POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Friday 3/31, I distributed my version of the Williams case brief, and collected the classes' case briefs. I plan to grade them this weekend and return them on Monday. We spent the class going over the briefs, as well as the questions of whether Castille might in fact have treated the decision to seek the death penalty as perfunctory, and whether Castille might have had knowledge of the misconduct that his office participated in (the Brady violation).
The assignment for Monday 4/3 is to review Lawrence v. Texas, previously assigned.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Friday 3/31, we started with the origin of substantive due process and the Lochner case. We talked about the demise of Lochner, and the bad reputation of substantive due process. We then began our discussion of Griswold. We counted votes to see whether there was a majority opinion in the case. We went through Douglas' opinion, and the three concurrence. We will pick up next Monday with the dissents in Griswold.
The assignment for Monday 4/3 is to review Griswold, and then to read in the text through p. 410 (Roe v. Wade).
Friday, March 31, 2017
Wednesday, March 29, 2017
March 29, 2017
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Wednesday 3/29, I distributed one handout, excerpts from Maine and federal statutes regarding hindering apprehension, the creation of common law crimes, misprision of a felony, and mandated reporting of child abuse. I went over again the format of how to write issues for your Williams case brief, and clarified that the paragraphs about the dissenting opinions just should focus on the ways in which the dissent disagreed with the majority. We went through all 4 parts of today's handout, looking at the relationship of each law to the concept of morality. I talked to the class about the Florida Supreme Court case of Holland v. Florida. We began our discussion of Lawrence v. Texas with a look at Kennedy's statement that the majority may not impose its morality on others, and talked about how that principle would negate most of what legislatures do.
The assignment for Friday 3/31 is to finish your Williams case briefs (due at the beginning of class) and review Lawrence v. Texas, previously assigned.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Wednesday 3/29, we first talked about how the free speech cases like Reed might impact a current Maine legislative proposal to limit campaign contributions from lobbyists (speaker-based restrictions, in the vocabulary of Reed). We then finished our discussion of free speech with a review of the Williams case, in which the Supreme Court upheld the federal law that criminalized the distribution of (otherwise protected) material if the seller tried to pass it off as illegal material. We then began our discussion of the protection of privacy. We talked about Olmstead and Lochner as privacy cases, and began talking about Griswold
The assignment for Friday 3/31 is to review Griswold, previously assigned.
In class today, Wednesday 3/29, I distributed one handout, excerpts from Maine and federal statutes regarding hindering apprehension, the creation of common law crimes, misprision of a felony, and mandated reporting of child abuse. I went over again the format of how to write issues for your Williams case brief, and clarified that the paragraphs about the dissenting opinions just should focus on the ways in which the dissent disagreed with the majority. We went through all 4 parts of today's handout, looking at the relationship of each law to the concept of morality. I talked to the class about the Florida Supreme Court case of Holland v. Florida. We began our discussion of Lawrence v. Texas with a look at Kennedy's statement that the majority may not impose its morality on others, and talked about how that principle would negate most of what legislatures do.
The assignment for Friday 3/31 is to finish your Williams case briefs (due at the beginning of class) and review Lawrence v. Texas, previously assigned.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Wednesday 3/29, we first talked about how the free speech cases like Reed might impact a current Maine legislative proposal to limit campaign contributions from lobbyists (speaker-based restrictions, in the vocabulary of Reed). We then finished our discussion of free speech with a review of the Williams case, in which the Supreme Court upheld the federal law that criminalized the distribution of (otherwise protected) material if the seller tried to pass it off as illegal material. We then began our discussion of the protection of privacy. We talked about Olmstead and Lochner as privacy cases, and began talking about Griswold
The assignment for Friday 3/31 is to review Griswold, previously assigned.
Monday, March 27, 2017
March 27, 2017
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Monday 3/27, I first went over some aspects of the Williams case brief (due Friday). I talked about the Plaintiff's objective, cause of action, the trial court defense, and the prior proceedings. We went over the structure of Kennedy's opinion, and saw how he divided the substantive parts of the opinion into II(A), II(B), and III, which would be your guide to the distinct issues raised and resolved. We then went back to the Caperton case, and I highlighted the structure of the issues addressed in that case: the facts for one issue would turn into the legal question for the next issue. We finished Caperton, and then went over the Mobbley case, and statutory interpretation. I plan to distribute the Maine criminal statute regarding the analogous situation on Wednesday. Also on Wednesday, I'll just talk about the Holland case (p. 65) so I won't assign that as reading.
The assignment for Wednesday 3/29 is continue working on your Williams case brief, and to read in the text pp. 67 - 73 (Lawrence v. Texas).
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 3/27, I distributed 2 handouts, my version of the Reed outline, and the key to my comments on the Reed outline passed in by the class (which I also returned today). We went over the remainder of the outline from where we left off last Friday. We began with Thomas' explanation of speaker based and event based distinctions. We looked again at the Bangor Sign Ordinance, which seemed to have both speaker-based and event-based distinctions, and tried to figure out whether they are content-neutral or content-based. We then talked about the application of strict scrutiny, looking at both the government interest (assumed here by Thomas to be compelling) and the nature of the underinclusiveness problem identified by Thomas. And we went through the three concurrences.
The assignment for Wednesday 3/29 is to review Williams and virtual child porn, and review Griswold (all previously assigned).
In class today, Monday 3/27, I first went over some aspects of the Williams case brief (due Friday). I talked about the Plaintiff's objective, cause of action, the trial court defense, and the prior proceedings. We went over the structure of Kennedy's opinion, and saw how he divided the substantive parts of the opinion into II(A), II(B), and III, which would be your guide to the distinct issues raised and resolved. We then went back to the Caperton case, and I highlighted the structure of the issues addressed in that case: the facts for one issue would turn into the legal question for the next issue. We finished Caperton, and then went over the Mobbley case, and statutory interpretation. I plan to distribute the Maine criminal statute regarding the analogous situation on Wednesday. Also on Wednesday, I'll just talk about the Holland case (p. 65) so I won't assign that as reading.
The assignment for Wednesday 3/29 is continue working on your Williams case brief, and to read in the text pp. 67 - 73 (Lawrence v. Texas).
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 3/27, I distributed 2 handouts, my version of the Reed outline, and the key to my comments on the Reed outline passed in by the class (which I also returned today). We went over the remainder of the outline from where we left off last Friday. We began with Thomas' explanation of speaker based and event based distinctions. We looked again at the Bangor Sign Ordinance, which seemed to have both speaker-based and event-based distinctions, and tried to figure out whether they are content-neutral or content-based. We then talked about the application of strict scrutiny, looking at both the government interest (assumed here by Thomas to be compelling) and the nature of the underinclusiveness problem identified by Thomas. And we went through the three concurrences.
The assignment for Wednesday 3/29 is to review Williams and virtual child porn, and review Griswold (all previously assigned).
Friday, March 24, 2017
March 24, 2017
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Friday 3/24, I first went over some aspects of the Williams case brief, due on Friday 3/31. We talked about the mechanism of post-conviction review, Brady violations, the disposition of the case, and using the structure of the opinion (the outline) in order to figure out the issues addressed by Kennedy. We then returned to the Caperton case, and noted that the structure there was roughly the same as that used in Williams: first the Court decides what standard is required by due process, and the the Court applies that standard to the particular facts of the case. On Monday we will continue our Caperton discussion by starting with the issue of applying the facts of Caperton to the standard of whether there is a significant, disproportionate influence in helping a judge get elected in a pending case.
The assignment for Monday 3/27 is to continue working on your Williams case brief, due at the beginning of class on 3/31, review the rest of Caperton, and read in the text and prepare to discuss pp. 58-64 (Mobbley).
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Friday 3/24, I distributed 1 handout, an excerpt from the Bangor sign ordinance. I collected the Reed outlines, and we went over them. We got as far as Thomas' discussion of how the Court of Appeals had erred in identifying the ordinance as one based on the identity of the speaker, which Thomas said was incorrect as a factual question. That's the point at which we'll pick up our discussion on Monday. As we went through the Reed outline, we also compared the Gilbert ordinance with Bangor's and identified a number of ways in which Bangor's could be considered fscially content-based.
The assignment for Monday 3/27 is to review U.S. v. Williams, and to read in the text pp. 390-401, including Griswold v. Connecticut.
In class today, Friday 3/24, I first went over some aspects of the Williams case brief, due on Friday 3/31. We talked about the mechanism of post-conviction review, Brady violations, the disposition of the case, and using the structure of the opinion (the outline) in order to figure out the issues addressed by Kennedy. We then returned to the Caperton case, and noted that the structure there was roughly the same as that used in Williams: first the Court decides what standard is required by due process, and the the Court applies that standard to the particular facts of the case. On Monday we will continue our Caperton discussion by starting with the issue of applying the facts of Caperton to the standard of whether there is a significant, disproportionate influence in helping a judge get elected in a pending case.
The assignment for Monday 3/27 is to continue working on your Williams case brief, due at the beginning of class on 3/31, review the rest of Caperton, and read in the text and prepare to discuss pp. 58-64 (Mobbley).
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Friday 3/24, I distributed 1 handout, an excerpt from the Bangor sign ordinance. I collected the Reed outlines, and we went over them. We got as far as Thomas' discussion of how the Court of Appeals had erred in identifying the ordinance as one based on the identity of the speaker, which Thomas said was incorrect as a factual question. That's the point at which we'll pick up our discussion on Monday. As we went through the Reed outline, we also compared the Gilbert ordinance with Bangor's and identified a number of ways in which Bangor's could be considered fscially content-based.
The assignment for Monday 3/27 is to review U.S. v. Williams, and to read in the text pp. 390-401, including Griswold v. Connecticut.
Wednesday, March 22, 2017
March 22, 2017
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Wednesday 3/22, we finished our discussion of Gregg v. Georgia by discussing the two dissenting opinions in the case. We then began our discussion of Caperton v. Massey Coal by going through the underlying facts, and the due process recusal issue. We got as far as looking at whether the Court majority accepted Benjamin's understanding of what due process requires, which is where we'll pick up on Friday.
The assignment for Friday 3/24 is to review Caperton, and to at least read and begin work on your Williams case briefs. I plan to begin on Friday with a discussion about Williams, so as to make it easier for you to understand and brief the case.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Wednesday 3/22, I first clarified a format question about the Reed outline that's due Friday: even if you have sub-elements under an element, you can, if you wish, use Q & A format for the element (rather than just "title" of the element, as I had stated in the assignment). We then finished going over Reno v. ACLU, and looked at Congressional attempts to fix the problem in the COPA (p. 369) and then the PROTECT act (p. 373). We talked about how PROTECT goes after virtual depictions, and why Congress may have targeted material in which no actual children were involved. We will continue with the Williams case when we finish our discussion of Reed.
The assignment for Friday 3/24 is to finish your Reed outlines (due at the beginning of Friday's class) and to review Williams (previously assigned).
In class today, Wednesday 3/22, we finished our discussion of Gregg v. Georgia by discussing the two dissenting opinions in the case. We then began our discussion of Caperton v. Massey Coal by going through the underlying facts, and the due process recusal issue. We got as far as looking at whether the Court majority accepted Benjamin's understanding of what due process requires, which is where we'll pick up on Friday.
The assignment for Friday 3/24 is to review Caperton, and to at least read and begin work on your Williams case briefs. I plan to begin on Friday with a discussion about Williams, so as to make it easier for you to understand and brief the case.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Wednesday 3/22, I first clarified a format question about the Reed outline that's due Friday: even if you have sub-elements under an element, you can, if you wish, use Q & A format for the element (rather than just "title" of the element, as I had stated in the assignment). We then finished going over Reno v. ACLU, and looked at Congressional attempts to fix the problem in the COPA (p. 369) and then the PROTECT act (p. 373). We talked about how PROTECT goes after virtual depictions, and why Congress may have targeted material in which no actual children were involved. We will continue with the Williams case when we finish our discussion of Reed.
The assignment for Friday 3/24 is to finish your Reed outlines (due at the beginning of Friday's class) and to review Williams (previously assigned).
Monday, March 20, 2017
March 20, 2017
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Monday 3/20, I distributed 2 handouts: Assignment #1 (reproduced below) and the case you'll be briefing, Williams v. Pennsylvania. We went over the assignment. We then began our discussion of Gregg v. Georgia, formulating the issues posed by Stewart's opinion. We will finish our discussion of Gregg on wednesday by going over the dissenting opinions in the case.
The assignment for Wednesday 3/22 is to begin work on the Williams case brief, and to read in the text pp. 78-82 (Caperton v. Massey Coal).
Assignment due Friday, March 31, 2017
The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the case of Williams v. Pennsylvania, __U.S. __ (2016)
Only brief Kennedy’s majority opinion. For the Roberts and Thomas dissenting opinions, just write a brief paragraph for each, explaining the basic views of that dissent.
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 (from the textbook case of Caperton v. Massey Coal): “Under the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause, does a campaign contribution have a significant and disproportionate influence on a judicial election when the $3 million spent was out of proportion to any other spending in the race, the appellate case was pending at the time of the contribution, and it was foreseeable that the case would be heard by the court to which the candidate was seeking election, even though there was no evidence that the contribution actually caused the victory of the candidate?”.
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 Friday 3/31, 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, Monday 3/20, we talked a little about the Reed outline (due this Friday) and I shared with the class my draft length for the outline as a little over 2 pages (as a guide to how long the outline might be). I reviewed the current case of Packingham v. North Carolina (the sex offender registrant who accessed Facebook) and the we used the assigned textbook cases as a vehicle for looking at some of the issues in Packingham. We went through Stevens' opinion in Reno v. ACLU. We will go over the legislative response to the case, and the case of U.S. v. Williams on Wednesday.
The assignment for Wednesday 3/22 is to continue working on your Reed v. Gilbert outlines, due Friday, and to review the rest of Chapter 8, including U.S. v. Williams, previously assigned.
In class today, Monday 3/20, I distributed 2 handouts: Assignment #1 (reproduced below) and the case you'll be briefing, Williams v. Pennsylvania. We went over the assignment. We then began our discussion of Gregg v. Georgia, formulating the issues posed by Stewart's opinion. We will finish our discussion of Gregg on wednesday by going over the dissenting opinions in the case.
The assignment for Wednesday 3/22 is to begin work on the Williams case brief, and to read in the text pp. 78-82 (Caperton v. Massey Coal).
Assignment due Friday, March 31, 2017
The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the case of Williams v. Pennsylvania, __U.S. __ (2016)
Only brief Kennedy’s majority opinion. For the Roberts and Thomas dissenting opinions, just write a brief paragraph for each, explaining the basic views of that dissent.
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 (from the textbook case of Caperton v. Massey Coal): “Under the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause, does a campaign contribution have a significant and disproportionate influence on a judicial election when the $3 million spent was out of proportion to any other spending in the race, the appellate case was pending at the time of the contribution, and it was foreseeable that the case would be heard by the court to which the candidate was seeking election, even though there was no evidence that the contribution actually caused the victory of the candidate?”.
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 Friday 3/31, 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, Monday 3/20, we talked a little about the Reed outline (due this Friday) and I shared with the class my draft length for the outline as a little over 2 pages (as a guide to how long the outline might be). I reviewed the current case of Packingham v. North Carolina (the sex offender registrant who accessed Facebook) and the we used the assigned textbook cases as a vehicle for looking at some of the issues in Packingham. We went through Stevens' opinion in Reno v. ACLU. We will go over the legislative response to the case, and the case of U.S. v. Williams on Wednesday.
The assignment for Wednesday 3/22 is to continue working on your Reed v. Gilbert outlines, due Friday, and to review the rest of Chapter 8, including U.S. v. Williams, previously assigned.
Friday, March 3, 2017
March 3, 2017
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Friday 3/3, I handed back Wednesday's exam, and we went over it. I then gave a brief introduction to the subject of Chapter 2 of the text, ethics.
The assignment for Monday 3/20 is read and prepare to discuss Gregg v. Georgia (previously assigned). Do a case brief for yourself (only of the Stewart "issue").
Also on Monday 3/20, I plan to distribute the first graded case brief assignment.
Have a good Spring break.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Friday 3/3, I handed back Wednesday's exam, and we went over it. Then I talked about this week's oral argument in Packingham v. North Carolina, in which the state made it a crime for those on the sex offender registry to access social media like Facebook.
The assignment for Monday 3/20 is to continue work on your Reed v. Gilbert outline (due 3/24) and to read in the text pp. 363-378 (including Reno v. ACLU and U.S. v. Williams.
Have a good Spring break.
In class today, Friday 3/3, I handed back Wednesday's exam, and we went over it. I then gave a brief introduction to the subject of Chapter 2 of the text, ethics.
The assignment for Monday 3/20 is read and prepare to discuss Gregg v. Georgia (previously assigned). Do a case brief for yourself (only of the Stewart "issue").
Also on Monday 3/20, I plan to distribute the first graded case brief assignment.
Have a good Spring break.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Friday 3/3, I handed back Wednesday's exam, and we went over it. Then I talked about this week's oral argument in Packingham v. North Carolina, in which the state made it a crime for those on the sex offender registry to access social media like Facebook.
The assignment for Monday 3/20 is to continue work on your Reed v. Gilbert outline (due 3/24) and to read in the text pp. 363-378 (including Reno v. ACLU and U.S. v. Williams.
Have a good Spring break.
Wednesday, March 1, 2017
March 1, 2017
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Wednesday 3/1, the class took Exam #1. I plan to hand back those exams, and go over them on Friday.
The assignment for Friday 3/3 is to read in the text pp. 52-58 (Gregg v. Georgia), which we'll discuss as time permits after we go over the exam.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Wednesday 3/1, the class took Exam #1. I plan to hand back those exams, and go over them on Friday.
The assignment for Friday 3/3 is to work on your Reed v. Gilbert outlines, due 3/24. As time permits on Friday, I plan to discuss this week's oral argument in Packingham v. North Carolina, another free speech case.
In class today, Wednesday 3/1, the class took Exam #1. I plan to hand back those exams, and go over them on Friday.
The assignment for Friday 3/3 is to read in the text pp. 52-58 (Gregg v. Georgia), which we'll discuss as time permits after we go over the exam.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Wednesday 3/1, the class took Exam #1. I plan to hand back those exams, and go over them on Friday.
The assignment for Friday 3/3 is to work on your Reed v. Gilbert outlines, due 3/24. As time permits on Friday, I plan to discuss this week's oral argument in Packingham v. North Carolina, another free speech case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)