POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Monday 1/30, I distributed one handout, a list of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices, and some Supreme Court websites. We began by going over some points in the textbook's introductory section, including natural law and Martin Luther King's letter from the Birmingham jail; historical jurisprudence and same-sex marriage; analytical positivism and executive orders; speedy court procedures versus just ones; common law; and equity jurisdiction. We then began our discussion of Miller v. Alabama. We looked at the text of the 8th Amendment, and I also talked about how the 14th Amendment Due Process clause was used to incorporate those Bill of Rights protections (protections against Congress) as protections as well against states. We went through the case briefs that the class wrote out for today, up to the Issue, which is where we'll pick up on Wednesday.
The assignment for Wednesday 2/1 is to review Miller, and your case brief of Miller, and review also the concurring and dissenting opinions.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 1/30, we finished our discussion of the Bates case. We then went over Central Hudson Gas, looking both at the 4 part test created by the Supreme Court (the hurdle) and the analysis of how that newly created test was to be applied in this case. We saw how the state met the first three hurdles of the test, but not the fourth hurdle. We then discussed what kind of advertising would meet the fourth hurdle. Finally, we went over the Rehnquist dissent, which not only repeated his objection from Bates that the 1st Amendment does not protect this advertising at all, but also expressed his view that the test devised was too restrictive on the state, and also that there should be deference to the state in terms of what is "necessary".
The assignment for Wednesday 2/1 is to review Snyder v. Phelps (p. 248) and to read in addition U.S. v. Alvarez (pp. 253-258).
Monday, January 30, 2017
Friday, January 27, 2017
January 27, 2017
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Friday 1/27, we first finished our discussion of the Nunez opinion. We finished with the disposition in the case, and I went over the possibility that the case could be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. I then went through my case brief template and my version of the Nunez case brief. We will pick up next Monday with any questions that the class has about the introductory textbook material (pp. 1-15) assigned for today.
The assignment for Monday 1/30 is read in the text through p. 23. For the Miller case (p. 16) I want you to write out a case brief of the opinion, following the format of the case brief template. The assignment will not be handed in or graded, but I do want you to write out the brief.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Friday 1/27, we first finished our look at the Lee v. Tam oral argument by summarizing the position taken by Tam's attorney. We then took a brief excursion into history, talking about how the 1st amendment protections for free speech that are protections against Congress, were incorporated by the U.S. Supreme Court through the Due Process clause into protections against the states. We went through the early history of the free speech protection of commercial speech (advertising), and then began our exploration of the Bates case. We got as far as discussing why lawyer advertising was deemed by the State Bar to be inherently deceptive, which is where we'll pick up next Monday.
The assignment for Monday 1/30 is to review Bates and Central Hudson gas (previously assigned) and then to read in the text pp. 247-253 (Snyder v.Phelps).
In class today, Friday 1/27, we first finished our discussion of the Nunez opinion. We finished with the disposition in the case, and I went over the possibility that the case could be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. I then went through my case brief template and my version of the Nunez case brief. We will pick up next Monday with any questions that the class has about the introductory textbook material (pp. 1-15) assigned for today.
The assignment for Monday 1/30 is read in the text through p. 23. For the Miller case (p. 16) I want you to write out a case brief of the opinion, following the format of the case brief template. The assignment will not be handed in or graded, but I do want you to write out the brief.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Friday 1/27, we first finished our look at the Lee v. Tam oral argument by summarizing the position taken by Tam's attorney. We then took a brief excursion into history, talking about how the 1st amendment protections for free speech that are protections against Congress, were incorporated by the U.S. Supreme Court through the Due Process clause into protections against the states. We went through the early history of the free speech protection of commercial speech (advertising), and then began our exploration of the Bates case. We got as far as discussing why lawyer advertising was deemed by the State Bar to be inherently deceptive, which is where we'll pick up next Monday.
The assignment for Monday 1/30 is to review Bates and Central Hudson gas (previously assigned) and then to read in the text pp. 247-253 (Snyder v.Phelps).
Wednesday, January 25, 2017
January 25, 2017
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Wednesday 1/25, we continued our trip through the Nunez opinion. We went through the paragraphs of the opinion that laid out the rules about the scope of appellate review (over both factual and legal questions); the definition of probable cause and what it takes to establish it; the replacement of the Aguilar/Spinelli test with the Gates test; the legal issues that the Court decides; the lack of mandatory authority on the crucial question of connection between the drug-dealing and the residence; the use of persuasive authority to establish a rule about that connection; and then the conclusion (holding) about the connection (that's where we'll continue on Friday, as well as discussing disposition). We will also on Friday go over the case brief template and my Nunez brief.
The assignment for Friday 1/27 is to review the template and my Nunez brief, and then to read in the text pp 1-15.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Wednesday 1/25, I distributed one handout, an article about the recent court decision in India that banned campaign speech that uses religion or caste as part of campaigning. We discussed the competing social values of avoiding conflict and incitement versus allowing freedom of speech. We then resumed our discussion of Lee v. Tam. I went over three concepts that ran through the argument: the protections from government regarding commercial speech versus non-commercial speech; the different teats (levels of scrutiny) given to different kinds of speech; and types of unprotected speech (libel, fighting words, obscenity). On Friday I want to finish up our Lee v. Tam discussion.
The assignment for Friday 1/27 is to read in the text pp. 276-284 (Bates and Central Hudson) about the level of protection against government interference that is given to commercial speech).
In class today, Wednesday 1/25, we continued our trip through the Nunez opinion. We went through the paragraphs of the opinion that laid out the rules about the scope of appellate review (over both factual and legal questions); the definition of probable cause and what it takes to establish it; the replacement of the Aguilar/Spinelli test with the Gates test; the legal issues that the Court decides; the lack of mandatory authority on the crucial question of connection between the drug-dealing and the residence; the use of persuasive authority to establish a rule about that connection; and then the conclusion (holding) about the connection (that's where we'll continue on Friday, as well as discussing disposition). We will also on Friday go over the case brief template and my Nunez brief.
The assignment for Friday 1/27 is to review the template and my Nunez brief, and then to read in the text pp 1-15.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Wednesday 1/25, I distributed one handout, an article about the recent court decision in India that banned campaign speech that uses religion or caste as part of campaigning. We discussed the competing social values of avoiding conflict and incitement versus allowing freedom of speech. We then resumed our discussion of Lee v. Tam. I went over three concepts that ran through the argument: the protections from government regarding commercial speech versus non-commercial speech; the different teats (levels of scrutiny) given to different kinds of speech; and types of unprotected speech (libel, fighting words, obscenity). On Friday I want to finish up our Lee v. Tam discussion.
The assignment for Friday 1/27 is to read in the text pp. 276-284 (Bates and Central Hudson) about the level of protection against government interference that is given to commercial speech).
Monday, January 23, 2017
January 23, 2017
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Monday 1/23, we continued with our explorations of the issues in Nunez. We went over the questions of whether there was probable cause to believe that the Verona Island home really was Nunez's home, and whether Nunez had drugs in his home. We differentiated winner's facts from loser's facts. We put the holding in the simplest English language that we could, to assure that we got the point of the Court's opinion. We then started looking at the authority relied on by the Court. We discussed the citation form used by all the levels of the federal court system, U.S. Supreme Court (__US__), U.S. Court of Appeals (__F.3d___), and U.S. District Courts (___F.Supp.3d__) as a quick guide to know what level of court is writing the opinion upon which the Court relies for its proposition. We also saw how to identify previous opinions of the Maine Supreme Court.
The assignment for Wednesday 1/25 is to re-read Nunez (yet again), looking at the Court's citation to authority for explanations of both the background rules and of the actual issues answered by the Court.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 1/23, we first went over the Maine trademark statute, and compared its registration exclusions to that in the federal statute. We talked about Maine and federal statutory citation form. We talked about the loss of registration by the Washington Redskins. This led us to the additional Tam argument that the federal statute was void for vagueness. We also went over the prior proceeding in the Tam case, which included both the panel and the en banc Court of Appeals opinions. We then returned to the transcript. We looked at the questions asked by Ginsburg, Roberts and Breyer, and discussed whether those questions gave some indication of how the Justices were leaning. We discussed the benefits of trademark registration, and how those differed from copyright. We talked about the justification for the exclusion as being the desire to avoid distraction, and how that didn't seem to satisfy Breyer.
The assignment for Wednesday 1/25 is re-read the transcript, with these questions in mind: which arguments are being made by the lawyers; do the questions asked by the Justices give us much of an indication of how those Justices are leaning; and what resolution of the case would make the most sense to you?
In class today, Monday 1/23, we continued with our explorations of the issues in Nunez. We went over the questions of whether there was probable cause to believe that the Verona Island home really was Nunez's home, and whether Nunez had drugs in his home. We differentiated winner's facts from loser's facts. We put the holding in the simplest English language that we could, to assure that we got the point of the Court's opinion. We then started looking at the authority relied on by the Court. We discussed the citation form used by all the levels of the federal court system, U.S. Supreme Court (__US__), U.S. Court of Appeals (__F.3d___), and U.S. District Courts (___F.Supp.3d__) as a quick guide to know what level of court is writing the opinion upon which the Court relies for its proposition. We also saw how to identify previous opinions of the Maine Supreme Court.
The assignment for Wednesday 1/25 is to re-read Nunez (yet again), looking at the Court's citation to authority for explanations of both the background rules and of the actual issues answered by the Court.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 1/23, we first went over the Maine trademark statute, and compared its registration exclusions to that in the federal statute. We talked about Maine and federal statutory citation form. We talked about the loss of registration by the Washington Redskins. This led us to the additional Tam argument that the federal statute was void for vagueness. We also went over the prior proceeding in the Tam case, which included both the panel and the en banc Court of Appeals opinions. We then returned to the transcript. We looked at the questions asked by Ginsburg, Roberts and Breyer, and discussed whether those questions gave some indication of how the Justices were leaning. We discussed the benefits of trademark registration, and how those differed from copyright. We talked about the justification for the exclusion as being the desire to avoid distraction, and how that didn't seem to satisfy Breyer.
The assignment for Wednesday 1/25 is re-read the transcript, with these questions in mind: which arguments are being made by the lawyers; do the questions asked by the Justices give us much of an indication of how those Justices are leaning; and what resolution of the case would make the most sense to you?
Friday, January 20, 2017
January 20, 2017
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Friday 1/20, I distributed two handouts: a template for a case brief, and my version of the Nunez case brief. We discussed how the 4th Amendment text answers neither the question of the relationship between unreasonable searches and the warrant requirement, nor the question of remedy if there is a 4th Amendment violation. I gave a short explanation of how the U.S. Supreme Court has filled those gaps. We talked about the organization of the Nunez opinion, in which the Maine Supreme Court outlined their opinion as (I)Background (the story of what happened in the case, and the proceedings prior the case landing in the Supreme Court) and (II)Discussion (the underlying rules, the questions that are addressed, and the answers to those question. We got as far as identifying the first issue that the Court addressed (the "reliability" of the information supplied by the informants (paragraph 22)). We will pick up at that point next Monday. The assignment for Monday 1/23 is to reread Nunez, looking for the other issues and holdings by the Court. The idea is to come away with statements of what the Court holds, in as clear and simple language as possible.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Friday 1/20, I distributed two handouts: the first had on one side a list of the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, and on the other Maine's trademark statute; the second was the entire (both sides) of the Amy Howe article about the Tam case. We went over the 8 Justices and their political orientation, and I also went over the 5-4 vote in the Walker Confederate license plate case. We started through the Tam transcript. We saw how the government's lawyer tried to take trademark registration out of the 1st Amendment protection for free speech because it is a "government program". We saw how long that position lasted in the face of attacks by Kennedy and Alito. We then talked about the free speech protections against content discrimination and viewpoint discrimination by the government. The assignment for Monday 1/23 is to read the Maine trademark statute, and see if it is subject to the same attack as the federal statute at issue in Tam; and to re-read the Tam transcript (you can also listen to the audio) looking for the rest of the government's position (since "government program" didn't fare well) as well as which Justices seemed hostile to the government's position and to the band's position.
In class today, Friday 1/20, I distributed two handouts: a template for a case brief, and my version of the Nunez case brief. We discussed how the 4th Amendment text answers neither the question of the relationship between unreasonable searches and the warrant requirement, nor the question of remedy if there is a 4th Amendment violation. I gave a short explanation of how the U.S. Supreme Court has filled those gaps. We talked about the organization of the Nunez opinion, in which the Maine Supreme Court outlined their opinion as (I)Background (the story of what happened in the case, and the proceedings prior the case landing in the Supreme Court) and (II)Discussion (the underlying rules, the questions that are addressed, and the answers to those question. We got as far as identifying the first issue that the Court addressed (the "reliability" of the information supplied by the informants (paragraph 22)). We will pick up at that point next Monday. The assignment for Monday 1/23 is to reread Nunez, looking for the other issues and holdings by the Court. The idea is to come away with statements of what the Court holds, in as clear and simple language as possible.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Friday 1/20, I distributed two handouts: the first had on one side a list of the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, and on the other Maine's trademark statute; the second was the entire (both sides) of the Amy Howe article about the Tam case. We went over the 8 Justices and their political orientation, and I also went over the 5-4 vote in the Walker Confederate license plate case. We started through the Tam transcript. We saw how the government's lawyer tried to take trademark registration out of the 1st Amendment protection for free speech because it is a "government program". We saw how long that position lasted in the face of attacks by Kennedy and Alito. We then talked about the free speech protections against content discrimination and viewpoint discrimination by the government. The assignment for Monday 1/23 is to read the Maine trademark statute, and see if it is subject to the same attack as the federal statute at issue in Tam; and to re-read the Tam transcript (you can also listen to the audio) looking for the rest of the government's position (since "government program" didn't fare well) as well as which Justices seemed hostile to the government's position and to the band's position.
Wednesday, January 18, 2017
January 18, 2017
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Wednesday 1/18, I distributed three handouts: the syllabus, the State v. Nunez opinion, and some questions to think about as you read Nunez. After going over the syllabus, we started a discussion of the Nunez case, and the probable cause requirement of the 4th Amendment. We discussed the Maine court system (our two trial courts, and the Maine Supreme Court); Maine citation form in terms of the order in which the parties are listed; the concept of a cause of action; and the concept of common law (law made by judges in the absence of enacted law). The assignment for Friday 1/20 is to read and re-read Nunez, using the questions handed out today as a guide to your reading.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Wednesday 1/18, I distributed three handouts: the syllabus, and two articles about today's U.S. Supreme Court case of Lee v. Tam. After going over the syllabus, we discussed how civil liberties fits into other branches of constitutional law, such as criminal due process, federalism and separation of powers questions. We talked about government abridging freedom of speech and the Tam case of trademark and racial disparagement. We discussed two recent Supreme Court opinions on governmental speech, Pleasant City v. Summum and Walker v. Sons of Confederate Veterans. The assignment for Friday 1/20 is to read the two handouts on the Tam case, and then to read (and print off) the transcript of today's Supreme Court oral argument in Lee v. Tam. Go to supremecourt.gov, select oral argument, then argument transcripts, and then Lee v. Tam.
In class today, Wednesday 1/18, I distributed three handouts: the syllabus, the State v. Nunez opinion, and some questions to think about as you read Nunez. After going over the syllabus, we started a discussion of the Nunez case, and the probable cause requirement of the 4th Amendment. We discussed the Maine court system (our two trial courts, and the Maine Supreme Court); Maine citation form in terms of the order in which the parties are listed; the concept of a cause of action; and the concept of common law (law made by judges in the absence of enacted law). The assignment for Friday 1/20 is to read and re-read Nunez, using the questions handed out today as a guide to your reading.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Wednesday 1/18, I distributed three handouts: the syllabus, and two articles about today's U.S. Supreme Court case of Lee v. Tam. After going over the syllabus, we discussed how civil liberties fits into other branches of constitutional law, such as criminal due process, federalism and separation of powers questions. We talked about government abridging freedom of speech and the Tam case of trademark and racial disparagement. We discussed two recent Supreme Court opinions on governmental speech, Pleasant City v. Summum and Walker v. Sons of Confederate Veterans. The assignment for Friday 1/20 is to read the two handouts on the Tam case, and then to read (and print off) the transcript of today's Supreme Court oral argument in Lee v. Tam. Go to supremecourt.gov, select oral argument, then argument transcripts, and then Lee v. Tam.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)