POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 12/10, I collected the Walden case briefs, and we went over them. I plan to return them next Thursday. We then went over the previously distributed Maine statutes about jurisdiction and venue. Finally, we went over the St. James case. we reviewed the two bases of federal court original jurisdiction, and then examine how the St. James court handled this diversity of citizenship question. The final exam will be on Thursday 12/17 from 10-11:15. If you are missing any handouts, be sure to request what you need by 9 pm on Wednesday 12/16.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Thursday 12/10, I distributed one handout, an unedited version of part III of Scalia's opinion in Heller. We went over that opinion, looking at the other parts of the Constitution that deal with power over the militia, the reasons that might be behind the 2nd Amendment that differ from Scalia's historical analysis, the areas that government still might regulate (the subject of the handout) and the level of scrutiny applied to decide if the regulation by the government is allowed. We talked about the correct naming of "constitutional carry" for concealed weapons. We also briefly looked at the different nature of the the two dissenting opinions. The final exam will be on Thursday 12/17 from 12:15-1:30. If you are missing any handouts, be sure to request what you need by 9 pm on Wednesday 12/16.
Thursday, December 10, 2015
Tuesday, December 8, 2015
December 8, 2015
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 12/8, I distributed one handout, an excerpt from Maine statutes regarding jurisdiction and venue. We first decided that the final exam on Thursday 12/17 would start at 10:00, rather than the 9:30 start time in the University's official schedule (and the exam will go from 10:00 until 11:15).
After the class did evaluations, I went over some aspects of the Walden case brief, including reiterating the format that I'm looking for, and explaining what a Bivens action is. We then went through the Cheap Escape case, and put the case in the format of a case brief. I then talked about two cases which reached opposite conclusions regarding the correct definition of subject-matter jurisdiction, Landmark Realty v. Leasure (from the Maine Supreme Court) and Bowles v. Russell (from the U.S. Supreme Court). We began looking at the Maine jurisdiction statutes, and will pick up with the District Court jurisdiction, and venue, on Thursday. The assignment for Thursday 12/10 is to finish work on your Walden case brief (due at the beginning of class), review today's handout, and read in the text from 136-140 (St. James Apartments).
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Tuesday 12/8, I clarified that the final exam will be Thursday 12/17 from 12:15 until 1:30 (75 minutes instead of 2 hours). After the class did evaluations, we picked back up with the WWH v. Cole abortion case. We started with the question of the non-grandfathering of the ASC standards. We discussed fundamental rights, strict scrutiny, and the undue burden standard. We talked about the conflicting positions regarding whether the Court could second-guess (as opposed to accept at face value) the Texas legislature's asserted interest in maternal health. We looked at the precedents marshalled by each side of that question. We then shifted from purpose to effect, and looked at the evidence both of the scope of the decline in abortion facilities, and the reason shown for that decline. We talked a little bit about which side had the better arguments, as well as the better chance for success. We talked about the process of getting 4 votes to grant cert. We started discussing the decision by the Supreme Court this week to deny cert in a case that upheld a ban on assault-style weapons, and we'll talk about voting to deny cert as a tactic when we go over the Second Amendment on Thursday. The assignment for Thursday 12/10 is to read in the text pp.390-395 (Heller).
In class today, Tuesday 12/8, I distributed one handout, an excerpt from Maine statutes regarding jurisdiction and venue. We first decided that the final exam on Thursday 12/17 would start at 10:00, rather than the 9:30 start time in the University's official schedule (and the exam will go from 10:00 until 11:15).
After the class did evaluations, I went over some aspects of the Walden case brief, including reiterating the format that I'm looking for, and explaining what a Bivens action is. We then went through the Cheap Escape case, and put the case in the format of a case brief. I then talked about two cases which reached opposite conclusions regarding the correct definition of subject-matter jurisdiction, Landmark Realty v. Leasure (from the Maine Supreme Court) and Bowles v. Russell (from the U.S. Supreme Court). We began looking at the Maine jurisdiction statutes, and will pick up with the District Court jurisdiction, and venue, on Thursday. The assignment for Thursday 12/10 is to finish work on your Walden case brief (due at the beginning of class), review today's handout, and read in the text from 136-140 (St. James Apartments).
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Tuesday 12/8, I clarified that the final exam will be Thursday 12/17 from 12:15 until 1:30 (75 minutes instead of 2 hours). After the class did evaluations, we picked back up with the WWH v. Cole abortion case. We started with the question of the non-grandfathering of the ASC standards. We discussed fundamental rights, strict scrutiny, and the undue burden standard. We talked about the conflicting positions regarding whether the Court could second-guess (as opposed to accept at face value) the Texas legislature's asserted interest in maternal health. We looked at the precedents marshalled by each side of that question. We then shifted from purpose to effect, and looked at the evidence both of the scope of the decline in abortion facilities, and the reason shown for that decline. We talked a little bit about which side had the better arguments, as well as the better chance for success. We talked about the process of getting 4 votes to grant cert. We started discussing the decision by the Supreme Court this week to deny cert in a case that upheld a ban on assault-style weapons, and we'll talk about voting to deny cert as a tactic when we go over the Second Amendment on Thursday. The assignment for Thursday 12/10 is to read in the text pp.390-395 (Heller).
Thursday, December 3, 2015
December 3, 2015
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 12/3, I distributed one handout, the Maine Long-Arm statute. We talked about the Walden case brief (due next Thursday) in terms of citation form, cause of action, and especially the argument of the Plaintiffs as to why Nevada should have jurisdiction. In that context, I read the class an excerpt from the Calder case that's discussed in Walden, and we also looked at the language of the Maine Long-Arm statute. We then went through the Swoboda case, and put it into the format of our case brief. The assignment for Tuesday 12/8 is to continue working on the Walden case brief, and to read in the text pp. 123-129 (subject matter jurisdiction).
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Thursday 12/3, we first finished off our discussion of Casey. We talked about the flow chart of Casey, the two prongs of "undue burden", and the line between making things a little more difficult versus making them a lot more difficult. We also matched up the concurrences and dissents to figure what became the law of the land with shifting majorities of the Court. We then compared the WWH v. Cole statement of the questions presented in the clinic's Petition versus the state's Opposition, as each side tried to position itself as the correct interpreter of Casey. We did a little vote counting, and speculated about the role of Justice Kennedy. We left off in the Cert. Petition with the question of how, according to the clinic, the ASC requirement left abortion clinics in a more restrictive regulatory world than ASCs themselves. That's the point at which we'll pick up next week. The assignment for Tuesday 12/8 is to review both the Cert. Petition and the Brief in Opposition, looking especially for the points at which the two sides clash with each other.
In class today, Thursday 12/3, I distributed one handout, the Maine Long-Arm statute. We talked about the Walden case brief (due next Thursday) in terms of citation form, cause of action, and especially the argument of the Plaintiffs as to why Nevada should have jurisdiction. In that context, I read the class an excerpt from the Calder case that's discussed in Walden, and we also looked at the language of the Maine Long-Arm statute. We then went through the Swoboda case, and put it into the format of our case brief. The assignment for Tuesday 12/8 is to continue working on the Walden case brief, and to read in the text pp. 123-129 (subject matter jurisdiction).
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Thursday 12/3, we first finished off our discussion of Casey. We talked about the flow chart of Casey, the two prongs of "undue burden", and the line between making things a little more difficult versus making them a lot more difficult. We also matched up the concurrences and dissents to figure what became the law of the land with shifting majorities of the Court. We then compared the WWH v. Cole statement of the questions presented in the clinic's Petition versus the state's Opposition, as each side tried to position itself as the correct interpreter of Casey. We did a little vote counting, and speculated about the role of Justice Kennedy. We left off in the Cert. Petition with the question of how, according to the clinic, the ASC requirement left abortion clinics in a more restrictive regulatory world than ASCs themselves. That's the point at which we'll pick up next week. The assignment for Tuesday 12/8 is to review both the Cert. Petition and the Brief in Opposition, looking especially for the points at which the two sides clash with each other.
Tuesday, December 1, 2015
December 1, 2015
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 12/1, I distributed three handouts: assignment #2 (reproduced below); the case you'll be briefing, Walden v. Fiore, and an excerpt from the recent Supreme Court case of Obergefell v. Hodges. (If you need a copy of the Walden case, email me.) We first went over the requirements of the assignment, including the addition of the loser's facts in an "even though..." segment. We discussed the concepts of subject-matter jurisdiction versus personal jurisdiction. We went over the Obergefell excerpt, which extended the reach of the Full Faith and Credit Clause to recognition of the non-court judgment event of a marriage We then talked about the Finstuen case, putting it into the format of a case brief. I then discussed a later Court of Appeals decision from the 5th Circuit, Adar v. Smith, that found that Louisiana did not have to issue a new birth certificate to the same-sex adoptive parents. The assignment for Thursday 12/3 is to begin work on the case brief, and to read in the text pp. 129-135.
Assignment due Thursday December 10th, 2015.
The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the case of Walden v. Fiore,
571 U.S. _____ (2014).
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, with this addition: after giving the winner’s facts, give the loser’s facts with a phrase that starts “even though...”.
For example: “Under the 6th Amendment Confrontation Clause, is a statement that is admissible under the hearsay rule as a statement made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment, automatically admissible under the Confrontation Clause when such statements are by definition not made for the purpose of proving a fact later at trial, even though there is no longer any ongoing emergency?”.
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 12/10, 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 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Tuesday 12/1, I distributed one handout, the Brief in Opposition to Cert. in the Texas abortion case. We went through the Casey decision in detail, going over the Blackmun, Stevens, and Joint opinions. We will finish with the Casey opinions that wanted to overrule Roe when we reconvene on Thursday. The assignment for Thursday 12/3 is to review the Cert. Petition (previously distributed) and then to read the Brief in Opposition.
In class today, Tuesday 12/1, I distributed three handouts: assignment #2 (reproduced below); the case you'll be briefing, Walden v. Fiore, and an excerpt from the recent Supreme Court case of Obergefell v. Hodges. (If you need a copy of the Walden case, email me.) We first went over the requirements of the assignment, including the addition of the loser's facts in an "even though..." segment. We discussed the concepts of subject-matter jurisdiction versus personal jurisdiction. We went over the Obergefell excerpt, which extended the reach of the Full Faith and Credit Clause to recognition of the non-court judgment event of a marriage We then talked about the Finstuen case, putting it into the format of a case brief. I then discussed a later Court of Appeals decision from the 5th Circuit, Adar v. Smith, that found that Louisiana did not have to issue a new birth certificate to the same-sex adoptive parents. The assignment for Thursday 12/3 is to begin work on the case brief, and to read in the text pp. 129-135.
Assignment due Thursday December 10th, 2015.
The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the case of Walden v. Fiore,
571 U.S. _____ (2014).
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, with this addition: after giving the winner’s facts, give the loser’s facts with a phrase that starts “even though...”.
For example: “Under the 6th Amendment Confrontation Clause, is a statement that is admissible under the hearsay rule as a statement made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment, automatically admissible under the Confrontation Clause when such statements are by definition not made for the purpose of proving a fact later at trial, even though there is no longer any ongoing emergency?”.
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 12/10, 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 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Tuesday 12/1, I distributed one handout, the Brief in Opposition to Cert. in the Texas abortion case. We went through the Casey decision in detail, going over the Blackmun, Stevens, and Joint opinions. We will finish with the Casey opinions that wanted to overrule Roe when we reconvene on Thursday. The assignment for Thursday 12/3 is to review the Cert. Petition (previously distributed) and then to read the Brief in Opposition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)