POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 9/28, I distributed one handout, my version of the Speelman case brief. We first went over a case that we had briefly mentioned on Tuesday, Pavan v. Smith, in which the Supreme Court ruled on a follow-up to Obergefell about equal treatment for same-sex couples regarding birth certificates. This was another illustration of the Court's power to not only decide what the law is, but also to decide what it was that had been decided in previous cases. We went over the Speelman case and case brief, and then the Speelman hypotheticals. Along the way we discussed mandatory versus persuasive authority, and following versus distinguishing precedent.
The assignment for Tuesday 10/3 is to read in the text through p. 43, and to write out for yourself (not handed in or graded) a case brief of Katko v. Briney.
POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Thursday 9/28, we started with the text of the taxing clause of Article I §8. I talked about a case (from the text, p. 553) that I had not assigned, Stewart Machine v. Davis, and its interpretation of the use of Congressional spending as it relates to coercion of the states. We then went through South Dakota v. Dole and NFIB v. Sebelius, and saw how the test for coercion got created in Dole, and applied in NFIB.
The assignment for Tuesday 10/3 is to continue working on Assignment #1 (due Thursday 10/5) and to read in the text pp. 399-407 (preemption) and to read the constitution itself, at least up to the Bill of Rights.
Thursday, September 28, 2017
Tuesday, September 26, 2017
September 26, 2017
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 9/26, I distributed one handout, some hypothetical situations that ask you to think about some variations in the facts of Speelman. We finished our discussion of Glucksberg by going over the flow chart of "careful description", history and tradition, and high or low hurdles. We looked at Souter's concurrence in terms of the individual versus the government, the deference given by the judiciary to the legislative branch, and the relationship between the federal and state governments. We went through the Glucksberg case brief. We talked about the Maynard article and its assertion of the rights of the individual. We then went over the Obergefell excerpt, both the majority and the dissent. We then began our discussion of Speelman, going through the set-up portion of the case brief. We will pick up on Thursday with the remainder of the Speelman case brief.
The assignment for Thursday 9/28 is to write out a case brief of Speelman (not handed in or graded), and to read and prepare to discuss the Speelman hypotheticals distributed today.
POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 9/26, I distributed one handout, Assignment #1, which is reproduced below. We went over the requirements of that assignment. We finished our discussion of the two Christie Supreme Court briefs by contrasting their views on whether the federal prohibition on state action was the equivalent of a federal command for the state to enact legislation. We also discussed the Reno v. Condon statement that said that it was allowable under certain circumstances for the federal government to actually command the state to enact legislation. We then discussed Chicago v. Sessions, in which the court upheld the federal law by sticking to the letter of the precedent, but also added that the logic of the precedent could lead to a different result.
The assignment for Thursday 9/28 is to begin work on your Christie paper, and to read in the text pp. 557-568 (South Dakota v. Dole and NFIB v. Sebelius), about the limits on the federal spending power.
Assignment due at the beginning of class on Thursday, October 5, 2017
Congratulations! President Trump has summoned you to Trump Tower, and offered you the position of Constitutional Analyst. This newly created position analyzes up-coming Supreme Court cases to tell the President how they should come out in accordance with existing precedent. This is all in the service of improving the legal quality of the President’s tweets.
Your first assignment is to do an analysis of the Christie v. NCAA Supreme Court case. (To tweet about sports betting might help the President heal his relationship with the sports establishment.)
The President wants a very particular format:
I) a paragraph for each of the five sources below consisting of 1) a few sentences describing the holding of the case, and then a 2) a few sentences explaining how that holding would (or wouldn’t) apply to PASPA.
II) a short section analyzing, based on precedent, whether PASPA is an unconstitutional commandeering of the New Jersey state government in the 2014 Law. Examine the arguments both for and against the constitutionality of the federal statute, and then come to a conclusion. If you wish, you can add a proposed tweet to the end of your analysis.
As precedent, use the following cases from the textbook: New York v. U.S. (p.374); Printz v. U.S. (p.381); and the following handouts: Reno v. Condon; the 3rd Circuit opinion in Christie II; and the District Court decision in Chicago v. Sessions. Use no other cases, and do no outside research. This assignment is totally based on what you do with what’s in the textbook and the handouts. For the five cases in your discussion, don’t give background, story of the case, or vote of the Court. Just get right to the holding. Be as specific as possible. Make your language as clear and simple as possible. Remember your audience.
Here’s an example for the format for the paragraphs for the five cases:
In Garcia, the Court held that it is constitutional for Congress to tell the states that they have to pay their own state workers according to federal standards. That sounds like Congress telling the states how to run their own government, so why was it ok? New York distinguished Garcia on the basis that there, Congress had simply subjected the states - as employers - to the same employer standards as private employers were subjected to. In PASPA, both government and private persons are prohibited from "sponsoring, operating, advertising, or promoting" sports betting, so that might seem to be just like Garcia in that it subjected the states to the same rules as private parties. But the operative activity that is forbidden to only a state is to "authorize by law" sports betting. Only a state can "authorize by law", and so Garcia is distinguishable because PASPA does not subject a state to the same legislation applicable to private parties.
If you wish, you can criticize the lower court decisions (Christie II and Chicago) as being unfaithful to the Supreme Court cases, but you can’t criticize the Supreme Court cases themselves—they are a given. You can take the position that those Supreme Court case are distinguishable.
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 class on Thursday 10/5. If you cannot be in class on that day, you should still e-mail me your assignment by the beginning of the class. If you do that, you will not have any grade deducted from your grade for the paper. 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. Do not troll the internet for other people’s analysis. The idea is to think it out for yourself. 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, Tuesday 9/26, I distributed one handout, some hypothetical situations that ask you to think about some variations in the facts of Speelman. We finished our discussion of Glucksberg by going over the flow chart of "careful description", history and tradition, and high or low hurdles. We looked at Souter's concurrence in terms of the individual versus the government, the deference given by the judiciary to the legislative branch, and the relationship between the federal and state governments. We went through the Glucksberg case brief. We talked about the Maynard article and its assertion of the rights of the individual. We then went over the Obergefell excerpt, both the majority and the dissent. We then began our discussion of Speelman, going through the set-up portion of the case brief. We will pick up on Thursday with the remainder of the Speelman case brief.
The assignment for Thursday 9/28 is to write out a case brief of Speelman (not handed in or graded), and to read and prepare to discuss the Speelman hypotheticals distributed today.
POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 9/26, I distributed one handout, Assignment #1, which is reproduced below. We went over the requirements of that assignment. We finished our discussion of the two Christie Supreme Court briefs by contrasting their views on whether the federal prohibition on state action was the equivalent of a federal command for the state to enact legislation. We also discussed the Reno v. Condon statement that said that it was allowable under certain circumstances for the federal government to actually command the state to enact legislation. We then discussed Chicago v. Sessions, in which the court upheld the federal law by sticking to the letter of the precedent, but also added that the logic of the precedent could lead to a different result.
The assignment for Thursday 9/28 is to begin work on your Christie paper, and to read in the text pp. 557-568 (South Dakota v. Dole and NFIB v. Sebelius), about the limits on the federal spending power.
Assignment due at the beginning of class on Thursday, October 5, 2017
Congratulations! President Trump has summoned you to Trump Tower, and offered you the position of Constitutional Analyst. This newly created position analyzes up-coming Supreme Court cases to tell the President how they should come out in accordance with existing precedent. This is all in the service of improving the legal quality of the President’s tweets.
Your first assignment is to do an analysis of the Christie v. NCAA Supreme Court case. (To tweet about sports betting might help the President heal his relationship with the sports establishment.)
The President wants a very particular format:
I) a paragraph for each of the five sources below consisting of 1) a few sentences describing the holding of the case, and then a 2) a few sentences explaining how that holding would (or wouldn’t) apply to PASPA.
II) a short section analyzing, based on precedent, whether PASPA is an unconstitutional commandeering of the New Jersey state government in the 2014 Law. Examine the arguments both for and against the constitutionality of the federal statute, and then come to a conclusion. If you wish, you can add a proposed tweet to the end of your analysis.
As precedent, use the following cases from the textbook: New York v. U.S. (p.374); Printz v. U.S. (p.381); and the following handouts: Reno v. Condon; the 3rd Circuit opinion in Christie II; and the District Court decision in Chicago v. Sessions. Use no other cases, and do no outside research. This assignment is totally based on what you do with what’s in the textbook and the handouts. For the five cases in your discussion, don’t give background, story of the case, or vote of the Court. Just get right to the holding. Be as specific as possible. Make your language as clear and simple as possible. Remember your audience.
Here’s an example for the format for the paragraphs for the five cases:
In Garcia, the Court held that it is constitutional for Congress to tell the states that they have to pay their own state workers according to federal standards. That sounds like Congress telling the states how to run their own government, so why was it ok? New York distinguished Garcia on the basis that there, Congress had simply subjected the states - as employers - to the same employer standards as private employers were subjected to. In PASPA, both government and private persons are prohibited from "sponsoring, operating, advertising, or promoting" sports betting, so that might seem to be just like Garcia in that it subjected the states to the same rules as private parties. But the operative activity that is forbidden to only a state is to "authorize by law" sports betting. Only a state can "authorize by law", and so Garcia is distinguishable because PASPA does not subject a state to the same legislation applicable to private parties.
If you wish, you can criticize the lower court decisions (Christie II and Chicago) as being unfaithful to the Supreme Court cases, but you can’t criticize the Supreme Court cases themselves—they are a given. You can take the position that those Supreme Court case are distinguishable.
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 class on Thursday 10/5. If you cannot be in class on that day, you should still e-mail me your assignment by the beginning of the class. If you do that, you will not have any grade deducted from your grade for the paper. 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. Do not troll the internet for other people’s analysis. The idea is to think it out for yourself. 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, September 19, 2017
September 19, 2017
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 9/19, I distributed 3 handouts: my version of the Glucksberg case brief, an excerpt from Obergefell v. Hodges about fundamental rights, and an article by Brittany Maynard about her right to death with dignity. We went over the history of the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the concept of rights of the individual which the Court protects against intrusions by our elected representatives. We discussed federal court organization, including panel and en banc opinions by the Courts of Appeal. We looked at the flow chart that follows from the designation of an individual right as eith fundamental or not. We then did the Venn diagrams for the relationship between what goal the government wants to achieve versus the means adopted to reach that goal ("narrowly tailored" versus "rationally related"). We got as far in the Glucksberg case brief as discussing the concepts of the Issues raised by the opinion, but will pick up with how to put that in the format of the case brief.
On Thursday 9/21 the class will watch an episode from the PBS series, The Supreme Court (attendance will be taken). The assignment for next Tuesday 9/26 is to read the 3 handouts, review the Glucksberg case and case brief, and the read in the text through p. 38 (Speelman).
POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 9/19, I distributed one handout, an edited version of a decision from last Friday about sanctuary cities and commandeering, Chicago v. Sessions. We finished our discussion of Christie II by going over three factors looked at by the majority (prohibition v. affirmative action; expenditure of resources; and non-coercive choice). The dissent added another factor, whether the federal government was telling the states how the states must conduct their own state affairs, versus telling the states how to regulate the citizens of the state. We looked at Reno v. Condon, which did seem to point to that factor raised by the Christie II dissent.
On Thursday 9/21 the class will watch an episode from the PBS series, The Supreme Court (attendance will be taken). The assignment for next Tuesday 9/26 is to review the previous handouts, and to read today's handout of Chicago v. Sessions.
In class today, Tuesday 9/19, I distributed 3 handouts: my version of the Glucksberg case brief, an excerpt from Obergefell v. Hodges about fundamental rights, and an article by Brittany Maynard about her right to death with dignity. We went over the history of the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the concept of rights of the individual which the Court protects against intrusions by our elected representatives. We discussed federal court organization, including panel and en banc opinions by the Courts of Appeal. We looked at the flow chart that follows from the designation of an individual right as eith fundamental or not. We then did the Venn diagrams for the relationship between what goal the government wants to achieve versus the means adopted to reach that goal ("narrowly tailored" versus "rationally related"). We got as far in the Glucksberg case brief as discussing the concepts of the Issues raised by the opinion, but will pick up with how to put that in the format of the case brief.
On Thursday 9/21 the class will watch an episode from the PBS series, The Supreme Court (attendance will be taken). The assignment for next Tuesday 9/26 is to read the 3 handouts, review the Glucksberg case and case brief, and the read in the text through p. 38 (Speelman).
POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 9/19, I distributed one handout, an edited version of a decision from last Friday about sanctuary cities and commandeering, Chicago v. Sessions. We finished our discussion of Christie II by going over three factors looked at by the majority (prohibition v. affirmative action; expenditure of resources; and non-coercive choice). The dissent added another factor, whether the federal government was telling the states how the states must conduct their own state affairs, versus telling the states how to regulate the citizens of the state. We looked at Reno v. Condon, which did seem to point to that factor raised by the Christie II dissent.
On Thursday 9/21 the class will watch an episode from the PBS series, The Supreme Court (attendance will be taken). The assignment for next Tuesday 9/26 is to review the previous handouts, and to read today's handout of Chicago v. Sessions.
Thursday, September 14, 2017
September 14, 2017
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 9/14, I distributed two handouts: a list of the Supreme Court Justices (as well as useful websites) and the Maine statutes regarding sentencing. We went over those handouts, including the proper citation form for Maine statutes. We went over the remaining opinions in Miller, including Breyer's, Roberts', and Thomas' opinions. We went over the difference between concurring in the judgment versus concurring in the opinion. I then talked about the case of Montgomery v. Louisiana and the retroactive application of the rule in Miller. We discussed Montgomery's differentiation between new constitutional procedural rules versus new constitutional substantive rules, and why Miller fell on the substantive side.
The assignment for Tuesday 9/19 is to read through p. 34 of the text, including Washington v. Glucksberg. Write out a case brief of the majority opinion in Glucksberg, (not handed in or graded).
POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Thursday 9/14, I distributed one handout, the Supreme Court opinion in Reno v. Condon. We finished our discussion of Printz by going over the second part of Thomas' concurrence, and the two dissenting opinions. We then went through the Third Circuit opinion in this case, getting to ¶17, which is where we'll pick up next Tuesday. Along the way, we discussed the concepts of the holding of a case versus dictum, and mandatory authority through the federal court system.
The assignment for Tuesday 9/19 is to read today's handout, as well as the two previously distributed SCOTUS briefs.
In class today, Thursday 9/14, I distributed two handouts: a list of the Supreme Court Justices (as well as useful websites) and the Maine statutes regarding sentencing. We went over those handouts, including the proper citation form for Maine statutes. We went over the remaining opinions in Miller, including Breyer's, Roberts', and Thomas' opinions. We went over the difference between concurring in the judgment versus concurring in the opinion. I then talked about the case of Montgomery v. Louisiana and the retroactive application of the rule in Miller. We discussed Montgomery's differentiation between new constitutional procedural rules versus new constitutional substantive rules, and why Miller fell on the substantive side.
The assignment for Tuesday 9/19 is to read through p. 34 of the text, including Washington v. Glucksberg. Write out a case brief of the majority opinion in Glucksberg, (not handed in or graded).
POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Thursday 9/14, I distributed one handout, the Supreme Court opinion in Reno v. Condon. We finished our discussion of Printz by going over the second part of Thomas' concurrence, and the two dissenting opinions. We then went through the Third Circuit opinion in this case, getting to ¶17, which is where we'll pick up next Tuesday. Along the way, we discussed the concepts of the holding of a case versus dictum, and mandatory authority through the federal court system.
The assignment for Tuesday 9/19 is to read today's handout, as well as the two previously distributed SCOTUS briefs.
Tuesday, September 12, 2017
September 12, 2017
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 9/12, I distributed one handout, my version of the Miller case brief. I went over one more aspect of the text's introductory materials, the difference between legal and equitable remedies, and how that's still reflected in Maine's court system. We then began our discussion of Miller. I went over 4 cases that preceded Miller regarding juvenile sentencing: Thompson, Sanford, Roper, and Graham. We made our way through the majority opinion in Miller in the format of the case brief. We also looked at the 5-4 split in the Miller opinion, and talked about ideological vetting on the present-day Court. On Thursday 9/14 we will look at the other opinions in Miller, and I'll also talk about the Montgomery case regarding retroactive application of the Miller opinion.
The assignment for Thursday 9/14 is to review the other opinions in Miller, previously assigned
POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 9/12, I distributed two handouts, both of them briefs in the current Supreme Court case of Christie v. NCAA: the amicus brief of the U.S. opposing the hearing of the case in the first place, and the merits brief of Christie. We went back and tried to figure out exactly the rule that came from N.Y. v. U.S.. We went through Scalia's opinion in Printz in detail, paying particular attention to his characterization of the N.Y. case holding, and also to the structure of his opinion. We got through the first part of Thomas' concurrence, and will pick up with the remainder of that opinion on Thursday.
The assignment for Thursday 9/14 is to review the remainder of Printz, and to review the 3rd Circuit opinion previously distributed. If you're sick of reviewing those, go ahead and read today's two handouts.
In class today, Tuesday 9/12, I distributed one handout, my version of the Miller case brief. I went over one more aspect of the text's introductory materials, the difference between legal and equitable remedies, and how that's still reflected in Maine's court system. We then began our discussion of Miller. I went over 4 cases that preceded Miller regarding juvenile sentencing: Thompson, Sanford, Roper, and Graham. We made our way through the majority opinion in Miller in the format of the case brief. We also looked at the 5-4 split in the Miller opinion, and talked about ideological vetting on the present-day Court. On Thursday 9/14 we will look at the other opinions in Miller, and I'll also talk about the Montgomery case regarding retroactive application of the Miller opinion.
The assignment for Thursday 9/14 is to review the other opinions in Miller, previously assigned
POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 9/12, I distributed two handouts, both of them briefs in the current Supreme Court case of Christie v. NCAA: the amicus brief of the U.S. opposing the hearing of the case in the first place, and the merits brief of Christie. We went back and tried to figure out exactly the rule that came from N.Y. v. U.S.. We went through Scalia's opinion in Printz in detail, paying particular attention to his characterization of the N.Y. case holding, and also to the structure of his opinion. We got through the first part of Thomas' concurrence, and will pick up with the remainder of that opinion on Thursday.
The assignment for Thursday 9/14 is to review the remainder of Printz, and to review the 3rd Circuit opinion previously distributed. If you're sick of reviewing those, go ahead and read today's two handouts.
Thursday, September 7, 2017
September 7, 2017
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 9/7, we finished our discussion of Blier by going over the case brief format for all of the segments of the brief. I talked about two additional aspects of Blier: the deference given by appellate courts to the findings of fact made by trial courts, and the use of authority by a court to demonstrate that's it's not just making up stuff. We went over some concepts from the assigned textbook reading, the most important of which was the concept of "common law" as law made by judges in the absence of enacted law. The additional concept that I wanted to discuss from the introductory sect was equitable versus legal remedies.
The assignment for Tuesday 9/12 is to read through p. 21 of the text. Write up a case brief of Miller (majority opinion) following the format of the case brief template and the Blier case (not handed in or graded).
POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Thursday 9/7, I distributed one handout, the en banc opinion of the Third Circuit in the Christie v. NCAA case. I went over some introductory material to the case, as well as going over the organization of the federal court system, and panel and en banc decisions of the courts of appeal. We then finished our discussion of New York v. U.S., trying to identify the exact line at which federal action becomes unconstitutional commandeering. We will pick up with the Printz case on Tuesday.
The assignment for Tuesday 9/12 is to review Printz (previously assigned) and read today's handout.
In class today, Thursday 9/7, we finished our discussion of Blier by going over the case brief format for all of the segments of the brief. I talked about two additional aspects of Blier: the deference given by appellate courts to the findings of fact made by trial courts, and the use of authority by a court to demonstrate that's it's not just making up stuff. We went over some concepts from the assigned textbook reading, the most important of which was the concept of "common law" as law made by judges in the absence of enacted law. The additional concept that I wanted to discuss from the introductory sect was equitable versus legal remedies.
The assignment for Tuesday 9/12 is to read through p. 21 of the text. Write up a case brief of Miller (majority opinion) following the format of the case brief template and the Blier case (not handed in or graded).
POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Thursday 9/7, I distributed one handout, the en banc opinion of the Third Circuit in the Christie v. NCAA case. I went over some introductory material to the case, as well as going over the organization of the federal court system, and panel and en banc decisions of the courts of appeal. We then finished our discussion of New York v. U.S., trying to identify the exact line at which federal action becomes unconstitutional commandeering. We will pick up with the Printz case on Tuesday.
The assignment for Tuesday 9/12 is to review Printz (previously assigned) and read today's handout.
Tuesday, September 5, 2017
September 5, 2017
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 9/5, I distributed one handout, my version of the Blier case brief. We continued our journey through the Blier opinion by pinpointing the issues decided by the Maine Supreme Court, as well as the resolution of those issues. We identified the exact parts of the trial court suppression order that were reversed by the Law Court. We also put those issues into the format of the case brief template that I had distributed last week. Along the way today we also went over the concepts of objective versus subjective beliefs, and dictum in a court opinion versus the holding of the court.
The assignment for Thursday 9/7 is to review today's handout of my version of the Blier case brief, and to read in the text pp. 1-14.
POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 9/5, we finished our discussion of Garcia (majority and 2 dissents) and began discussing N.Y. v. U.S. We counted votes in New York, seeing whether there were any changed votes, where the new Justices (new post Garcia) landed, and where Kennedy stood(since he's the only Justice still on the Court). In O'Connor's majority opinion in N.Y., we got as far as how her discussion about how the federal authority had expanded, but how the states retained a core of sovereignty that can't be reduced by Congress (left-hand side of p. 377).
The assignment for Thursday 9/7 is to review New York and Printz, all previously assigned.
In class today, Tuesday 9/5, I distributed one handout, my version of the Blier case brief. We continued our journey through the Blier opinion by pinpointing the issues decided by the Maine Supreme Court, as well as the resolution of those issues. We identified the exact parts of the trial court suppression order that were reversed by the Law Court. We also put those issues into the format of the case brief template that I had distributed last week. Along the way today we also went over the concepts of objective versus subjective beliefs, and dictum in a court opinion versus the holding of the court.
The assignment for Thursday 9/7 is to review today's handout of my version of the Blier case brief, and to read in the text pp. 1-14.
POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 9/5, we finished our discussion of Garcia (majority and 2 dissents) and began discussing N.Y. v. U.S. We counted votes in New York, seeing whether there were any changed votes, where the new Justices (new post Garcia) landed, and where Kennedy stood(since he's the only Justice still on the Court). In O'Connor's majority opinion in N.Y., we got as far as how her discussion about how the federal authority had expanded, but how the states retained a core of sovereignty that can't be reduced by Congress (left-hand side of p. 377).
The assignment for Thursday 9/7 is to review New York and Printz, all previously assigned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)