POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Wednesday 11/30, I distributed two handouts: Assignment #2 (reproduced below) and two newspaper articles about the subject of the assignment, a proposal to have all Muslims in the country register with the federal government. I went over the assignment. We then started in on the cases for today. We discussed the Prize cases, Milligan, Quirin, Korematsu, Youngstown, Dames & Moore, and Zivotofsky. We will begin next week, with Hamdi and the cases that follow it, previously assigned. The assignment for Wednesday 12/7, is to begin working on your Assignment, and to read in addition pp. 270-289 of the text.
Assignment due at the beginning of the Exam on Friday, December 16, 2016
Congratulations! President-elect Trump has summoned you to Trump Tower, and offered you the position of Constitutional Analyst. This newly-created position analyzes Trump’s ideas to determine if they’re in accord with the Supreme Court’s idea of what’s constitutional.
Your first assignment is to do an analysis of the constitutionality of a possible plan by Trump to have all Muslims in America, citizen and non-citizen, immigrant and native-born alike, register with the federal government. (See the news articles on the subject also distributed today.)
But the plan is not popular with Congress, which has gotten a lot of negative feedback from the voters. It’s possible that Congress will pass a law forbidding such a registry (which law Congress could uphold over the President’s veto).
Trump believes that the President has the power to implement the plan, regardless of Congressional objections, because the President has full authority in this area of immigration and war-making powers. Trump says that we are engaged in The War on Terror, a war authorized by Congress, and that he has the right to use his wartime powers to fight terrorism, and this registry is an important tool in that fight.
Analyze whether Trump would be correct about the constitutional powers of the Executive. Include in your analysis both a situation in which Congress explicitly approves and authorizes the registry, and the situation in which Congress explicitly rejects the registry. Examine the arguments both for and against the constitutionality of the registry.
Use the following authority from the textbook: pp. 263-267; 289-340; and Arizona v. U.S. pp. 407-414. Use no other cases, and do no outside research. This assignment is totally based on what’s in the textbook.
To cite authority, use the textbook page numbers: e.g. “As the Court majority stated in Arizona v. U.S., ‘aliens are required to register with the Federal Government’. (Arizona at p. 409).”
The assignment will be graded on both the structure and the content of your analysis. 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. I would expect the paper to be in the neighborhood of three pages long.
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.
The assignment is due at the beginning of the exam on Friday 12/16. If you cannot be in class on that day, you should still e-mail me your assignment by the beginning of the exam 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. 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.
Wednesday, November 30, 2016
Tuesday, November 29, 2016
November 29, 2016
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/29, I distributed four handouts: Assignment #2 (reproduced below); TD Banknorth v. Hawkins, 2010 ME 104, 5 A.3d 1042; Brown v. Thaler, 2005 ME 75, 880 A.2d 1113; and an excerpt from the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure. We went over the assignment. We then finished up Chapter 4 of the text by going over subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts in diversity cases. We covered St. James Apartments in terms of diversity of citizenship, and Frump in terms of the amount in controversy. The assignment for Thursday 12/1 is to read the cases to brief, Hawkins and Brown, and to read in the text pp. 154-164 (including Salmon, p. 156 and Johnson p. 162).
Assignment due at the beginning of class on Thursday, December 8, 2016
The assignment is to do two case briefs: the first is of the case of Brown v. Thaler, 2005 ME 75, 880 A.2d 1113 and the second is of TD Banknorth v. Hawkins, 2010 ME 104, 5 A.3d 1042. The cases were distributed to class today.
For the Hawkins case, only do the Facts, Issues, and Holdings through Section II (A) of the opinion, “Service of Process”. Do not do the Facts, Issues, and Holdings for Section II (B) “Amendment of Complaint” (¶ 18-25). Do include Section II (B) for the remainder of the brief (everything but Facts, Issues and Holdings).
These are both cases in which the brief is more useful if you utilize an “even though...” portion of the Issues, and Holdings (and include any facts used there in your Facts section). This means that you include the loser’s facts (opposite to what the Court holds) to show what the losing side was arguing. For example: “Under the rules of our class, may a student make cell phone calls during the class when such calls are disruptive, even though there was no specific prohibition on such calls in the syllabus.” The “Facts” would include “ such calls are disruptive even though there was no specific prohibition on such calls in the syllabus”.
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 questions about the brief. The more time that I have to answer our questions, the more likely it is that I can be helpful.
If you cannot be in class on Thursday 12/8, 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.
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.
Remember to work by yourselves; do not collaborate. Do not show your work to anyone else; do not look at anyone else’s work. Do not discuss your case brief with anyone but me.
In class today, Tuesday 11/29, I distributed four handouts: Assignment #2 (reproduced below); TD Banknorth v. Hawkins, 2010 ME 104, 5 A.3d 1042; Brown v. Thaler, 2005 ME 75, 880 A.2d 1113; and an excerpt from the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure. We went over the assignment. We then finished up Chapter 4 of the text by going over subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts in diversity cases. We covered St. James Apartments in terms of diversity of citizenship, and Frump in terms of the amount in controversy. The assignment for Thursday 12/1 is to read the cases to brief, Hawkins and Brown, and to read in the text pp. 154-164 (including Salmon, p. 156 and Johnson p. 162).
Assignment due at the beginning of class on Thursday, December 8, 2016
The assignment is to do two case briefs: the first is of the case of Brown v. Thaler, 2005 ME 75, 880 A.2d 1113 and the second is of TD Banknorth v. Hawkins, 2010 ME 104, 5 A.3d 1042. The cases were distributed to class today.
For the Hawkins case, only do the Facts, Issues, and Holdings through Section II (A) of the opinion, “Service of Process”. Do not do the Facts, Issues, and Holdings for Section II (B) “Amendment of Complaint” (¶ 18-25). Do include Section II (B) for the remainder of the brief (everything but Facts, Issues and Holdings).
These are both cases in which the brief is more useful if you utilize an “even though...” portion of the Issues, and Holdings (and include any facts used there in your Facts section). This means that you include the loser’s facts (opposite to what the Court holds) to show what the losing side was arguing. For example: “Under the rules of our class, may a student make cell phone calls during the class when such calls are disruptive, even though there was no specific prohibition on such calls in the syllabus.” The “Facts” would include “ such calls are disruptive even though there was no specific prohibition on such calls in the syllabus”.
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 questions about the brief. The more time that I have to answer our questions, the more likely it is that I can be helpful.
If you cannot be in class on Thursday 12/8, 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.
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.
Remember to work by yourselves; do not collaborate. Do not show your work to anyone else; do not look at anyone else’s work. Do not discuss your case brief with anyone but me.
Tuesday, November 22, 2016
November 22, 2016
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/22, I distributed one handout, the Maine long-arm (personal jurisdiction) statute. We began by reviewing subject-matter jurisdiction enough to contrast it with personal jurisdiction. We talked about four avenues for assertion of personal jurisdiction over a defendant: domicile of the defendant, service of process within the state, minimal contacts, and consent. We discussed special appearances to contest jurisdiction. We went through the Swoboda case and put it into a case brief format. I then discussed two recent U.S. Supreme Court cases regarding personal jurisdiction: McIntyre v. Nicastro and Walden v. Fiore. We looked at the Maine long-arm statute, and questioned whether one of its provisions is consistent with constitutional requirements. On next Tuesday I plan to distribute assignment #2, another case brief, which will be due the last day of class, Thursday 12/8. The assignment for Tuesday 11/29 is to finish Chapter 4 of the text, which includes reviewing the previously assigned St. James v. Coinmach, and adds Frump v. Claire's Boutiques. Have a good and a safe Thanksgiving.
In class today, Tuesday 11/22, I distributed one handout, the Maine long-arm (personal jurisdiction) statute. We began by reviewing subject-matter jurisdiction enough to contrast it with personal jurisdiction. We talked about four avenues for assertion of personal jurisdiction over a defendant: domicile of the defendant, service of process within the state, minimal contacts, and consent. We discussed special appearances to contest jurisdiction. We went through the Swoboda case and put it into a case brief format. I then discussed two recent U.S. Supreme Court cases regarding personal jurisdiction: McIntyre v. Nicastro and Walden v. Fiore. We looked at the Maine long-arm statute, and questioned whether one of its provisions is consistent with constitutional requirements. On next Tuesday I plan to distribute assignment #2, another case brief, which will be due the last day of class, Thursday 12/8. The assignment for Tuesday 11/29 is to finish Chapter 4 of the text, which includes reviewing the previously assigned St. James v. Coinmach, and adds Frump v. Claire's Boutiques. Have a good and a safe Thanksgiving.
Thursday, November 17, 2016
November 17, 2016
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 11/17, I distributed two handouts: an excerpt from the Supreme Court case of Obergefell v. Hodges, and an excerpt of Maine jurisdictional statutes. Regarding Full Faith and Credit, we discussed Obergefell, and I also went over two recent Supreme Court cases, California v. Hyatt and V.L. v. E.L. We then went over the concept of subject-matter jurisdiction and the textbook case of Cheap Escape. I talked about two other subject matter jurisdiction cases, the Maine Supreme Court case of Landmark Realty v. Leasure and the U.S. Supreme Court case of Bowles v. Russell. The assignment for Tuesday 11/22 is to read the handouts, review Swoboda v. Hero Decks (previously assigned) and to read in addition through p. 140 ((St. James v. Coinmach).
In class today, Thursday 11/17, I distributed two handouts: an excerpt from the Supreme Court case of Obergefell v. Hodges, and an excerpt of Maine jurisdictional statutes. Regarding Full Faith and Credit, we discussed Obergefell, and I also went over two recent Supreme Court cases, California v. Hyatt and V.L. v. E.L. We then went over the concept of subject-matter jurisdiction and the textbook case of Cheap Escape. I talked about two other subject matter jurisdiction cases, the Maine Supreme Court case of Landmark Realty v. Leasure and the U.S. Supreme Court case of Bowles v. Russell. The assignment for Tuesday 11/22 is to read the handouts, review Swoboda v. Hero Decks (previously assigned) and to read in addition through p. 140 ((St. James v. Coinmach).
Wednesday, November 16, 2016
November 16, 2016
POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Wednesday 11/16, I distributed two handouts: an article about the switching of views on executive authority with the switching of the party of the president, and an article about a recent D.C. Circuit case about the power of removal of the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). We then went through the cases assigned for today: Morrison v.Olson and NLRB v. Noel Canning (on the Presidential appointment power); Myers and Humphrey's Executor (on the power to remove); U.S. v. Nixon (on presidential privilege); Mississippi v. Johnson, Fitzgerald, and Jones (on presidential immunity from suit). We have no meeting next week (Thanksgiving break). When we reconvene on Wednesday 11/30, I plan to distribute Assignment #2. We'll begin our discussion of executive power with today's handout about the CFPB case. The additional reading for Wednesday 11/30 is to read in the text pp. 263 - 267 and 289 - 340.
In class today, Wednesday 11/16, I distributed two handouts: an article about the switching of views on executive authority with the switching of the party of the president, and an article about a recent D.C. Circuit case about the power of removal of the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). We then went through the cases assigned for today: Morrison v.Olson and NLRB v. Noel Canning (on the Presidential appointment power); Myers and Humphrey's Executor (on the power to remove); U.S. v. Nixon (on presidential privilege); Mississippi v. Johnson, Fitzgerald, and Jones (on presidential immunity from suit). We have no meeting next week (Thanksgiving break). When we reconvene on Wednesday 11/30, I plan to distribute Assignment #2. We'll begin our discussion of executive power with today's handout about the CFPB case. The additional reading for Wednesday 11/30 is to read in the text pp. 263 - 267 and 289 - 340.
Tuesday, November 15, 2016
November 15, 2016
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/15, I first went over some scheduling plans. I plan to assign Case Brief #2 on Tuesday 11/29, to be due on the last day of class, Thursday 12/8. We began our discussion of the Land case by reviewing the concept of federal subject matter jurisdiction, including both federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. We went over the Erie Doctrine. I talked about the definitions of Statutes of Repose v. Statutes of Limitation. With all that done, we then went over the Land case, and the question of whether it evidenced good or bad lawyering on the part of the Plaintiffs' attorney. I then went over a Maine case, Collins v. Trius, which applied Maine's conflict of law rules to a question of limitations on damages. We then turned to Full Faith and Credit and the Finstuen case. The assignment for Thursday 11/17 is to review Cheap Escape v. Haddox (previously assigned) and to read in addition Swoboda v. Hero Decks (through p. 136 of the text).
In class today, Tuesday 11/15, I first went over some scheduling plans. I plan to assign Case Brief #2 on Tuesday 11/29, to be due on the last day of class, Thursday 12/8. We began our discussion of the Land case by reviewing the concept of federal subject matter jurisdiction, including both federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. We went over the Erie Doctrine. I talked about the definitions of Statutes of Repose v. Statutes of Limitation. With all that done, we then went over the Land case, and the question of whether it evidenced good or bad lawyering on the part of the Plaintiffs' attorney. I then went over a Maine case, Collins v. Trius, which applied Maine's conflict of law rules to a question of limitations on damages. We then turned to Full Faith and Credit and the Finstuen case. The assignment for Thursday 11/17 is to review Cheap Escape v. Haddox (previously assigned) and to read in addition Swoboda v. Hero Decks (through p. 136 of the text).
Thursday, November 10, 2016
November 10, 2016
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 11/10, we first reviewed a few aspects of the Butler case, and the concept of dictum. We went over the three types of dictum that we've seen, and we also talked about the second issue in Butler, voluntariness. We also went over the relationship between state courts and U.S. Courts of Appeal in terms of mandatory authority. We then discussed Dempsey and the retroactive / prospective distinction. We talked about the models available to the Montana Supreme Court, and the choice they made. We covered Strunk v. Strunk and the absence of precedent, and the role of the guardian and the guardian-ad-litem. Then we went over Hubbard v. Greeson and the choice of law (or conflict of law) issue. We discussed good lawyering in Hubbard, even though things didn't turn out as Greeson's lawyer may have planned. The assignment for Tuesday 11/15 is to read in the text pp. 144-146 (the Erie Doctrine and Land v. Yamaha), and the pp. 115-129 (the end of Chapter 3 (Finstuen) and start of Chapter 4 (Cheap Escape v. Haddox)).
In class today, Thursday 11/10, we first reviewed a few aspects of the Butler case, and the concept of dictum. We went over the three types of dictum that we've seen, and we also talked about the second issue in Butler, voluntariness. We also went over the relationship between state courts and U.S. Courts of Appeal in terms of mandatory authority. We then discussed Dempsey and the retroactive / prospective distinction. We talked about the models available to the Montana Supreme Court, and the choice they made. We covered Strunk v. Strunk and the absence of precedent, and the role of the guardian and the guardian-ad-litem. Then we went over Hubbard v. Greeson and the choice of law (or conflict of law) issue. We discussed good lawyering in Hubbard, even though things didn't turn out as Greeson's lawyer may have planned. The assignment for Tuesday 11/15 is to read in the text pp. 144-146 (the Erie Doctrine and Land v. Yamaha), and the pp. 115-129 (the end of Chapter 3 (Finstuen) and start of Chapter 4 (Cheap Escape v. Haddox)).
Wednesday, November 9, 2016
November 9, 2016
POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Wednesday 11/9, I distributed one handout, selected federal and state statutes (and state regulations) about presidential elections. We began our discussion of the executive branch with the election case of Bush v. Gore. We then looked at the federal safe harbor statute involved in that case, as well as Maine law and regulations regarding the standards for determining what's to be done if the voter doesn't follow all the rules for marking the ballot. We examined the text of the constitution regarding presidential powers, and went over the Neagle case regarding the existence of implied presidential powers. We discussed Congressional limitations on presidential power (Youngstown Steel) and the obligation to enforce the law (Train v. NYC). Finally we covered Clinton v. NYC and the line-item veto. The assignment for Wednesday 9/16 is to read in the text, and prepare to discuss pp. 212-256.
In class today, Wednesday 11/9, I distributed one handout, selected federal and state statutes (and state regulations) about presidential elections. We began our discussion of the executive branch with the election case of Bush v. Gore. We then looked at the federal safe harbor statute involved in that case, as well as Maine law and regulations regarding the standards for determining what's to be done if the voter doesn't follow all the rules for marking the ballot. We examined the text of the constitution regarding presidential powers, and went over the Neagle case regarding the existence of implied presidential powers. We discussed Congressional limitations on presidential power (Youngstown Steel) and the obligation to enforce the law (Train v. NYC). Finally we covered Clinton v. NYC and the line-item veto. The assignment for Wednesday 9/16 is to read in the text, and prepare to discuss pp. 212-256.
November 8. 2016
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/8, we first completed our discussion of NFIB v. Sebelius. We went through Roberts' opinion issue by issue, going over each of the government's contentions, and why and how Roberts rejected them. We also covered the opinions by Ginsburg and the Joint Dissent. We then discussed some of the non-case material in the text, including the standard of review for the fit between the legislative means and the legislative end, preemption of state laws, the ex post facto prohibition and sex-offender registries, the role of common law, and the interaction of panels of appellate judges, We then discussed the Butler case and the concept of dictum. I went over the 1971 U.S. Supreme Court case of Harris v. N.Y., which also (like the Butler court) treated some of the Miranda opinion as dictum that could be ignored. The assignment for Thursday 11/10 is to read in the text through p. 115 (review Dempsey (previously assigned), and read Strunk and Hubbard v. Greeson.
In class today, Tuesday 11/8, we first completed our discussion of NFIB v. Sebelius. We went through Roberts' opinion issue by issue, going over each of the government's contentions, and why and how Roberts rejected them. We also covered the opinions by Ginsburg and the Joint Dissent. We then discussed some of the non-case material in the text, including the standard of review for the fit between the legislative means and the legislative end, preemption of state laws, the ex post facto prohibition and sex-offender registries, the role of common law, and the interaction of panels of appellate judges, We then discussed the Butler case and the concept of dictum. I went over the 1971 U.S. Supreme Court case of Harris v. N.Y., which also (like the Butler court) treated some of the Miranda opinion as dictum that could be ignored. The assignment for Thursday 11/10 is to read in the text through p. 115 (review Dempsey (previously assigned), and read Strunk and Hubbard v. Greeson.
Thursday, November 3, 2016
November 3, 2016
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 11/3, I began by recounting the further adventures of Caperton v. Massey after the U.S. Supreme Court decision. I went over how West Virginia tossed the case out based on the forum selection clause in the contract, and how the Virginia trial court then tossed the case out based on res judicata, a ruling that was then overturned by the Virginia Supreme Court. I then went over the 2016 U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Williams v. Pennsylvania, in which the Supreme Court ruled on whether the due process clause requires recusal of a justice who had earlier participated in a case as the district attorney. We went over the holding in Williams, the alignment of the Justices, and the two dissenting opinions. I then discussed a Maine Supreme Court case, Board of Overseers of the Bar v. Warren, which discussed the application of the Maine Bar Rule that requires a lawyer to report when another lawyer is dishonest. We discussed the difference between an objective versus a subjective standard of evaluation. We moved on to Chapter 3 of the text. We began our discussion of NFIB v. Sebelius by going over the text of the constitution, the difference between interstate versus intrastate commerce, and the necessary and proper clause. We talked about dictum, and the other (non-commerce clause) issues in the case. We generally discussed the concept of forcing people into commerce, versus regulating existing commerce. We will continue NFIB,and the specific issues addressed, next Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 11/8 is to review NFIB, and to read in the text through p. 110 (Butler and Dempsey).
In class today, Thursday 11/3, I began by recounting the further adventures of Caperton v. Massey after the U.S. Supreme Court decision. I went over how West Virginia tossed the case out based on the forum selection clause in the contract, and how the Virginia trial court then tossed the case out based on res judicata, a ruling that was then overturned by the Virginia Supreme Court. I then went over the 2016 U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Williams v. Pennsylvania, in which the Supreme Court ruled on whether the due process clause requires recusal of a justice who had earlier participated in a case as the district attorney. We went over the holding in Williams, the alignment of the Justices, and the two dissenting opinions. I then discussed a Maine Supreme Court case, Board of Overseers of the Bar v. Warren, which discussed the application of the Maine Bar Rule that requires a lawyer to report when another lawyer is dishonest. We discussed the difference between an objective versus a subjective standard of evaluation. We moved on to Chapter 3 of the text. We began our discussion of NFIB v. Sebelius by going over the text of the constitution, the difference between interstate versus intrastate commerce, and the necessary and proper clause. We talked about dictum, and the other (non-commerce clause) issues in the case. We generally discussed the concept of forcing people into commerce, versus regulating existing commerce. We will continue NFIB,and the specific issues addressed, next Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 11/8 is to review NFIB, and to read in the text through p. 110 (Butler and Dempsey).
Wednesday, November 2, 2016
November 2, 2016
POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Wednesday 11/2, I handed back last week's exams. We then resumed our trip through the commerce clause cases. We started with a brief review of where we had left off, Knight and Hammer v. Degenhart. I talked about some of the textbook cases that I had not assigned: Schechter Poultry (p. 443); Jones & Laughlin (p. 453); and Darby (p. 459). We then went over the assigned cases of Wickard; Heart of Atlanta: Lopez; Morrison; Raich; and NFIB. Along the way we talked about changing personnel on the Court, changing expectations of what kind of experience was needed for the Court, dictum and overruling prior cases, and the Venn diagram of Scalia's concurrence in Raich. The assignment for Wednesday 11/9 is to read in the text pp. 183-212.
In class today, Wednesday 11/2, I handed back last week's exams. We then resumed our trip through the commerce clause cases. We started with a brief review of where we had left off, Knight and Hammer v. Degenhart. I talked about some of the textbook cases that I had not assigned: Schechter Poultry (p. 443); Jones & Laughlin (p. 453); and Darby (p. 459). We then went over the assigned cases of Wickard; Heart of Atlanta: Lopez; Morrison; Raich; and NFIB. Along the way we talked about changing personnel on the Court, changing expectations of what kind of experience was needed for the Court, dictum and overruling prior cases, and the Venn diagram of Scalia's concurrence in Raich. The assignment for Wednesday 11/9 is to read in the text pp. 183-212.
Tuesday, November 1, 2016
November 1, 2016
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/1, we began by looking at Maine's law for mandated reporting of child abuse and neglect, and the lack of penalties for failure to comply with those reporting requirements. I then reviewed the BrickKicker holding about enforcing the arbitration clause in the contract, even without the contract's unconscionable parts. I went over four U.S. Supreme Court case about the situation when the Federal Arbitration Act comes into conflict with state law regarding unconscionable contract provisions: AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, American Express v. Italian Colors, DirecTV v. Imburgia, and Kindred Nursing v. Clark. We then went over the Caperton case in the text. I plan on Thursday to start by talking about two cases that I didn't get to today, the recent U.S. Supreme Court judge recusal case of Williams v. Pa., and the Maine Supreme Court lawyer ethics case of Board of Overseers v. Warren. The assignment for Thursday 11/3 is to read in the text through p. 98 (the various opinions in the Obamacare ACA case).
In class today, Tuesday 11/1, we began by looking at Maine's law for mandated reporting of child abuse and neglect, and the lack of penalties for failure to comply with those reporting requirements. I then reviewed the BrickKicker holding about enforcing the arbitration clause in the contract, even without the contract's unconscionable parts. I went over four U.S. Supreme Court case about the situation when the Federal Arbitration Act comes into conflict with state law regarding unconscionable contract provisions: AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, American Express v. Italian Colors, DirecTV v. Imburgia, and Kindred Nursing v. Clark. We then went over the Caperton case in the text. I plan on Thursday to start by talking about two cases that I didn't get to today, the recent U.S. Supreme Court judge recusal case of Williams v. Pa., and the Maine Supreme Court lawyer ethics case of Board of Overseers v. Warren. The assignment for Thursday 11/3 is to read in the text through p. 98 (the various opinions in the Obamacare ACA case).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)