POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 10/27, we began by going through the Maine statute on Hindering Apprehension, and we discussed what would be the best part of that law under which to bring charges against a Maine Ms. Mobbley. We went through Holland v. Florida, in which the Florida Supreme Court had to decide whether to exercise its power to create a Florida common law crime of misprision of a felony. I discussed the federal statute that creates such a federal crime, and we also looked at the Massachusetts duty to report statute in our text. I went through the four mental states involved in most crimes (knowledge was the mental state in the federal statute) and we also went over the two bases of federal court jurisdiction (federal question and diversity). We looked at the Maine statute that precludes the creation of common law crimes in Maine. I forgot, though, to turn the page over to discuss mandated reporting of child abuse and neglect under Maine statute, so we'll start with that next Tuesday. We went through the Glassford case, looking at the cause of action, the precedent used by the Vermont court, the issues presented, and their resolution. I plan to follow up on Tuesday with some recent U.S. Supreme Court cases about the use of mandatory arbitration clauses. The assignment for Tuesday November 1 is to read in the text through the end of Chapter 2 (Caperton).
Thursday, October 27, 2016
Wednesday, October 26, 2016
October 26, 2016
POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 10/26, I first handed back the Raich outlines. The class then took exam #1 for the first half of class. For the second half of class I went over the exam. I will grade and hand back the exams next week. The assignment for Wednesday 11/2 is to review the commerce case previously assigned that we have not yet gone over (p. 463-466 Wickard, and 473-492 (Lopez, Morrison, Raich) and to read in addition p. 467-473 (Heart of Atlanta) and 492-501 (NFIB - commerce power).
In class today, Tuesday 10/26, I first handed back the Raich outlines. The class then took exam #1 for the first half of class. For the second half of class I went over the exam. I will grade and hand back the exams next week. The assignment for Wednesday 11/2 is to review the commerce case previously assigned that we have not yet gone over (p. 463-466 Wickard, and 473-492 (Lopez, Morrison, Raich) and to read in addition p. 467-473 (Heart of Atlanta) and 492-501 (NFIB - commerce power).
Tuesday, October 25, 2016
October 25, 2016
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 10/25, I distributed one handout, the Maine statutes regarding hindering apprehension, common law crimes, and mandated reporting. We went over Gregg v. Georgia, including the three handouts from last week. We discussed the plurality opinion, as well as the two dissents. We then went over State v. Mobbley, and discussed statutory interpretation. We also looked at the concept of dictum, meaning the statements made by a court that go beyond that which is required to decide a case. We looked at both the Mobbley majority and the dissent. Finally we looked at the Maine statute regarding hindering apprehension. We were deciding what specific paragraph of that law might be involved if we took the Mobbley situation and placed it in Maine. That's where we'll pick up on Thursday. The assignment for Thursday 10/27 is to figure out what specific section of the Maine statute would apply to the Mobbley scenario. Then review Holland (previously assigned) and look at the Maine statutes distributed today about common law crimes in Maine, and mandated reporting. The additional assignment for Thursday is to read in the text and prepare to discuss through p. 77 (Glassford v. BrickKicker).
In class today, Tuesday 10/25, I distributed one handout, the Maine statutes regarding hindering apprehension, common law crimes, and mandated reporting. We went over Gregg v. Georgia, including the three handouts from last week. We discussed the plurality opinion, as well as the two dissents. We then went over State v. Mobbley, and discussed statutory interpretation. We also looked at the concept of dictum, meaning the statements made by a court that go beyond that which is required to decide a case. We looked at both the Mobbley majority and the dissent. Finally we looked at the Maine statute regarding hindering apprehension. We were deciding what specific paragraph of that law might be involved if we took the Mobbley situation and placed it in Maine. That's where we'll pick up on Thursday. The assignment for Thursday 10/27 is to figure out what specific section of the Maine statute would apply to the Mobbley scenario. Then review Holland (previously assigned) and look at the Maine statutes distributed today about common law crimes in Maine, and mandated reporting. The additional assignment for Thursday is to read in the text and prepare to discuss through p. 77 (Glassford v. BrickKicker).
Thursday, October 20, 2016
October 20, 2016
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 10/20, I distributed three handouts: an article about the manipulation of the vote in Furman v. Georgia, one about Justice Breyer's challenge to the death penalty, and then a list of Supreme Court cases concerning the death penalty. I handed back the exams from Tuesday, and we went over them. We finished our discussion of Suggs v. Norris. We will pick up next Tuesday with Gregg v. Georgia, previously assigned. The assignment for Tuesday 10/25 is to read today's handouts, review Gregg v. Georgia, and to read in addition in the text, pp. 59-67.
In class today, Thursday 10/20, I distributed three handouts: an article about the manipulation of the vote in Furman v. Georgia, one about Justice Breyer's challenge to the death penalty, and then a list of Supreme Court cases concerning the death penalty. I handed back the exams from Tuesday, and we went over them. We finished our discussion of Suggs v. Norris. We will pick up next Tuesday with Gregg v. Georgia, previously assigned. The assignment for Tuesday 10/25 is to read today's handouts, review Gregg v. Georgia, and to read in addition in the text, pp. 59-67.
Wednesday, October 19, 2016
October 19, 2016
POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Wednesday 10/19, I collected the Raich outlines, and I distributed my version of the outline. I plan to hand back the graded outlines next week. We went over the outline. I also discussed the remand of the case in Raich v. Gonzales, (2007) in which the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Raich's substantive due process claim.
The class then took a practice test in preparation for next week's exam. The exam will be open book and open note. The best way to study for the exam is to review this blog, making sure that you're understanding the cases and concepts that are mentioned in the blog. Also check this blog to make sure that you've got all of the handouts. If you're missing any handouts, email me by 8:00 pm on Tuesday 10/25 to request them. The plan for the exam is to have it for the first 75 minutes of class (until 3:15). If there are no absences from class, we can go over the exam immediately after the break. If there are any absences, we'll go over the exam when I hand back the exams on 11/2.
We then continued through the assigned textbook cases on the commerce clause. I reviewed Gibbons v. Ogden, and then we went through Knight (p. 423), Stafford (p. 429), Champion (p. 432) and Hammer (p.435). The exam will cover material up through Hammer, and not the further textbook cases that were previously assigned but not gone through in class (pp. 463-466 and 473-492).
The assignment for Wednesday 10/26 is to prepare for the exam, and also to review the textbook materials that were previously assigned but not yet gone over in class (above).
In class today, Wednesday 10/19, I collected the Raich outlines, and I distributed my version of the outline. I plan to hand back the graded outlines next week. We went over the outline. I also discussed the remand of the case in Raich v. Gonzales, (2007) in which the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Raich's substantive due process claim.
The class then took a practice test in preparation for next week's exam. The exam will be open book and open note. The best way to study for the exam is to review this blog, making sure that you're understanding the cases and concepts that are mentioned in the blog. Also check this blog to make sure that you've got all of the handouts. If you're missing any handouts, email me by 8:00 pm on Tuesday 10/25 to request them. The plan for the exam is to have it for the first 75 minutes of class (until 3:15). If there are no absences from class, we can go over the exam immediately after the break. If there are any absences, we'll go over the exam when I hand back the exams on 11/2.
We then continued through the assigned textbook cases on the commerce clause. I reviewed Gibbons v. Ogden, and then we went through Knight (p. 423), Stafford (p. 429), Champion (p. 432) and Hammer (p.435). The exam will cover material up through Hammer, and not the further textbook cases that were previously assigned but not gone through in class (pp. 463-466 and 473-492).
The assignment for Wednesday 10/26 is to prepare for the exam, and also to review the textbook materials that were previously assigned but not yet gone over in class (above).
Tuesday, October 18, 2016
October 18, 2016
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 10/18, the class took Exam #1. I plan to return the graded exams on Thursday, and go over them. The assignment for Thursday 10/20 is to review Suggs v. Norris (previosly assigned) and to read in addition pp. 52-58 of the text (Gregg v. Georgia).
In class today, Tuesday 10/18, the class took Exam #1. I plan to return the graded exams on Thursday, and go over them. The assignment for Thursday 10/20 is to review Suggs v. Norris (previosly assigned) and to read in addition pp. 52-58 of the text (Gregg v. Georgia).
Thursday, October 13, 2016
October 13, 2016
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 10/13, I distributed one handout, the comment key to explain my notations on your Jones case briefs. I returned those case briefs. We did an in-class sample test in preparation for next Tuesday's test. We finished going over the Maine Use of Force statute, and we discussed Suggs v. Norris, as far as the issue of whether public policy forbids the enforcement of a contract in which the parties are engaged in a sexual relationship. On Tuesday 11/18 we'll have Exam #1. open-book and open-note. If you're using a laptop or other device, remember that you can't connect to the internet or do any other function that is not available to those who have a hard copy of the text. If you are missing any handouts, you must notify me by 8:00 p.m. on Monday 10/17 if you want me to bring you the missing handout.
In class today, Thursday 10/13, I distributed one handout, the comment key to explain my notations on your Jones case briefs. I returned those case briefs. We did an in-class sample test in preparation for next Tuesday's test. We finished going over the Maine Use of Force statute, and we discussed Suggs v. Norris, as far as the issue of whether public policy forbids the enforcement of a contract in which the parties are engaged in a sexual relationship. On Tuesday 11/18 we'll have Exam #1. open-book and open-note. If you're using a laptop or other device, remember that you can't connect to the internet or do any other function that is not available to those who have a hard copy of the text. If you are missing any handouts, you must notify me by 8:00 p.m. on Monday 10/17 if you want me to bring you the missing handout.
Thursday, October 6, 2016
October 6, 2016
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 10/6, I collected the Jones case briefs, and also distributed my own version of the brief. We went through the Jones case brief, including the dissent. Along the way, we went over the concept of summary judgment. We then turned to the Maine statute about Use of Force in Defense of Premises. We went through the definitions, and the use of non-deadly force. We'll return to deadly force next Thursday, We also went over proper Maine statutory citation form.
We also discussed the upcoming schedule. There is no class on Tuesday 10/11 (Fall break). On Thursday 10/13 I plan to hand back the Jones case briefs. Also on that day, I plan to give a few practice questions for our upcoming exam, which I plan for Tuesday 10/18. The best way to prepare for the exam is to review the blog posts, which cover all the handouts and concepts in addition to the cases that we've covered.
The assignment for Thursday 10/13 is to review the Maine statute (again) and to read in the text through the end of Chapter 1 (including Suggs v. Norris).
In class today, Thursday 10/6, I collected the Jones case briefs, and also distributed my own version of the brief. We went through the Jones case brief, including the dissent. Along the way, we went over the concept of summary judgment. We then turned to the Maine statute about Use of Force in Defense of Premises. We went through the definitions, and the use of non-deadly force. We'll return to deadly force next Thursday, We also went over proper Maine statutory citation form.
We also discussed the upcoming schedule. There is no class on Tuesday 10/11 (Fall break). On Thursday 10/13 I plan to hand back the Jones case briefs. Also on that day, I plan to give a few practice questions for our upcoming exam, which I plan for Tuesday 10/18. The best way to prepare for the exam is to review the blog posts, which cover all the handouts and concepts in addition to the cases that we've covered.
The assignment for Thursday 10/13 is to review the Maine statute (again) and to read in the text through the end of Chapter 1 (including Suggs v. Norris).
Wednesday, October 5, 2016
October 5, 2016
POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Wednesday 10/5, I distributed 3 handouts: Assignment #1 (reproduced below); the case you'll be outlining (the majority opinion in Gonzales v. Raich); and my version of the Medicaid outline in NFIB v. Sebelius. If you weren't in class today, I left a copy of the three handouts in my mailbox in the Political Science department office (across the hall from our classroom).
We began class by going over some scheduling. Next week, 10/12, I won't be in class, but the class will meet and watch two episodes of a PBS series on the Supreme Court. On 10/19, the outline is due, and we'll go over those outlines, as well as going over some practice questions for our exam #1, which will be given at the beginning of class on 10/26.
We then returned to the question of coercion and the NFIB v. Selelius case. We put the case in outline format, and covered all three opinions in the text. We then moved onto the Commerce Clause, and went through Gibbons v. Ogden.
The assignment for next week and the week beyond is to do assignment #1, review the materials previously assigned that were not reached today (text. pp. 422-439) and to read in addition in the text pp. 463-466 and 473-492.
Assignment due Wednesday, October 19, 2016
The assignment is to do an outline of Stevens’ majority opinion in Gonzales v. Raich (also distributed to the class today).
Follow the format from the Sample Outlines that I’ve distributed. Note that the basic format is a complete sentence for the Title (for the Roman numerals); and then Question and Answer for the other elements. For Stevens’ opinion, the only structure he provides is Roman numerals I-V. So add sub-elements to the outline as necessary in order to cover the points raised by him (e.g. I (A) (1) (a)).
How do you know when to add sub-elements? Ask yourself what questions the Justices are asking, and how they are answering them. For example, Stevens’ paragraphs 2-5 address one basic question --- the background to the controversy. His paragraphs 6-9 address a different question --- what were the prior proceedings.
Do not outline the introductory section of the Opinions (¶1, before Roman Numeral I).
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 Wednesday 10/19, you should still e-mail me your assignment by the beginning of class time. If you do that, you will not have any grade deducted from your grade for the outline. If you do not, you should still contact me as soon as possible to see what options are available to you. (Generally, I do not want to accept assignments after we have discussed them in class). See the Syllabus for the class rules regarding late papers.
The work should be entirely your own, with no collaboration or plagiarism. Do not show your paper to anyone. Do not look at anyone else’s paper. See the syllabus regarding plagiarism and collaboration.
IMPORTANT: If you e-mail your assignment to me, I will reply to confirm that I have received your assignment. If you do not get a reply, then I have not received the assignment.
In class today, Wednesday 10/5, I distributed 3 handouts: Assignment #1 (reproduced below); the case you'll be outlining (the majority opinion in Gonzales v. Raich); and my version of the Medicaid outline in NFIB v. Sebelius. If you weren't in class today, I left a copy of the three handouts in my mailbox in the Political Science department office (across the hall from our classroom).
We began class by going over some scheduling. Next week, 10/12, I won't be in class, but the class will meet and watch two episodes of a PBS series on the Supreme Court. On 10/19, the outline is due, and we'll go over those outlines, as well as going over some practice questions for our exam #1, which will be given at the beginning of class on 10/26.
We then returned to the question of coercion and the NFIB v. Selelius case. We put the case in outline format, and covered all three opinions in the text. We then moved onto the Commerce Clause, and went through Gibbons v. Ogden.
The assignment for next week and the week beyond is to do assignment #1, review the materials previously assigned that were not reached today (text. pp. 422-439) and to read in addition in the text pp. 463-466 and 473-492.
Assignment due Wednesday, October 19, 2016
The assignment is to do an outline of Stevens’ majority opinion in Gonzales v. Raich (also distributed to the class today).
Follow the format from the Sample Outlines that I’ve distributed. Note that the basic format is a complete sentence for the Title (for the Roman numerals); and then Question and Answer for the other elements. For Stevens’ opinion, the only structure he provides is Roman numerals I-V. So add sub-elements to the outline as necessary in order to cover the points raised by him (e.g. I (A) (1) (a)).
How do you know when to add sub-elements? Ask yourself what questions the Justices are asking, and how they are answering them. For example, Stevens’ paragraphs 2-5 address one basic question --- the background to the controversy. His paragraphs 6-9 address a different question --- what were the prior proceedings.
Do not outline the introductory section of the Opinions (¶1, before Roman Numeral I).
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 Wednesday 10/19, you should still e-mail me your assignment by the beginning of class time. If you do that, you will not have any grade deducted from your grade for the outline. If you do not, you should still contact me as soon as possible to see what options are available to you. (Generally, I do not want to accept assignments after we have discussed them in class). See the Syllabus for the class rules regarding late papers.
The work should be entirely your own, with no collaboration or plagiarism. Do not show your paper to anyone. Do not look at anyone else’s paper. See the syllabus regarding plagiarism and collaboration.
IMPORTANT: If you e-mail your assignment to me, I will reply to confirm that I have received your assignment. If you do not get a reply, then I have not received the assignment.
Tuesday, October 4, 2016
October 4, 2016
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 10/4, I distributed one handout, my version of the Katko case brief. I first talked a little bit about the Jones case brief. I stressed that the "fact" segment should explain why an argument (the legal question) is a winner or a loser. I also clarified that the "facts" should be a complete sentence in their own right, so that the issue (including the "facts") needs to read that way as well. And I reminded the class about the need to copy and paste after the issue is formulated. We then went through the Katko case brief, including the views of the dissent. We looked at the authority cited by the Iowa Supreme Court, including adding the category of extending precedent to our previous categories of following, distinguishing, or overruling precedent. We also expanded our chart of authority by dividing authority into primary authority (both mandatory and persuasive) versus secondary authority (non-law). We talked about jury instructions, directed verdicts, and judgments notwithstanding a verdict. We also talked about the mental states of defendants, including intent, knowledge, recklessness, and negligence. We will discuss the Maine statute about use of force on Thursday, after we go through the Jones case brief. The assignment for Thursday 10/6 is to finish your Jones case brief, due at the beginning of class, and in addition, to review the Maine statute on use of force.
In class today, Tuesday 10/4, I distributed one handout, my version of the Katko case brief. I first talked a little bit about the Jones case brief. I stressed that the "fact" segment should explain why an argument (the legal question) is a winner or a loser. I also clarified that the "facts" should be a complete sentence in their own right, so that the issue (including the "facts") needs to read that way as well. And I reminded the class about the need to copy and paste after the issue is formulated. We then went through the Katko case brief, including the views of the dissent. We looked at the authority cited by the Iowa Supreme Court, including adding the category of extending precedent to our previous categories of following, distinguishing, or overruling precedent. We also expanded our chart of authority by dividing authority into primary authority (both mandatory and persuasive) versus secondary authority (non-law). We talked about jury instructions, directed verdicts, and judgments notwithstanding a verdict. We also talked about the mental states of defendants, including intent, knowledge, recklessness, and negligence. We will discuss the Maine statute about use of force on Thursday, after we go through the Jones case brief. The assignment for Thursday 10/6 is to finish your Jones case brief, due at the beginning of class, and in addition, to review the Maine statute on use of force.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)