POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 11/30, I distributed three handouts: the recent Supreme Court case of Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing, selected statutes regarding subject-matter jurisdiction, and selected statutes regarding adoption and recognition of same-sex marriage. We began class by discussing the concepts of Full Faith and Credit, subject-matter jurisdiction, and by going over some aspects of the VL case brief due 11/7. We then discussed the Finstuen case, and the Obergefell excerpt that I distributed last class.
The assignment for Tuesday 12/5 is to continue working on your VL case brief, and to read in the text pp. 123-126, and the Hamer handout. If you weren't in class today and you missed the Hamer handout, the opinion is available at
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/17
POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Thursday 11/30, we first discussed the timing of the exam during finals week. The exam will be for the first 75 minutes of the alloted slot, that is, from 2:45-4:00. We then finished up with Zivotofsky by going over the opinions in the case other than the majority, especially those of Thomas and Scalia. We discussed the various opinions in Hamdi. Finally, we went through Powell v. McCormack, and the power of Congress to keep elected members from taking their seats.
The assignment for Tuesday 12/5 is to review Thorton (previously assigned) and to read in the text pp. 94-101 (Baker v. Carr).
Thursday, November 30, 2017
Tuesday, November 28, 2017
November 28, 2017
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/28, I distributed three handouts: Assignment #2 (reproduced below), the case you'll be briefing, V.L. v. E.L, and an excerpt from the Obergefell case. We first went over the requirements of the assignment. Then we went through the two textbook cases assigned for today, Hubbard and Land, and talked about the concept of conflict of laws, and good and bad lawyering. I also went over the concept that sunk the Lands, statutes of repose, versus statutes of limitation.
The assignment for Thursday 11/30 is to begin work on your case brief, and to read the Obergefell handout, and to read in the text through the end of Chapter III (Finstuen).
Assignment due at the beginning of class on Thursday, December 7, 2017
The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the case of V.L. v. E.L., 136 S. Ct. 1017 (2016) (also distributed to the class today).
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...)”.
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 Thursday 12/7, 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. Do not troll the internet. The opinion itself is your only source for the case brief.
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 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/28, I handed back the PHH outlines. I distributed two handouts, my version of the PHH outline, and a page that had a key to my notes on your outlines as well the a selection of the statutes involved in the current struggle about the new head of the CFPB.
We talked about the CFPB struggle, and then discussed one of the two cases assigned for today, Zivotofsky. We will begin with the second case, Hamdi, on Thursday.
The assignment for Thursday 11/30 is to read in the text pp.125-139, including Powell v. McCormack, and Thorton.
In class today, Tuesday 11/28, I distributed three handouts: Assignment #2 (reproduced below), the case you'll be briefing, V.L. v. E.L, and an excerpt from the Obergefell case. We first went over the requirements of the assignment. Then we went through the two textbook cases assigned for today, Hubbard and Land, and talked about the concept of conflict of laws, and good and bad lawyering. I also went over the concept that sunk the Lands, statutes of repose, versus statutes of limitation.
The assignment for Thursday 11/30 is to begin work on your case brief, and to read the Obergefell handout, and to read in the text through the end of Chapter III (Finstuen).
Assignment due at the beginning of class on Thursday, December 7, 2017
The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the case of V.L. v. E.L., 136 S. Ct. 1017 (2016) (also distributed to the class today).
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...)”.
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 Thursday 12/7, 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. Do not troll the internet. The opinion itself is your only source for the case brief.
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 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/28, I handed back the PHH outlines. I distributed two handouts, my version of the PHH outline, and a page that had a key to my notes on your outlines as well the a selection of the statutes involved in the current struggle about the new head of the CFPB.
We talked about the CFPB struggle, and then discussed one of the two cases assigned for today, Zivotofsky. We will begin with the second case, Hamdi, on Thursday.
The assignment for Thursday 11/30 is to read in the text pp.125-139, including Powell v. McCormack, and Thorton.
Tuesday, November 21, 2017
November 21, 2017
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/21, we first went over the Butler case regarding dictum. I also talked about the three distinct types of dictum that we have encountered this semester. I discussed the U.S. Supreme Court case of Harris v. New York, in which the Court took the same position as the Butler court, and we went over the votes in Miranda and in Harris. We then went over the Dempsey case. I talked about the case of Johnson v. New Jersey, and the decision of the Supreme Court regarding the retroactive application of the Miranda decision. We went through the Dempsey decision, and the 4 U.S. Supreme Court opinions regarding the general rules of retroactivity: Linkletter and Griffith, replaced by Chevron and Harper. Finally we went over Strunk v. Strunk, and how the Kentucky court dealt with the absence of precedent.
The assignment for Tuesday 11/28 is to read in the text pp. 113-116 (including Hubbard v. Greeson) and pp. 144-146 (Land v. Yamaha)
Have a good Thanksgiving.
POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/21, we went over the PHH outline, and I plan to return the graded outlines next Tuesday, 11/28. We talked about the politics of independent agencies, and the history of why Congress may have wanted to set up an agency with so much independence. We also talked about Congressional oversight of the CFPB, as in the recent rejection of the CFPB rule regarding arbitration clauses. We then went through the cases assigned for today, Korematsu and Youngstown Sheet & Tube.
The assignment for Tuesday 11/28 is to read in text pp. 319-340 (Zivotofsky v. Kerry and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld).
Have a good Thanksgiving.
In class today, Tuesday 11/21, we first went over the Butler case regarding dictum. I also talked about the three distinct types of dictum that we have encountered this semester. I discussed the U.S. Supreme Court case of Harris v. New York, in which the Court took the same position as the Butler court, and we went over the votes in Miranda and in Harris. We then went over the Dempsey case. I talked about the case of Johnson v. New Jersey, and the decision of the Supreme Court regarding the retroactive application of the Miranda decision. We went through the Dempsey decision, and the 4 U.S. Supreme Court opinions regarding the general rules of retroactivity: Linkletter and Griffith, replaced by Chevron and Harper. Finally we went over Strunk v. Strunk, and how the Kentucky court dealt with the absence of precedent.
The assignment for Tuesday 11/28 is to read in the text pp. 113-116 (including Hubbard v. Greeson) and pp. 144-146 (Land v. Yamaha)
Have a good Thanksgiving.
POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/21, we went over the PHH outline, and I plan to return the graded outlines next Tuesday, 11/28. We talked about the politics of independent agencies, and the history of why Congress may have wanted to set up an agency with so much independence. We also talked about Congressional oversight of the CFPB, as in the recent rejection of the CFPB rule regarding arbitration clauses. We then went through the cases assigned for today, Korematsu and Youngstown Sheet & Tube.
The assignment for Tuesday 11/28 is to read in text pp. 319-340 (Zivotofsky v. Kerry and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld).
Have a good Thanksgiving.
Thursday, November 16, 2017
November 16. 2017
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 11/16, we began our study of Chapter 3 of the text by going over the difference between the power of state governments (the police power) versus the power of the federal Congress (the enumerated powers of Article I). We talked about the 9th and 10th Amendments, the 9th saying that the listing of rights in the Bill of Rights was not exclusive, and the 10th saying that the listing of the powers of Congress is exclusive. We went through the opinions in NFIB v. Sebelius, discussing Roberts' textual argument, his argument regarding precedent, and his argument regarding the nature of the federal power. We also looked at the Ginsburg dissent, and the "joint Dissent" (which didn't dissent). We then talked about federal supremacy, and I went over the 2008 U.S. Supreme Court case of Rowe v. N. H. Motor Transport.
The assignment for Tuesday 11/21 is read in the text pp. 100-113, including the Butler, Dempsey, and Strunk cases.
POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Thursday 11/16, we began by going over Clinton v. Jones. We discussed, among other questions, the significance of the opening sentence of that opinion, which talked about actions by Clinton before his term began. I also talked about two current cases against President Trump, by Plaintiffs Zervos and Nwanguma, and how the Supreme Court cases instruct how those civil cases should proceed. Then we went over the Grossman case. I also talked about the pardon of Sheriff Arpaio, and discussed two ways in which lawyers are trying to distinguish the holding in Grossman.
The assignment for Tuesday 11/21 is to finish your PHH outline, due at the beginning of class on Tuesday. In addition read in the text pp. 303-316 (Korematsu and Youngstown).
In class today, Thursday 11/16, we began our study of Chapter 3 of the text by going over the difference between the power of state governments (the police power) versus the power of the federal Congress (the enumerated powers of Article I). We talked about the 9th and 10th Amendments, the 9th saying that the listing of rights in the Bill of Rights was not exclusive, and the 10th saying that the listing of the powers of Congress is exclusive. We went through the opinions in NFIB v. Sebelius, discussing Roberts' textual argument, his argument regarding precedent, and his argument regarding the nature of the federal power. We also looked at the Ginsburg dissent, and the "joint Dissent" (which didn't dissent). We then talked about federal supremacy, and I went over the 2008 U.S. Supreme Court case of Rowe v. N. H. Motor Transport.
The assignment for Tuesday 11/21 is read in the text pp. 100-113, including the Butler, Dempsey, and Strunk cases.
POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Thursday 11/16, we began by going over Clinton v. Jones. We discussed, among other questions, the significance of the opening sentence of that opinion, which talked about actions by Clinton before his term began. I also talked about two current cases against President Trump, by Plaintiffs Zervos and Nwanguma, and how the Supreme Court cases instruct how those civil cases should proceed. Then we went over the Grossman case. I also talked about the pardon of Sheriff Arpaio, and discussed two ways in which lawyers are trying to distinguish the holding in Grossman.
The assignment for Tuesday 11/21 is to finish your PHH outline, due at the beginning of class on Tuesday. In addition read in the text pp. 303-316 (Korematsu and Youngstown).
Tuesday, November 14, 2017
November 14, 2017
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/14, I distributed one handout, an excerpt from the Maine Rules of Professional Conduct (for lawyers). We first went over the Caperton case. I then discussed a 2016 Supreme Court recusal case, Williams v. Pennsylvania. Finally I talked about a 2011 Maine Supreme Court case, Board of Overseers v. Warren, about the responsibility of lawyers to report misconduct by other lawyers.
The assignment for Thursday 11/16 is to read in the text pp. 89-100, including NFIB v. Sebelius.
POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/14, I first went over one aspect of Free Enterprise Fund that I had not covered last week, the three objections of the Fund to the appointment of the PCAOB under the inferior officers clause of Article II. We then went through U.S. v. Nixon and Nixon v. Fitzgerald, comparing and contrasting the outcome of the two cases.
The assignment for Thursday 11/16 is to read in the text pp. 251-260, including Clinton v. Jones and ex parte Grossman.
In class today, Tuesday 11/14, I distributed one handout, an excerpt from the Maine Rules of Professional Conduct (for lawyers). We first went over the Caperton case. I then discussed a 2016 Supreme Court recusal case, Williams v. Pennsylvania. Finally I talked about a 2011 Maine Supreme Court case, Board of Overseers v. Warren, about the responsibility of lawyers to report misconduct by other lawyers.
The assignment for Thursday 11/16 is to read in the text pp. 89-100, including NFIB v. Sebelius.
POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/14, I first went over one aspect of Free Enterprise Fund that I had not covered last week, the three objections of the Fund to the appointment of the PCAOB under the inferior officers clause of Article II. We then went through U.S. v. Nixon and Nixon v. Fitzgerald, comparing and contrasting the outcome of the two cases.
The assignment for Thursday 11/16 is to read in the text pp. 251-260, including Clinton v. Jones and ex parte Grossman.
Thursday, November 9, 2017
November 9. 2017
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 11/9, I distributed one handout, an article about the recent Congressional decision to scuttle a rule by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. That rule would have outlawed clauses in consumer agreements with banks which force the consumers into individual arbitration when there are disputes. We went through the Glassford v. BrickKicker case, and put it into the format of a case brief. I then talked about three recent U.S. Supreme Court cases involving mandatory arbitration clauses: AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion (2011); DirecTV v. Imburgia (2015); and Epic Systems v. Lewis (oral argument 10/2/2017).
The assignment for Tuesday 11/14 is to read the remainder of Chapter 2 of the text, including Caperton v. Massey Coal.
POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Thursday 11/9, I distributed two handouts: assignment #2 (reproduced below) and the case you'll be outlining, the first part of the panel decision of the D.C. Circuit in PHH v. CFPB. We went over the requirements of the assignment. We then went back and finished looking at the dissenting opinions in Myers. We went through the case of Humphrey's Executor and saw how the Court there distinguished Myers. I then discussed the 5-4 2010 Supreme Court opinion of Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Oversight Accounting Board, which distinguished Humphrey's Executor. We talked about both the treatment of the "for cause" removal protections of the Board, and the Appointment of the Board in the first place.
The assignment for Tuesday 11/14 is to begin work on your PHH outline, and to read in the text and prepare to discuss pp. 238-243 (U.S. v. Nixon) and 246-251 (Nixon v. Fitzgerald).
Assignment due Tuesday, November 21, 2017
The assignment is to do an outline of Judge Kavanaugh’s majority opinion in PHH v, CFPB (also distributed to the class today). The idea is both to show the organization of the opinion, as well as to translate the opinion into simple, clear English.
Follow the format from the Sample Outlines that I’ve distributed, with the following clarification: Use Question only for the Roman numerals, and then Question and Answer for all the other elements. Both the questions and the answers should be complete sentences.
The structure should go like this:
Roman numeral; Capital Letter; Numbers; Lower Case Letter.
For example:
I. (Question)
A. (Question and Answer)
1. (Question and Answer)
2. (Question and Answer)
a. (Question and Answer)
b. (Question and Answer)
B. (Question and Answer)
II. (Question)
If there’s a (1), there should be a (2). If you’ve only got one thing to say, just say it without the further division.
Here’s my suggestion for the best way to proceed: First, figure out what the thought is for each paragraph. Second, group the paragraphs together in terms of what question they are addressing. Last, put the actual questions in, with the roman numerals questions as the final thing. In other words, work from smallest to largest.
How do you know how the opinion is structured? Ask yourself what questions the Judge is asking, and how he is answering them. For example, paragraph 20 starts the discussion of a new question, a different question from what Kavanaugh had been addressing in paragraph 19.
The assignment will be graded on both the structure and the content of your outline. The outline 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 outline, 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 assignment. 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 Tuesday 11/21, you should still e-mail me your assignment by the beginning of class time. If you do that, you will not have any grade deducted from your grade for the outline. If you do not, you should still contact me as soon as possible to see what options are available to you. (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.
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 do any outside research. Just work from the handout itself. Do not troll the internet. 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, Thursday 11/9, I distributed one handout, an article about the recent Congressional decision to scuttle a rule by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. That rule would have outlawed clauses in consumer agreements with banks which force the consumers into individual arbitration when there are disputes. We went through the Glassford v. BrickKicker case, and put it into the format of a case brief. I then talked about three recent U.S. Supreme Court cases involving mandatory arbitration clauses: AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion (2011); DirecTV v. Imburgia (2015); and Epic Systems v. Lewis (oral argument 10/2/2017).
The assignment for Tuesday 11/14 is to read the remainder of Chapter 2 of the text, including Caperton v. Massey Coal.
POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Thursday 11/9, I distributed two handouts: assignment #2 (reproduced below) and the case you'll be outlining, the first part of the panel decision of the D.C. Circuit in PHH v. CFPB. We went over the requirements of the assignment. We then went back and finished looking at the dissenting opinions in Myers. We went through the case of Humphrey's Executor and saw how the Court there distinguished Myers. I then discussed the 5-4 2010 Supreme Court opinion of Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Oversight Accounting Board, which distinguished Humphrey's Executor. We talked about both the treatment of the "for cause" removal protections of the Board, and the Appointment of the Board in the first place.
The assignment for Tuesday 11/14 is to begin work on your PHH outline, and to read in the text and prepare to discuss pp. 238-243 (U.S. v. Nixon) and 246-251 (Nixon v. Fitzgerald).
Assignment due Tuesday, November 21, 2017
The assignment is to do an outline of Judge Kavanaugh’s majority opinion in PHH v, CFPB (also distributed to the class today). The idea is both to show the organization of the opinion, as well as to translate the opinion into simple, clear English.
Follow the format from the Sample Outlines that I’ve distributed, with the following clarification: Use Question only for the Roman numerals, and then Question and Answer for all the other elements. Both the questions and the answers should be complete sentences.
The structure should go like this:
Roman numeral; Capital Letter; Numbers; Lower Case Letter.
For example:
I. (Question)
A. (Question and Answer)
1. (Question and Answer)
2. (Question and Answer)
a. (Question and Answer)
b. (Question and Answer)
B. (Question and Answer)
II. (Question)
If there’s a (1), there should be a (2). If you’ve only got one thing to say, just say it without the further division.
Here’s my suggestion for the best way to proceed: First, figure out what the thought is for each paragraph. Second, group the paragraphs together in terms of what question they are addressing. Last, put the actual questions in, with the roman numerals questions as the final thing. In other words, work from smallest to largest.
How do you know how the opinion is structured? Ask yourself what questions the Judge is asking, and how he is answering them. For example, paragraph 20 starts the discussion of a new question, a different question from what Kavanaugh had been addressing in paragraph 19.
The assignment will be graded on both the structure and the content of your outline. The outline 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 outline, 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 assignment. 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 Tuesday 11/21, you should still e-mail me your assignment by the beginning of class time. If you do that, you will not have any grade deducted from your grade for the outline. If you do not, you should still contact me as soon as possible to see what options are available to you. (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.
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 do any outside research. Just work from the handout itself. Do not troll the internet. 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, November 7, 2017
November 7, 2017
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/7, we finished our discussion of Lawrence v. Texas. We reviewed the characterization of the right asserted, and then discussed the history, precedent, and conclusion of the Court. After looking at flow chart of strict scrutiny versus rational basis review, we saw how the Court surprisingly did not analyze the case as a fundamental rights case. We also talked about Obergefell v. Hodges as a follow-up to this case. We began our discussion of business ethics by talking about the recent decision of Congress to reject the vote of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau which had outlawed the use by banks of mandatory individual arbitration clauses for the resolution of disputes.
The assignment for Thursday 11/9 is to review Glassford v. BrickKicker (previously assigned) and to do a case brief of that case (not handed in or graded).
POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/7, I distributed one handout, my version of the outline of Myers v. U.S. We went through that case, at least the majority opinion, and also went through the process of outlining the majority opinion.. We will begin with the two dissenting opinions in Myers on Thursday. Also, I announced to the class my intention to give Assignment #2 on Thursday, an outline of a Court opinion, with a projected due date of 11/21.
The assignment for Thursday 11/9 is to review the dissenting opinions in Myers, and to read and prepare to discuss through p.237 of the text, including Humphrey's Executor v. U.S. and the short discussion of Wiener v. U.S. on p. 237
In class today, Tuesday 11/7, we finished our discussion of Lawrence v. Texas. We reviewed the characterization of the right asserted, and then discussed the history, precedent, and conclusion of the Court. After looking at flow chart of strict scrutiny versus rational basis review, we saw how the Court surprisingly did not analyze the case as a fundamental rights case. We also talked about Obergefell v. Hodges as a follow-up to this case. We began our discussion of business ethics by talking about the recent decision of Congress to reject the vote of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau which had outlawed the use by banks of mandatory individual arbitration clauses for the resolution of disputes.
The assignment for Thursday 11/9 is to review Glassford v. BrickKicker (previously assigned) and to do a case brief of that case (not handed in or graded).
POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/7, I distributed one handout, my version of the outline of Myers v. U.S. We went through that case, at least the majority opinion, and also went through the process of outlining the majority opinion.. We will begin with the two dissenting opinions in Myers on Thursday. Also, I announced to the class my intention to give Assignment #2 on Thursday, an outline of a Court opinion, with a projected due date of 11/21.
The assignment for Thursday 11/9 is to review the dissenting opinions in Myers, and to read and prepare to discuss through p.237 of the text, including Humphrey's Executor v. U.S. and the short discussion of Wiener v. U.S. on p. 237
Thursday, November 2, 2017
November 2, 2017
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 11/2, we went over the Holland case about common law crimes and misprision of a felony. We talked about both the decision of the Florida Supreme Court that they had the discretion to not adopt the English common law crime of misprision (despite the Florida statute adopting the English common law), and then the policy discussion by that Court to choose whether or not to make misprision a crime. We then examined last week's statutory handout about the Maine legislature's view of common law crimes, and the duty to report in two specific instances. We also looked at the federal misprision statute and examined what two specific actions trigger that law. We then turned to Lawrence v. Texas. I talked about the 1986 case of Bowers v. Hardwick and the two theories involved in Lawrence, equal protection and due process. We looked at the way that Kennedy criticized how the Bowers court characterized the right asserted. We left off at how Kennedy dealt with the history and tradition of laws aimed at sodomy, which is where we'll pick up next Tuesday. Throughout our discussion today, we looked at the role of morality in making judgments about how people should be encouraged and/or required to act.
The assignment for Tuesday 11/7 is to review the rest of Lawrence and to read in addition through p. 77 of the text (including Glassford v. BrickKicker).
POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Thursday 11/2, I distributed one handout, my version of the NLRB v. Canning outline. We finished our discussion and outlining of NLRB v. Canning, both the majority opinion and the Scalia concurrence. We discussed dictum in the opinions. In relation to the next subject in the text, the power of removal, I began talking about the current controversy regarding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (created in the wake of the 2008 recession) and the desire by the President to remove the head of that agency.
The assignment for Tuesday 11/7 is to outline the majority opinion in Myers (previously assigned- not handed in or graded) and to be ready to discuss the dissenting opinions as well.
In class today, Thursday 11/2, we went over the Holland case about common law crimes and misprision of a felony. We talked about both the decision of the Florida Supreme Court that they had the discretion to not adopt the English common law crime of misprision (despite the Florida statute adopting the English common law), and then the policy discussion by that Court to choose whether or not to make misprision a crime. We then examined last week's statutory handout about the Maine legislature's view of common law crimes, and the duty to report in two specific instances. We also looked at the federal misprision statute and examined what two specific actions trigger that law. We then turned to Lawrence v. Texas. I talked about the 1986 case of Bowers v. Hardwick and the two theories involved in Lawrence, equal protection and due process. We looked at the way that Kennedy criticized how the Bowers court characterized the right asserted. We left off at how Kennedy dealt with the history and tradition of laws aimed at sodomy, which is where we'll pick up next Tuesday. Throughout our discussion today, we looked at the role of morality in making judgments about how people should be encouraged and/or required to act.
The assignment for Tuesday 11/7 is to review the rest of Lawrence and to read in addition through p. 77 of the text (including Glassford v. BrickKicker).
POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Thursday 11/2, I distributed one handout, my version of the NLRB v. Canning outline. We finished our discussion and outlining of NLRB v. Canning, both the majority opinion and the Scalia concurrence. We discussed dictum in the opinions. In relation to the next subject in the text, the power of removal, I began talking about the current controversy regarding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (created in the wake of the 2008 recession) and the desire by the President to remove the head of that agency.
The assignment for Tuesday 11/7 is to outline the majority opinion in Myers (previously assigned- not handed in or graded) and to be ready to discuss the dissenting opinions as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)