thursday 10/1. I changed one instruction that I had given last Thursday: if you break your A down into 1 and 2, the A is just a question, and not an answer. I clarified that I thought that all of the As, Bs, and Cs did need to be broken down into 1s, 2s, and 3s, etc. I gave the class the guidance that my version of the outline was a little over three pages, and at that was heavily indented. I stressed that the answers were more of a sentence than a paragraph. We then talked about the role of amici in Alito's opinion. We discussed the concept of complicity, and contrasted the no-limits concept of complicity with the tort law concept of proximate causation. I discussed the case of Wheaton College v. Burwell, about the form used to claim exemption from the contraceptive mandate, and the recent 8th Circuit opinion that shut down even the alternative notification that by-passed that form. We did not get to finish the Boerne outline, so we will add that to the plan for Thursday of going over the assigned Hobby Lobby outline. The assignment for Thursday 10/1 is to finish work on your Hobby Lobby outlines, due at the beginning of class on Thursday.
Tuesday, September 29, 2015
Thursday, September 24, 2015
September 24, 2015
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 9/24, we first finished our look at the case brief for Glucksberg, including Souter's concurring opinion. We then looked at the excerpt from Obergefell that I distributed last class, including both Kennedy's majority opinion and Roberts' dissent. We looked at Brittany Maynard's question of why anyone should have the right to make the choice (of living or dying) for her. And finally we looked at the Maine statutes regarding suicide and even murder. The assignment for Tuesday 9/29 is to read and prepare to discuss through p. 38. Prepare for yourselves (not handed in or graded) a case brief of the Speelman case.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Thursday 9/24, I distributed 4 handouts: my version of the Boerne outline; RFRA and RLUIPA; Alito's opinion in Hobby Lobby, and Assignment #1 (reproduced below), which is due Thursday 10/1. After going over Assignment #1 and the background to Hobby Lobby,we then finished our discussion of Smith. We briefly talked about the Santeria case and targeting, and then began our discussion of Boerne. We got as far in Boerne as the explicit discussion of whether Congress has the power to enact RFRA as against the states (Roman numeral III in my version of the outline) which is where we'll pick up next Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 9/29 is to begin work on the Hobby Lobby outline.
Assignment due Thursday, October 1, 2015
The assignment is to do an outline of Justice Alito’s majority opinion in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (also distributed to the class today).
Follow the format from the Sample Outlines that I’ve distributed. Note that the basic format is Title (for the Roman numerals); and then Question and Answer for the other elements. Do not outline the introductory section of the Opinion (before Roman Numeral I). Starting with Roman Numeral I, use the same elements that Alito already has used: i.e. I (A) and (B); IV (A), (B), and (C); V (A), (B), and (C). Add sub-elements to the outline as necessary in order to cover the points raised by Alito (e.g. I (A) (1) (2) and (3)).
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 10/1, 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.
In class today, Thursday 9/24, we first finished our look at the case brief for Glucksberg, including Souter's concurring opinion. We then looked at the excerpt from Obergefell that I distributed last class, including both Kennedy's majority opinion and Roberts' dissent. We looked at Brittany Maynard's question of why anyone should have the right to make the choice (of living or dying) for her. And finally we looked at the Maine statutes regarding suicide and even murder. The assignment for Tuesday 9/29 is to read and prepare to discuss through p. 38. Prepare for yourselves (not handed in or graded) a case brief of the Speelman case.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Thursday 9/24, I distributed 4 handouts: my version of the Boerne outline; RFRA and RLUIPA; Alito's opinion in Hobby Lobby, and Assignment #1 (reproduced below), which is due Thursday 10/1. After going over Assignment #1 and the background to Hobby Lobby,we then finished our discussion of Smith. We briefly talked about the Santeria case and targeting, and then began our discussion of Boerne. We got as far in Boerne as the explicit discussion of whether Congress has the power to enact RFRA as against the states (Roman numeral III in my version of the outline) which is where we'll pick up next Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 9/29 is to begin work on the Hobby Lobby outline.
Assignment due Thursday, October 1, 2015
The assignment is to do an outline of Justice Alito’s majority opinion in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (also distributed to the class today).
Follow the format from the Sample Outlines that I’ve distributed. Note that the basic format is Title (for the Roman numerals); and then Question and Answer for the other elements. Do not outline the introductory section of the Opinion (before Roman Numeral I). Starting with Roman Numeral I, use the same elements that Alito already has used: i.e. I (A) and (B); IV (A), (B), and (C); V (A), (B), and (C). Add sub-elements to the outline as necessary in order to cover the points raised by Alito (e.g. I (A) (1) (2) and (3)).
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 10/1, 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.
Tuesday, September 22, 2015
September 22, 2015
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 9/22, I distributed four handouts: my version of the Glucksberg case brief; an article by Brittany Maynard; an excerpt from Obergefell v. Hodges; and the Maine statutes regarding assisted suicide. We went through the Glucksberg case brief, getting as far as the argument by the doctors that precedent dictates the result here. We'll continue and finish the case brief on Thursday. Along the way in our discussion, we covered: the citation form and order of the parties in the U.S. Supreme Court; the organization of the federal court system; the treatment of precedent as following, distinguishing, and overruling; the methodology used in order to determine whether a liberty interest is "fundamental"; the consequent division into low hurdles and high hurdles depending on the designation as fundamental or not; and the common levels of persuasion used in court proceedings (beyond a reasonable doubt, clear and convincing, and preponderance of the evidence). The assignment for Thursday 9/24 is to review Glucksberg, and read and prepare to discuss the four handouts.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Tuesday 9/22, I distributed one handout, my version of the Smith outline. We first covered the textbook cases from the 1980s, Thomas, Lee, Bob Jones and Goldman. We then went through Smith, and how to outline Smith. We covered Scalia's majority opinion, and O'Connor's concurrence. We'll begin with Blackmun's dissent on Thursday. The additional assignment for Thursday 9/24 is to read through p. 128, and prepare for yourself (not handed in or graded) an outline of Kennedy's opinion in Boerne v. Flores.
In class today, Tuesday 9/22, I distributed four handouts: my version of the Glucksberg case brief; an article by Brittany Maynard; an excerpt from Obergefell v. Hodges; and the Maine statutes regarding assisted suicide. We went through the Glucksberg case brief, getting as far as the argument by the doctors that precedent dictates the result here. We'll continue and finish the case brief on Thursday. Along the way in our discussion, we covered: the citation form and order of the parties in the U.S. Supreme Court; the organization of the federal court system; the treatment of precedent as following, distinguishing, and overruling; the methodology used in order to determine whether a liberty interest is "fundamental"; the consequent division into low hurdles and high hurdles depending on the designation as fundamental or not; and the common levels of persuasion used in court proceedings (beyond a reasonable doubt, clear and convincing, and preponderance of the evidence). The assignment for Thursday 9/24 is to review Glucksberg, and read and prepare to discuss the four handouts.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Tuesday 9/22, I distributed one handout, my version of the Smith outline. We first covered the textbook cases from the 1980s, Thomas, Lee, Bob Jones and Goldman. We then went through Smith, and how to outline Smith. We covered Scalia's majority opinion, and O'Connor's concurrence. We'll begin with Blackmun's dissent on Thursday. The additional assignment for Thursday 9/24 is to read through p. 128, and prepare for yourself (not handed in or graded) an outline of Kennedy's opinion in Boerne v. Flores.
Thursday, September 17, 2015
September 17, 2015
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 9/17, we first went over the concurring and dissenting opinions in Miller. We talked about the difference between concurring in the opinion versus concurring only in the judgment. We discussed the important difference between a majority opinion versus a plurality opinion . In looking at Breyer's concurrence, we went over the four mental states involved in criminal responsibility: intent, knowledge, recklessness, and negligence. In looking at Roberts' dissent, we looked at three persistent institutional conflicts: the rights of an individual versus the power of the state; the separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and the judicial power; and the federal power versus the power of the states. We went over the Maine sentencing statute, including proper citation form. We went over the fates of the two juveniles, Miller and Jackson. And finally we discussed the upcoming case of Montgomery v. Louisiana, which raises the question of the retroactive application of the rule in Miller. The assignment for Tuesday 9/22 is to read in the text through p. 34. In Washington v. Glucksberg, try your hand at putting together a case brief of Rehnquist's opinion. Follow the format of the case brief template and my sample brief in Miller. The assignment will not be handed in, but I do want you to write it out, ready for discussion on Tuesday.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Thursday 9/17, I distributed two handouts: my version of an outline for Sherbert v. Verner, and an article about the Kim Davis case in light of the Smith Supreme Court case. We finished our review of Sherbert, including the concurring and dissenting opinions. Along the way, we went over the treatment of precedent, including the options of following, distinguishing, or overruling prior cases. We also discussed the difference between concurring in the judgment versus concurring in the opinion. We then went through the outline of Wisconsin v. Yoder, including again the concurring and dissenting opinions. We also talked about what the concepts of liberal and conservative seem to have meant in terms of the religion cases. The assignment for Tuesday 9/22 is to review Smith (previously assigned) and to prepare for yourself (although not handed in or graded) an outline of Scalia's opinion in Smith.
In class today, Thursday 9/17, we first went over the concurring and dissenting opinions in Miller. We talked about the difference between concurring in the opinion versus concurring only in the judgment. We discussed the important difference between a majority opinion versus a plurality opinion . In looking at Breyer's concurrence, we went over the four mental states involved in criminal responsibility: intent, knowledge, recklessness, and negligence. In looking at Roberts' dissent, we looked at three persistent institutional conflicts: the rights of an individual versus the power of the state; the separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and the judicial power; and the federal power versus the power of the states. We went over the Maine sentencing statute, including proper citation form. We went over the fates of the two juveniles, Miller and Jackson. And finally we discussed the upcoming case of Montgomery v. Louisiana, which raises the question of the retroactive application of the rule in Miller. The assignment for Tuesday 9/22 is to read in the text through p. 34. In Washington v. Glucksberg, try your hand at putting together a case brief of Rehnquist's opinion. Follow the format of the case brief template and my sample brief in Miller. The assignment will not be handed in, but I do want you to write it out, ready for discussion on Tuesday.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Thursday 9/17, I distributed two handouts: my version of an outline for Sherbert v. Verner, and an article about the Kim Davis case in light of the Smith Supreme Court case. We finished our review of Sherbert, including the concurring and dissenting opinions. Along the way, we went over the treatment of precedent, including the options of following, distinguishing, or overruling prior cases. We also discussed the difference between concurring in the judgment versus concurring in the opinion. We then went through the outline of Wisconsin v. Yoder, including again the concurring and dissenting opinions. We also talked about what the concepts of liberal and conservative seem to have meant in terms of the religion cases. The assignment for Tuesday 9/22 is to review Smith (previously assigned) and to prepare for yourself (although not handed in or graded) an outline of Scalia's opinion in Smith.
Tuesday, September 15, 2015
September 15, 2015
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 9/15, I distributed 3 handouts: the case brief template, a sample brief of Miller v. Alabama, and a selection from the Maine sentencing statutes. We went over the language of the 8th Amendment, and various possible meanings of the words cruel and unusual. We also talked about the Bill of Rights as a protection against majority rule. We looked at four previous U.S. Supreme Courts cases regarding juvenile sentencing: Thompson v. Oklahoma, Stanford v. Kentucky, Roper v. Simmons, and Graham v. Florida. I went over the nine Justices of the Court, and their ideological affiliation. I went through the Brief Template and my sample Miller brief. The assignment for Thursday 9/17 is to review all three handouts from today, and to review the concurring and dissenting opinions in Miller. On Thursday we will go over those additional Miller opinions, look at the Maine sentencing statute, and I'll also go over the fate of Miller and Jackson and the question of retroactive v. prospective application of the Miller ruling.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Tuesday 9/15, we began by looking at the process by which the Supreme Court interpreted the 14th Amendment, and how it came to extent the protections of the 14th Amendment to the provisions of the Bill of Rights (which, as originally interpreted, only constrained the federal government, not the state governments). We talked about Reynolds {p.97} and Pierce {p.98} and then we went through the Cantwell case, using the outline format of questions and answers that I had used in the Kim Davis case. We covered Gobitas (p.101), Prince (p. 102) and Braunfeld (p. 103). We then began Sherbert, getting as far as the question of whether there was a burden on Sherbert's religious exercise. We will pick up on Thursday with the consideration of the state's interest. The additional assignment for Thursday 9/17 is to read in the text and prepare to discuss (in the question and answer format) through p. 122 of the text.
In class today, Tuesday 9/15, I distributed 3 handouts: the case brief template, a sample brief of Miller v. Alabama, and a selection from the Maine sentencing statutes. We went over the language of the 8th Amendment, and various possible meanings of the words cruel and unusual. We also talked about the Bill of Rights as a protection against majority rule. We looked at four previous U.S. Supreme Courts cases regarding juvenile sentencing: Thompson v. Oklahoma, Stanford v. Kentucky, Roper v. Simmons, and Graham v. Florida. I went over the nine Justices of the Court, and their ideological affiliation. I went through the Brief Template and my sample Miller brief. The assignment for Thursday 9/17 is to review all three handouts from today, and to review the concurring and dissenting opinions in Miller. On Thursday we will go over those additional Miller opinions, look at the Maine sentencing statute, and I'll also go over the fate of Miller and Jackson and the question of retroactive v. prospective application of the Miller ruling.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Tuesday 9/15, we began by looking at the process by which the Supreme Court interpreted the 14th Amendment, and how it came to extent the protections of the 14th Amendment to the provisions of the Bill of Rights (which, as originally interpreted, only constrained the federal government, not the state governments). We talked about Reynolds {p.97} and Pierce {p.98} and then we went through the Cantwell case, using the outline format of questions and answers that I had used in the Kim Davis case. We covered Gobitas (p.101), Prince (p. 102) and Braunfeld (p. 103). We then began Sherbert, getting as far as the question of whether there was a burden on Sherbert's religious exercise. We will pick up on Thursday with the consideration of the state's interest. The additional assignment for Thursday 9/17 is to read in the text and prepare to discuss (in the question and answer format) through p. 122 of the text.
Thursday, September 10, 2015
September 10, 2015
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 9/10, we first finished our discussion of the Sanders case. I then talked about the additional voting case of H.O. Pierce v. Getchell. We then went to the introductory materials in the text. I started by talking about equitable v. legal remedies, and we saw how this division is still reflected in the grant of general equitable powers to the Maine Superior Court, but not the Maine District Courts. We talked about the concept of the power to enforce laws, and the appeal (and limits) of natural law. We looked in the text at Martin Luther King's Letter from the Birmingham Jail, as well as the statements by Justice Kennedy in Lawrence v. Texas about the relationship between morality and law. The assignment for Tuesday 9/15 is to read in the text pp. 16-23. When reading Miller, try to formulate the issues that the Court confronts in the format laid out by the Sanders Issues handout.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Thursday 9/10, I distributed one handout, Judge Bunning's Order Releasing Kim Davis from custody. We first finished our examination of the Davis Preliminary Injunction Order, looking at the remainder of the harms that Davis alleged would befall her if the Preliminary Injunction were to issue. We went over the article on religious accommodation under Title VII and RFRA, including the additional reason that the federal court reading of the state RFRA will not be binding on the state. Finally, we went over Judge Bunning's Order Releasing Davis, and how the signature problem was finessed. The assignment for Tuesday 9/15 is to review pp. 89-100 of the text (previously assigned) and to read in addition through p. 107. As you read the cases, try to prepare them in the question and answer format used on my Tuesday Davis handout.
In class today, Thursday 9/10, we first finished our discussion of the Sanders case. I then talked about the additional voting case of H.O. Pierce v. Getchell. We then went to the introductory materials in the text. I started by talking about equitable v. legal remedies, and we saw how this division is still reflected in the grant of general equitable powers to the Maine Superior Court, but not the Maine District Courts. We talked about the concept of the power to enforce laws, and the appeal (and limits) of natural law. We looked in the text at Martin Luther King's Letter from the Birmingham Jail, as well as the statements by Justice Kennedy in Lawrence v. Texas about the relationship between morality and law. The assignment for Tuesday 9/15 is to read in the text pp. 16-23. When reading Miller, try to formulate the issues that the Court confronts in the format laid out by the Sanders Issues handout.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Thursday 9/10, I distributed one handout, Judge Bunning's Order Releasing Kim Davis from custody. We first finished our examination of the Davis Preliminary Injunction Order, looking at the remainder of the harms that Davis alleged would befall her if the Preliminary Injunction were to issue. We went over the article on religious accommodation under Title VII and RFRA, including the additional reason that the federal court reading of the state RFRA will not be binding on the state. Finally, we went over Judge Bunning's Order Releasing Davis, and how the signature problem was finessed. The assignment for Tuesday 9/15 is to review pp. 89-100 of the text (previously assigned) and to read in addition through p. 107. As you read the cases, try to prepare them in the question and answer format used on my Tuesday Davis handout.
Tuesday, September 8, 2015
September 8, 2015
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 9/8, I distributed one handout, about the framing of "issues" in Sanders v. Getchell. We continued through Sanders, framing the issues as explained in today's handout. We got through the issue of whether Sanders was in fact a resident of Waterville, and will pick up with unreasonableness of Getchell's negative view of that question on Thursday. We talked about the difference between enacted law and common law, and also the difference between an objective versus a subjective test of reasonableness. The assignment for Thursday 9/10 is to review today's handout, and the remainder of Sanders, and then to read and prepare to discuss pp. 1-15 of the text.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Tuesday 9/8, I distributed two handouts, my version of an outline of Miller v. Davis, and an article about accommodation of employees' religious claims. We continued through the Davis case, getting through the question of whether the governor's directive was targeted at Kim Davis' religion, as opposed to a neutral rule of general applicability. That's the point at which we'll pick up on Thursday. The assignment for Thursday 9/10 is to review today's handouts, and the remainder of Miller v. Davis, and then to read and prepare to discuss pp. 89-101 of the text.
In class today, Tuesday 9/8, I distributed one handout, about the framing of "issues" in Sanders v. Getchell. We continued through Sanders, framing the issues as explained in today's handout. We got through the issue of whether Sanders was in fact a resident of Waterville, and will pick up with unreasonableness of Getchell's negative view of that question on Thursday. We talked about the difference between enacted law and common law, and also the difference between an objective versus a subjective test of reasonableness. The assignment for Thursday 9/10 is to review today's handout, and the remainder of Sanders, and then to read and prepare to discuss pp. 1-15 of the text.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Tuesday 9/8, I distributed two handouts, my version of an outline of Miller v. Davis, and an article about accommodation of employees' religious claims. We continued through the Davis case, getting through the question of whether the governor's directive was targeted at Kim Davis' religion, as opposed to a neutral rule of general applicability. That's the point at which we'll pick up on Thursday. The assignment for Thursday 9/10 is to review today's handouts, and the remainder of Miller v. Davis, and then to read and prepare to discuss pp. 89-101 of the text.
Thursday, September 3, 2015
September 3, 2015
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 9/3, we began by going over the current Maine statute regarding voter registration. We went over current proper statutory citation form, and also the current organization of the Maine court system. We discussed the lack of an explicit cause of action in the Sanders opinion, and got to the initial question that is addressed by the Court: what does the word "unreasonable" in the statute mean exactly? That's where we'll pick up next week. The assignment for Tuesday 9/8 is to reread Sanders. Going paragraph by paragraph, figure out, in simple words, what question is being addressed in each paragraph, and how the Court answers the question.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Thursday 9/3, we first went over the current status of Kim Davis (in contempt, apparently). We went over the parties, and why the plaintiffs' attorney may have wanted to include opposite sex couples as well as same-sex couples. We discussed the Cause of Action asserted by the Plaintiffs. We went over the requirements for a preliminary injunction, looking along the way at both the organization of the federal court system and the citation form for Court of Appeals decisions. We then went through the flow chart of what the court had to decide: having decided that the right to marry is a fundamental right, what is the consequence of that designation for the rest of the questions that the court must address. The assignment for Tuesday 9/8 is to re-read Miller v. Davis, focussing on the exact questions that the court addresses, and then the court's answers to those specific questions.
In class today, Thursday 9/3, we began by going over the current Maine statute regarding voter registration. We went over current proper statutory citation form, and also the current organization of the Maine court system. We discussed the lack of an explicit cause of action in the Sanders opinion, and got to the initial question that is addressed by the Court: what does the word "unreasonable" in the statute mean exactly? That's where we'll pick up next week. The assignment for Tuesday 9/8 is to reread Sanders. Going paragraph by paragraph, figure out, in simple words, what question is being addressed in each paragraph, and how the Court answers the question.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Thursday 9/3, we first went over the current status of Kim Davis (in contempt, apparently). We went over the parties, and why the plaintiffs' attorney may have wanted to include opposite sex couples as well as same-sex couples. We discussed the Cause of Action asserted by the Plaintiffs. We went over the requirements for a preliminary injunction, looking along the way at both the organization of the federal court system and the citation form for Court of Appeals decisions. We then went through the flow chart of what the court had to decide: having decided that the right to marry is a fundamental right, what is the consequence of that designation for the rest of the questions that the court must address. The assignment for Tuesday 9/8 is to re-read Miller v. Davis, focussing on the exact questions that the court addresses, and then the court's answers to those specific questions.
Tuesday, September 1, 2015
September 1, 2015
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 9/1, I distributed 4 handouts: the syllabus, the Maine Supreme Court case of Sanders v. Getchell, a list of questions to prepare to discuss as you read Sanders, and an excerpt from the Maine statutes regarding voting, student voting, and liability of officials for mistakes in enforcing the law. We went over the Syllabus, and then started discussing the Sanders case. Along the way, we talked about the vocabulary of Plaintiff and Defendant, Cause of Action, and Common Law. We also went over the order in which parties are listed in both the State of Maine Court system, and the U.S. Supreme Court. The assignment for Thursday 9/3 is to read and re-read the Sanders case, prepare to discuss the questions about the case, and read the Maine statutes handout.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Tuesday 9/1, I distributed 3 handouts: the syllabus, the U.S. District Court opinion in the case of Miller v. Davis, and an AP article about the latest developments in that case. We went over the Syllabus, and then started discussing the issues of civil liberties. We talked about how the U.S. definition of those liberties diverges from that of most of the Western democracies. We then talked about Davis' claim for "asylum for the conscience". We read the text of the First Amendment, and discussed a recent book by Burt Neubourne, Madison's Magic, which proposes an interpretation of order of rights listed in that Amendment, as a blueprint for creation of a democratic society. Neubourne sees the First Amendment as a progression that starts with the individual formation of a conscience, and moves toward democratic mass action. We talked about the background of the Miller v. Davis opinion, what a preliminary injunction is, and the structure of the federal court system. The assignment for Thursday 9/3 is to read and prepare to discuss the Miller v. Davis case, as well as the AP story updating the case.
In class today, Tuesday 9/1, I distributed 4 handouts: the syllabus, the Maine Supreme Court case of Sanders v. Getchell, a list of questions to prepare to discuss as you read Sanders, and an excerpt from the Maine statutes regarding voting, student voting, and liability of officials for mistakes in enforcing the law. We went over the Syllabus, and then started discussing the Sanders case. Along the way, we talked about the vocabulary of Plaintiff and Defendant, Cause of Action, and Common Law. We also went over the order in which parties are listed in both the State of Maine Court system, and the U.S. Supreme Court. The assignment for Thursday 9/3 is to read and re-read the Sanders case, prepare to discuss the questions about the case, and read the Maine statutes handout.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Tuesday 9/1, I distributed 3 handouts: the syllabus, the U.S. District Court opinion in the case of Miller v. Davis, and an AP article about the latest developments in that case. We went over the Syllabus, and then started discussing the issues of civil liberties. We talked about how the U.S. definition of those liberties diverges from that of most of the Western democracies. We then talked about Davis' claim for "asylum for the conscience". We read the text of the First Amendment, and discussed a recent book by Burt Neubourne, Madison's Magic, which proposes an interpretation of order of rights listed in that Amendment, as a blueprint for creation of a democratic society. Neubourne sees the First Amendment as a progression that starts with the individual formation of a conscience, and moves toward democratic mass action. We talked about the background of the Miller v. Davis opinion, what a preliminary injunction is, and the structure of the federal court system. The assignment for Thursday 9/3 is to read and prepare to discuss the Miller v. Davis case, as well as the AP story updating the case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)