POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 10/28, I distributed one handout, state and federal statutes involving hindering apprehension, common law crimes, and the duty to report crimes. We finished our discussion of Gregg v. Georgia, and discussed the article about the back-room compromise in Furman. We then discussed State v. Mobbley, both the majority and the dissenting opinion. We looked at the Maine statute about hindering apprehension, and we analyzed with what crime Ms. Mobbley might be charged in Maine.
The assignment for Tuesday 10/31 is to read today's handout, and to read in the text pp. 65 - 72 (including Holland and Lawrence).
POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Thursday 10/28, we finished our discussion of Morrison v. Olson. We then started our discussion of NLRB v. Canning, including how to do an outline of that case. We got as far as Breyer's discussion of the purpose of the Recess Appointment Clause, which is where we'll pick up next Tuesday.
The assignment for Tuesday 10/31 is continue work on your NLRB outline, which I really want you to write up and have ready for discussion. In addition, read in the text pp. 228-234, and to do outlines (not handed in or graded) of the majority opinion in Myers (p.229).
Thursday, October 26, 2017
Tuesday, October 24, 2017
October 24, 2017
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 10/24, I returned the exams, and we went over them. I distributed two handouts: an article about how capital punishment itself was almost declared unconstitutional, and a listing of Supreme Court capital punishment cases. We began our discussion of Gregg, getting to Stewart's view of the justification for capital punishment.
The assignment for Thursday 10/26 is to read today's handouts and to read in the text pp. 58-64 (including Mobbley).
POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 10/24, I returned the exams, and we went over them. I distributed one handout, my version of an outline of the Morrison v. Olson opinion. We began our discussion of Morrison, getting to the first of the the four reasons given for finding that Morrison was an "inferior" officer.
The assignment for Thursday 10/26 is to review the remainder of Morrison, and then to do an outline of NLRB v. Canning, using today's handout as an example of the question and answer format that I'm looking for (not handed in or graded).
In class today, Tuesday 10/24, I returned the exams, and we went over them. I distributed two handouts: an article about how capital punishment itself was almost declared unconstitutional, and a listing of Supreme Court capital punishment cases. We began our discussion of Gregg, getting to Stewart's view of the justification for capital punishment.
The assignment for Thursday 10/26 is to read today's handouts and to read in the text pp. 58-64 (including Mobbley).
POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 10/24, I returned the exams, and we went over them. I distributed one handout, my version of an outline of the Morrison v. Olson opinion. We began our discussion of Morrison, getting to the first of the the four reasons given for finding that Morrison was an "inferior" officer.
The assignment for Thursday 10/26 is to review the remainder of Morrison, and then to do an outline of NLRB v. Canning, using today's handout as an example of the question and answer format that I'm looking for (not handed in or graded).
Thursday, October 19, 2017
October 19, 2017
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 10/19, the class took Exam #1. I plan to return the exam and go over it on Tuesday.
The assignment for Tuesday 10/24 is to review Gregg v. Georgia, previously assigned.
POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Thursday 10/19, the class took Exam #1. I plan to return the exam and go over it on Tuesday.
The assignment for Tuesday 10/24 is to read in the text from p. 211 (Presidential Signing Statements) thru p.228 (including Morrison v. Olson and NLRB v.Canning).
In class today, Thursday 10/19, the class took Exam #1. I plan to return the exam and go over it on Tuesday.
The assignment for Tuesday 10/24 is to review Gregg v. Georgia, previously assigned.
POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Thursday 10/19, the class took Exam #1. I plan to return the exam and go over it on Tuesday.
The assignment for Tuesday 10/24 is to read in the text from p. 211 (Presidential Signing Statements) thru p.228 (including Morrison v. Olson and NLRB v.Canning).
Tuesday, October 17, 2017
October 17, 2017
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 10/17, I distributed one handout, the comment key for my comments on the Dyer case brief. I handed back the Dyer case briefs, and we reviewed some common problems. We then went back to the Maine justification for the use of force statute, and discussed whether Dyer might have been justified in the use of deadly force. We went over Suggs v. Norris. I discussed a Maine Supreme Court case, Paffhausen v. Balano, that clarified in Maine the difference between quantum meruit and unjust enrichment. We did not get to discuss Gregg v. Georgia, and so the exam Thursday will not include Gregg.
On Thursday 10/19, the class will take Exam #1, open-book and open-note. Remember that if you are missing any handouts, you must email me by Wednesday 10/18 at 8:00 pm with your requests.
POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 10/17, we finished our discussion of in re Neagle. We then discussed the Steel Seizure case (p.204) and the Zivotofsky cae (p. 205) in terms of Congressional limits on the executive Branch. We moved on to discuss Clinton v. City of New York, both the majority and the 2 dissents. That's how far the exam will cover.
On Thursday 10/19, the class will take Exam #1, open-book and open-note. Remember that if you are missing any handouts, you must email me by Wednesday 10/18 at 8:00 pm with your requests.
In class today, Tuesday 10/17, I distributed one handout, the comment key for my comments on the Dyer case brief. I handed back the Dyer case briefs, and we reviewed some common problems. We then went back to the Maine justification for the use of force statute, and discussed whether Dyer might have been justified in the use of deadly force. We went over Suggs v. Norris. I discussed a Maine Supreme Court case, Paffhausen v. Balano, that clarified in Maine the difference between quantum meruit and unjust enrichment. We did not get to discuss Gregg v. Georgia, and so the exam Thursday will not include Gregg.
On Thursday 10/19, the class will take Exam #1, open-book and open-note. Remember that if you are missing any handouts, you must email me by Wednesday 10/18 at 8:00 pm with your requests.
POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 10/17, we finished our discussion of in re Neagle. We then discussed the Steel Seizure case (p.204) and the Zivotofsky cae (p. 205) in terms of Congressional limits on the executive Branch. We moved on to discuss Clinton v. City of New York, both the majority and the 2 dissents. That's how far the exam will cover.
On Thursday 10/19, the class will take Exam #1, open-book and open-note. Remember that if you are missing any handouts, you must email me by Wednesday 10/18 at 8:00 pm with your requests.
Thursday, October 12, 2017
October 12, 2017
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 10/12, I distributed one handout, my version of the Dyer case brief. I collected the class' Dyer case briefs, and we went over them. I plan to return them next Tuesday.
I announced that the first exam will be a week from today, Thursday 10/19. The class took a brief sample test in preparation for that exam. The best way to prepare for the exam is to use the blog (goldmanmaine.blogspot.com) to review the materials and the concepts that we've covered thus far. If you find that you are missing any handouts, you must email me by Wednesday 10/18 at 8:00 pm with your requests.
We went through the Maine statute on the use of force up to the use of deadly force (17-A MRS § 104 (3)). We will pick up with the question of whether deadly force against Dixon would have been justified on Tuesday.
The assignment for Tuesday 10/17, is to review the Maine statute, and also review Suggs v. Norris and Gregg v. Georgia, previously assigned, as well as to begin preparation for the exam.
.
POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Thursday 10/12, I distributed one handout, some notes regarding the Assignment #1 papers. I returned those papers, and we went over some aspects of the cases.
I announced that the first exam will be a week from today, Thursday 10/19. The class took a brief sample test in preparation for that exam. The best way to prepare for the exam is to use the blog (goldmanmaine.blogspot.com) to review the materials and the concepts that we've covered thus far. If you find that you are missing any handouts, you must email me by Wednesday 10/18 at 8:00 pm with your requests.
We finished looking at the 3 dissenting opinions in Arizona, and then began our discussion of Neagle (p. 200)
The assignment for Tuesday 10/17, is to review Neagle and Clinton v. New York (through p. 211 of the text) all previously assigned, as well as to begin preparation for the exam.
In class today, Thursday 10/12, I distributed one handout, my version of the Dyer case brief. I collected the class' Dyer case briefs, and we went over them. I plan to return them next Tuesday.
I announced that the first exam will be a week from today, Thursday 10/19. The class took a brief sample test in preparation for that exam. The best way to prepare for the exam is to use the blog (goldmanmaine.blogspot.com) to review the materials and the concepts that we've covered thus far. If you find that you are missing any handouts, you must email me by Wednesday 10/18 at 8:00 pm with your requests.
We went through the Maine statute on the use of force up to the use of deadly force (17-A MRS § 104 (3)). We will pick up with the question of whether deadly force against Dixon would have been justified on Tuesday.
The assignment for Tuesday 10/17, is to review the Maine statute, and also review Suggs v. Norris and Gregg v. Georgia, previously assigned, as well as to begin preparation for the exam.
.
POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Thursday 10/12, I distributed one handout, some notes regarding the Assignment #1 papers. I returned those papers, and we went over some aspects of the cases.
I announced that the first exam will be a week from today, Thursday 10/19. The class took a brief sample test in preparation for that exam. The best way to prepare for the exam is to use the blog (goldmanmaine.blogspot.com) to review the materials and the concepts that we've covered thus far. If you find that you are missing any handouts, you must email me by Wednesday 10/18 at 8:00 pm with your requests.
We finished looking at the 3 dissenting opinions in Arizona, and then began our discussion of Neagle (p. 200)
The assignment for Tuesday 10/17, is to review Neagle and Clinton v. New York (through p. 211 of the text) all previously assigned, as well as to begin preparation for the exam.
Thursday, October 5, 2017
October 5, 2017
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 10/5, we first discussed some aspects of the Dyer case brief, due at the beginning of class on Thursday 10/12. Remember that you may not discuss the case with others, even if they were not in class today. We then discussed the types of authority cited in the Katko case: primary versus secondary authority, mandatory versus persuasive authority, and following, distinguishing, and extending authority.
There is no class Tuesday 10/10 (Fall Break). The assignment for Thursday 10/12 is to finish your case briefs and to read in the text through p. 59 (including Gregg v. Georgia).
POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Thursday 10/5, we first went over Assignment #1. We then finished our discussion of Crosby, and we got through the majority opinion in Arizona. We will pick up with the Arizona dissents next Thursday.
There is no class Tuesday 10/10 (Fall Break). The assignment for Thursday 10/12 is to read in the text pp. 196-211.
In class today, Thursday 10/5, we first discussed some aspects of the Dyer case brief, due at the beginning of class on Thursday 10/12. Remember that you may not discuss the case with others, even if they were not in class today. We then discussed the types of authority cited in the Katko case: primary versus secondary authority, mandatory versus persuasive authority, and following, distinguishing, and extending authority.
There is no class Tuesday 10/10 (Fall Break). The assignment for Thursday 10/12 is to finish your case briefs and to read in the text through p. 59 (including Gregg v. Georgia).
POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Thursday 10/5, we first went over Assignment #1. We then finished our discussion of Crosby, and we got through the majority opinion in Arizona. We will pick up with the Arizona dissents next Thursday.
There is no class Tuesday 10/10 (Fall Break). The assignment for Thursday 10/12 is to read in the text pp. 196-211.
Tuesday, October 3, 2017
October 3, 2017
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 10/3, I distributed four handouts: Assignment #1 (reproduced below); the case you'll be briefing; my version of the Katko case brief; and the Maine statute regarding use of force in defense of premises. We talked about the requirements of the assignment. I went over the Supreme Court case of Jones v. Flowers, and then we discussed Katko v. Briney. I also went over the four mental states involved in both civil and criminal law: intent; knowledge; recklessness; and negligence.
The assignment for Thursday 10/5 is to read all of today's handouts, to begin work on the Dyer case brief, and to read in the text through the end of Chapter 1 (Suggs v. Norris).
Assignment due at 2:00 Thursday, October 12, 2017
The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the case of State v. Dyer, 2001 ME 62, 769 A.2d 873, also distributed to the class today. If you weren't in class, you can access the case at
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2563685327105664517&q=2001+ME+62&hl=en&as_sdt=4,193
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, including this: after giving the winner’s facts, give the loser’s facts with a parenthetical phrase that starts “even though...”.
For example: “Under the 4th Amendment, was the pursuit of a suspect from a public road onto the curtilage of his home a “hot” or fresh pursuit when the officer followed the suspect on the road, and from the road into the curtilage of the house, immediately and fairly continuously (even though the officer did not leave his car to follow the suspect for at least seven seconds)?”.
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 already have appeared exactly in your Issue and get copied into your 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 on Thursday 10/12.
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 Thursday 10/12, 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. Do not discuss your case brief with anyone but me. Do no outside research. You already have all the materials that you need.
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 the paper is not submitted.
POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 10/3, we first went over some questions about Assignment #1, due at the beginning of class on Thursday 10/5. We then went over the Holland preemption case, and Crosby as far as the second of the obstacles to accomplishment of the federal goals. We put Crosby in an outline format.
The assignment for Thursday 10/5 is to complete work on your Christie papers, due at the beginning of class on Thursday. Also read the Arizona case in the text, through p. 414.
In class today, Tuesday 10/3, I distributed four handouts: Assignment #1 (reproduced below); the case you'll be briefing; my version of the Katko case brief; and the Maine statute regarding use of force in defense of premises. We talked about the requirements of the assignment. I went over the Supreme Court case of Jones v. Flowers, and then we discussed Katko v. Briney. I also went over the four mental states involved in both civil and criminal law: intent; knowledge; recklessness; and negligence.
The assignment for Thursday 10/5 is to read all of today's handouts, to begin work on the Dyer case brief, and to read in the text through the end of Chapter 1 (Suggs v. Norris).
Assignment due at 2:00 Thursday, October 12, 2017
The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the case of State v. Dyer, 2001 ME 62, 769 A.2d 873, also distributed to the class today. If you weren't in class, you can access the case at
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2563685327105664517&q=2001+ME+62&hl=en&as_sdt=4,193
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, including this: after giving the winner’s facts, give the loser’s facts with a parenthetical phrase that starts “even though...”.
For example: “Under the 4th Amendment, was the pursuit of a suspect from a public road onto the curtilage of his home a “hot” or fresh pursuit when the officer followed the suspect on the road, and from the road into the curtilage of the house, immediately and fairly continuously (even though the officer did not leave his car to follow the suspect for at least seven seconds)?”.
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 already have appeared exactly in your Issue and get copied into your 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 on Thursday 10/12.
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 Thursday 10/12, 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. Do not discuss your case brief with anyone but me. Do no outside research. You already have all the materials that you need.
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 the paper is not submitted.
POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 10/3, we first went over some questions about Assignment #1, due at the beginning of class on Thursday 10/5. We then went over the Holland preemption case, and Crosby as far as the second of the obstacles to accomplishment of the federal goals. We put Crosby in an outline format.
The assignment for Thursday 10/5 is to complete work on your Christie papers, due at the beginning of class on Thursday. Also read the Arizona case in the text, through p. 414.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)