POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Thursday 11/29, I distributed one handout, Breyer's opinion in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt. We began class by reviewing Roe v.Wade. We looked at its use of strict scrutiny, both in terms of trimesters and in terms of viability of the fetus. We also reviewed the Roe dissenting opinions. We looked at the Gallup poll on abortion and talked about how well its categories applied to the different opinions in Roe. We then went to Casey. We counted votes. We then used the outline of the Joint Opinion to follow its opinion, which both upheld the "essential holding" of Roe, but also made significant changes both in terms of the flow chart of "liberty" analysis, and the time frames of permissible state regulation of abortion. We started to discuss Blackmun's opinion, which is what we'll pick up with on Tuesday.
The assignment for Tuesday 12/4 is to review the remaining opinions in Casey, and to read and prepare to discuss today's handout.
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 11/29, we began by going over Butler and the subject of dictum. We saw how the Ohio Supreme Court basically wrote off explicit language in the U.S. Supreme Court Miranda case that said the opposite of what the Ohio court was saying, and why the Ohio court was able to get away with that. I then talked about the 1971 U.S. Supreme Court case of Harris v. New York, which came to the same conclusion about the use of un-Mirandized statements used for purposes of impeachment as had the Butler court. We then moved to the subject of prospective v. retroactive application of a court decision. I went over Johnson v. New Jersey, which settled the question of whether the Miranda opinion itself applies to cases that were commenced before the date of the Miranda opinion. I also reminded the class of Montgomery v. Louisiana, which had the broadest possible retroactive application. We went over Dempsey v. Allstate from the text, in which the Montana Supreme Court decided on a retroactivity rule that was like neither the old nor the new federal retroactivity rule.
The assignment for Tuesday 12/4 is to read in the text pp. 113-116 (Hubbard v. Greeson) and also 144-146 (Land v. Yamaha).
Thursday, November 29, 2018
Tuesday, November 27, 2018
November 27. 2018
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Tuesday 11/27, I distributed one handout, a recent article about the current retaliatory arrest/free speech case of Nieves v. Bartlett. We began by finishing our discussion of Lozman v. Riviera Beach. We saw how Kennedy avoided the underlying issue, and crafted a rule for only a small subset of retaliatory arrests. We also went over Thomas' dissent, in which he started with criticism of the majority for not deciding the underlying issue. (That issue, the causation standard for retaliatory arrests, is the subject Nieves v. Bartlett.) We then left free speech and moved on to the right of privacy. I discussed Griswold v. Connecticut and the creation of the right to privacy. We then went through both the majority and dissenting opinions in Roe v. Wade. We got up to White's dissent, which is where we'll begin on Thursday.
The assignment for Thursday 11/29 is to read today's handout, review the rest of Roe v. Wade, and read in the text through p/ 425, including all of the opinions in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. And remember to please bring your textbooks to class.
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/27, I handed back the Klein case briefs, and distributed the Comment Key to my comments on your briefs. I talked a little more about how facts are what make a case brief useful, and what kind of statements are not "facts". We then went into Chapter III of the text. We went through the opinions in NFIB v. Sebelius, and also discussed the status of this commerce clause part of the opinion as being dictum.
The assignment for Thursday 11/29 is to review Butler (p. 104, previously assigned) and to read through p. 110, including Dempsey v. Allstate (p. 107).
In class today, Tuesday 11/27, I distributed one handout, a recent article about the current retaliatory arrest/free speech case of Nieves v. Bartlett. We began by finishing our discussion of Lozman v. Riviera Beach. We saw how Kennedy avoided the underlying issue, and crafted a rule for only a small subset of retaliatory arrests. We also went over Thomas' dissent, in which he started with criticism of the majority for not deciding the underlying issue. (That issue, the causation standard for retaliatory arrests, is the subject Nieves v. Bartlett.) We then left free speech and moved on to the right of privacy. I discussed Griswold v. Connecticut and the creation of the right to privacy. We then went through both the majority and dissenting opinions in Roe v. Wade. We got up to White's dissent, which is where we'll begin on Thursday.
The assignment for Thursday 11/29 is to read today's handout, review the rest of Roe v. Wade, and read in the text through p/ 425, including all of the opinions in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. And remember to please bring your textbooks to class.
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/27, I handed back the Klein case briefs, and distributed the Comment Key to my comments on your briefs. I talked a little more about how facts are what make a case brief useful, and what kind of statements are not "facts". We then went into Chapter III of the text. We went through the opinions in NFIB v. Sebelius, and also discussed the status of this commerce clause part of the opinion as being dictum.
The assignment for Thursday 11/29 is to review Butler (p. 104, previously assigned) and to read through p. 110, including Dempsey v. Allstate (p. 107).
Tuesday, November 20, 2018
November 20, 2018
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Tuesday 11/20, I handed back the NIFLA outlines. I also distributed 2 handouts, my version of the NIFLA outline, and a Comment Key to some of my comments on your papers. We went over some aspects of the outline, including the significance of this being a preliminary injunction, Breyer's criticism of the flow chart of strict scrutiny, his use of Akron and Thornburgh to highlight Casey as the controlling precedent, and the failure of the majority to discuss viewpoint discrimination.
The class then voted on which Civil Liberties issue to study next, and chose abortion rights. (That decision is reflected on the assignment below.)
We then began our discussion of Lozman. We got to that part of the opinion that contrasted the Mt. Healthy test v. the Hartman test for what the plaintiff must show when asserting a claim that action by government was in retaliation for protected speech. We will pick up next Tuesday with Part IV of Kennedy's opinion.
The assignment for Tuesday 11/27 is to review Lozman, and to read in the text pp. 401-410, including Roe v. Wade.
I hope you have a good Thanksgiving.
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/20, I collected the Klein case briefs, and I distributed my version of that case brief. We spent the class period going over the case and the case brief.
The assignment for Tuesday 11/27 is to review Butler (previously assigned) and to read in addition all of Chapter 3 up to Butler (including NFIB v. Sebelius). So in other words, read and prepare to discuss from p. 89 through p. 106 of the text.
I hope you have a good Thanksgiving.
In class today, Tuesday 11/20, I handed back the NIFLA outlines. I also distributed 2 handouts, my version of the NIFLA outline, and a Comment Key to some of my comments on your papers. We went over some aspects of the outline, including the significance of this being a preliminary injunction, Breyer's criticism of the flow chart of strict scrutiny, his use of Akron and Thornburgh to highlight Casey as the controlling precedent, and the failure of the majority to discuss viewpoint discrimination.
The class then voted on which Civil Liberties issue to study next, and chose abortion rights. (That decision is reflected on the assignment below.)
We then began our discussion of Lozman. We got to that part of the opinion that contrasted the Mt. Healthy test v. the Hartman test for what the plaintiff must show when asserting a claim that action by government was in retaliation for protected speech. We will pick up next Tuesday with Part IV of Kennedy's opinion.
The assignment for Tuesday 11/27 is to review Lozman, and to read in the text pp. 401-410, including Roe v. Wade.
I hope you have a good Thanksgiving.
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/20, I collected the Klein case briefs, and I distributed my version of that case brief. We spent the class period going over the case and the case brief.
The assignment for Tuesday 11/27 is to review Butler (previously assigned) and to read in addition all of Chapter 3 up to Butler (including NFIB v. Sebelius). So in other words, read and prepare to discuss from p. 89 through p. 106 of the text.
I hope you have a good Thanksgiving.
Thursday, November 15, 2018
November 15, 2018
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Thursday 11/15, I collected the NIFLA outlines. We then went over the outline bit by bit. I plan on grading the outlines this weekend, and returning them on Tuesday. We then watched a youtube clip of Fane Lozman being arrested when he tried to address the Riviera Beach City Council. We will pick up the the Lozman opinion on Tuesday. I also plan to poll the class about what subject the class would like to tackle next. Two options that I can think of are 2nd Amendment rights and abortion rights. If you have additional subjects that you think would be appropriate and interesting for Civil Liberties class, please let me know.
The assignment for Tuesday 11/20 is to review Lozman, previously assigned.
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 11/15, I first tried to clarify a bit more of the Klein case brief assignment. In line with my previous instruction to treat the final order of the Oregon BOLI as the prior proceedings, you should treat the BOLI as the plaintiff in the case. I also talked about how the Glassford arbitration case was not typical of the direction of American law. as the Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly in the past 10 years that the federal statute favoring arbitration prevails over seemingly contrary state common law and statutory law, and federal statutory law
We then went through Caperton v. Massey Coal. We saw how the Court created a rule for when due process requires recusal. They then defined what that rule means. They then applied that definition to the facts of the case.
After finishing Caperton, I also talked about a more recent Supreme Court case, Williams v, Pennsylvania, in which the Court ruled on whether recusal was required in the case of a former prosecutor who later sits in judgment as a Justice of the state Supreme Court in the case of a convict that his office had prosecuted.
The assignment for Tuesday 11/20 is to finish your Klein case brief, due at the beginning of Tuesday's class. In addition, read and prepare to discuss p. 104-106 of the text, State v. Butler.
In class today, Thursday 11/15, I collected the NIFLA outlines. We then went over the outline bit by bit. I plan on grading the outlines this weekend, and returning them on Tuesday. We then watched a youtube clip of Fane Lozman being arrested when he tried to address the Riviera Beach City Council. We will pick up the the Lozman opinion on Tuesday. I also plan to poll the class about what subject the class would like to tackle next. Two options that I can think of are 2nd Amendment rights and abortion rights. If you have additional subjects that you think would be appropriate and interesting for Civil Liberties class, please let me know.
The assignment for Tuesday 11/20 is to review Lozman, previously assigned.
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 11/15, I first tried to clarify a bit more of the Klein case brief assignment. In line with my previous instruction to treat the final order of the Oregon BOLI as the prior proceedings, you should treat the BOLI as the plaintiff in the case. I also talked about how the Glassford arbitration case was not typical of the direction of American law. as the Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly in the past 10 years that the federal statute favoring arbitration prevails over seemingly contrary state common law and statutory law, and federal statutory law
We then went through Caperton v. Massey Coal. We saw how the Court created a rule for when due process requires recusal. They then defined what that rule means. They then applied that definition to the facts of the case.
After finishing Caperton, I also talked about a more recent Supreme Court case, Williams v, Pennsylvania, in which the Court ruled on whether recusal was required in the case of a former prosecutor who later sits in judgment as a Justice of the state Supreme Court in the case of a convict that his office had prosecuted.
The assignment for Tuesday 11/20 is to finish your Klein case brief, due at the beginning of Tuesday's class. In addition, read and prepare to discuss p. 104-106 of the text, State v. Butler.
Tuesday, November 13, 2018
November 13, 2018
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Tuesday 11/13, I distributed one handout, the recent Supreme Court opinion in Lozman v, Riviera Beach. After giving some background to that case, we talked a little about the Breyer NIFLA outline due Thursday. I repeated that there is no need to repeat an answer to a question if the answer will be given in the sub-segments that follow a question. I also reminded the class that if additional segments are added, they should be in parentheses. I also emphasized that questions and answers should be as specific as possible.
We then finished our class outline of Thomas' NIFLA opinion. Getting what Thomas was saying is crucial to understanding what Breyer was responding to. Along the way, I drew a Venn diagram showing what the concept of being "underinclusive" looks like.
The assignment for Thursday 11/15 is the finish your Breyer NIFLA outline, due at the beginning of Thursday's class. In addition, read and prepare to discuss today's Lozman opinion
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/13, I first discussed a few aspects of the Klein case brief due next Tuesday. I went over the instruction that says to ignore all parts of the case that don't involve the two issues that made it to my edited version of the case, including in your cause of action, prior proceedings, etc. And for prior proceedings, I explained that you should treat the final BOLI order (¶19) as the only prior proceeding to which you should refer, and even that, only as to our two issues.
We then discussed Glassford v. BrickKicker, putting that case into our case brief format. We went through all three issues that the Vermont court decided. Along the way, I went over the meaning of a summary judgment motion.
The assignment for Thursday 11/15 is to read and brief (for yourselves) Caperton v. Massey Coal, reading through the end of Chapter 2 of the text. Also, continue working on your Klein case briefs, due at the beginning of class next Tuesday 11/20.
In class today, Tuesday 11/13, I distributed one handout, the recent Supreme Court opinion in Lozman v, Riviera Beach. After giving some background to that case, we talked a little about the Breyer NIFLA outline due Thursday. I repeated that there is no need to repeat an answer to a question if the answer will be given in the sub-segments that follow a question. I also reminded the class that if additional segments are added, they should be in parentheses. I also emphasized that questions and answers should be as specific as possible.
We then finished our class outline of Thomas' NIFLA opinion. Getting what Thomas was saying is crucial to understanding what Breyer was responding to. Along the way, I drew a Venn diagram showing what the concept of being "underinclusive" looks like.
The assignment for Thursday 11/15 is the finish your Breyer NIFLA outline, due at the beginning of Thursday's class. In addition, read and prepare to discuss today's Lozman opinion
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/13, I first discussed a few aspects of the Klein case brief due next Tuesday. I went over the instruction that says to ignore all parts of the case that don't involve the two issues that made it to my edited version of the case, including in your cause of action, prior proceedings, etc. And for prior proceedings, I explained that you should treat the final BOLI order (¶19) as the only prior proceeding to which you should refer, and even that, only as to our two issues.
We then discussed Glassford v. BrickKicker, putting that case into our case brief format. We went through all three issues that the Vermont court decided. Along the way, I went over the meaning of a summary judgment motion.
The assignment for Thursday 11/15 is to read and brief (for yourselves) Caperton v. Massey Coal, reading through the end of Chapter 2 of the text. Also, continue working on your Klein case briefs, due at the beginning of class next Tuesday 11/20.
Thursday, November 8, 2018
November 8, 2018
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Thursday 11/8, we began by finishing our discussion of Alvarez. I talked about Google's decision to pull ads from Crisis Pregnancy Centers because they were misleading, and about the local ordinances in San Francisco and Oakland that outlawed certain Crisis Pregnancy Center ads as deceptive advertising, and how both of those situations were different from the issue in NIFLA. We then moved on to Thomas' opinion in NIFLA. We looked at the outline that Thomas provided, and we put labels (questions, or questions and answers) on those parts. We also added some sub-elements to Thomas' structure, and talked about how to know when to add sub-elements.
I did make two modifications to the Breyer Assignment:
1) The assignment asked for questions (but no answer) for Roman Numerals, and questions and answers for all other elements of the outline. I changed that to be questions (but no answer) for any part of the outline that is further broken down, where those sub-elements together provide the answer to the bigger question. In other words, there is nowhere in the outline that you need to repeat an answer. For example, if the question for Thomas' I A is "What are the statute's notice requirements for both licensed and unlicensed facilities?", you don't need to answer that question right in "A" if you are going to add sub-elements to "A" (dividing it into (1)licensed and (2)unlicensed facilities) and answering the questions in those added elements.
2) If you add sub-elements to the opinion's structure, put those added elements in parentheses in your outline.
We got as far as Thomas' ¶23, which is where we'll pick up next Tuesday.
We also discussed the procedural posture of this case. It reached the Supreme Court still in the stage of a preliminary injunction. We went over Temporary Restraining Orders and Preliminary injunctions, and how this case is really about the likelihood of success.
The assignment for Tuesday 11/13 is to review Thomas' NIFLA opinion, and to continue work on your outline of the Breyer's dissent, due at the beginning of Thursday's class, 11/15.
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 11/8, I distributed two handouts, Assignment #2 (reproduced below) and the case you'll be briefing, Klein v. Oregon BOLI. We went over the assignment, and the particular rules regarding it: its prior proceeding are administrative (not in court) and I have edited out many of the original issues raised in the case. (The assignment gives instructions for how to deal with these.) We then finished our discussion of Lawrence v. Texas. We saw how Kennedy looked as if he was doing a "fundamental rights" analysis, and then switched to a "legitimate interest" test. We discussed the nature of substantive due process claims as claims that there are choices by the individual that the majority may not take away from the individual. We saw how Kennedy characterized that right here as the right to form an intimate personal relationship, not just the right to choose how to have sex.
We then began our discussion of Glassford v. BrickKicker. We talked about why businesses may want arbitration rather than a court process, including the question of class actions in court versus individual arbitration in arbitration clauses. We will continue with the exact issues in Glassford next Tuesday.
The assignment for Tuesday 11/13 is to review Glassford, and to begin work on your Klein case brief.
Assignment due Tuesday, November 20, 2018
The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the edited version of Klein v. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, 410 P.3d 1051 (Oregon Ct. of App., 2017) (also distributed to the class today). I have edited out much of the original case, leaving only two issues: Free Exercise of Religion and Commissioner’s Failure to Recuse Himself. Because of this editing, you in your case brief should likewise confine yourself to those two issues, including for the “set-up” portions of the brief such as Prior Proceedings and Contentions on Appeal. Also, because this is an appeal from an administrative agency, treat the agency’s decision as the prior proceeding.
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.
For this brief, include only the winner’s facts (“..., when...”) and not the loser’s facts (“..., even though...”)
Follow the format from the Sample Briefs that I’ve distributed. For this assignment, do not include the loser’s facts (the “even though” portion of the facts).
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 Tuesday 11/20, 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.
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.
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. To the extent that we discuss this case in class, do not share that discussion with others, even if they have missed class. Do no outside research. Do not troll the internet. Just work from the handout itself. See the syllabus regarding plagiarism and collaboration.
In class today, Thursday 11/8, we began by finishing our discussion of Alvarez. I talked about Google's decision to pull ads from Crisis Pregnancy Centers because they were misleading, and about the local ordinances in San Francisco and Oakland that outlawed certain Crisis Pregnancy Center ads as deceptive advertising, and how both of those situations were different from the issue in NIFLA. We then moved on to Thomas' opinion in NIFLA. We looked at the outline that Thomas provided, and we put labels (questions, or questions and answers) on those parts. We also added some sub-elements to Thomas' structure, and talked about how to know when to add sub-elements.
I did make two modifications to the Breyer Assignment:
1) The assignment asked for questions (but no answer) for Roman Numerals, and questions and answers for all other elements of the outline. I changed that to be questions (but no answer) for any part of the outline that is further broken down, where those sub-elements together provide the answer to the bigger question. In other words, there is nowhere in the outline that you need to repeat an answer. For example, if the question for Thomas' I A is "What are the statute's notice requirements for both licensed and unlicensed facilities?", you don't need to answer that question right in "A" if you are going to add sub-elements to "A" (dividing it into (1)licensed and (2)unlicensed facilities) and answering the questions in those added elements.
2) If you add sub-elements to the opinion's structure, put those added elements in parentheses in your outline.
We got as far as Thomas' ¶23, which is where we'll pick up next Tuesday.
We also discussed the procedural posture of this case. It reached the Supreme Court still in the stage of a preliminary injunction. We went over Temporary Restraining Orders and Preliminary injunctions, and how this case is really about the likelihood of success.
The assignment for Tuesday 11/13 is to review Thomas' NIFLA opinion, and to continue work on your outline of the Breyer's dissent, due at the beginning of Thursday's class, 11/15.
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 11/8, I distributed two handouts, Assignment #2 (reproduced below) and the case you'll be briefing, Klein v. Oregon BOLI. We went over the assignment, and the particular rules regarding it: its prior proceeding are administrative (not in court) and I have edited out many of the original issues raised in the case. (The assignment gives instructions for how to deal with these.) We then finished our discussion of Lawrence v. Texas. We saw how Kennedy looked as if he was doing a "fundamental rights" analysis, and then switched to a "legitimate interest" test. We discussed the nature of substantive due process claims as claims that there are choices by the individual that the majority may not take away from the individual. We saw how Kennedy characterized that right here as the right to form an intimate personal relationship, not just the right to choose how to have sex.
We then began our discussion of Glassford v. BrickKicker. We talked about why businesses may want arbitration rather than a court process, including the question of class actions in court versus individual arbitration in arbitration clauses. We will continue with the exact issues in Glassford next Tuesday.
The assignment for Tuesday 11/13 is to review Glassford, and to begin work on your Klein case brief.
Assignment due Tuesday, November 20, 2018
The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the edited version of Klein v. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, 410 P.3d 1051 (Oregon Ct. of App., 2017) (also distributed to the class today). I have edited out much of the original case, leaving only two issues: Free Exercise of Religion and Commissioner’s Failure to Recuse Himself. Because of this editing, you in your case brief should likewise confine yourself to those two issues, including for the “set-up” portions of the brief such as Prior Proceedings and Contentions on Appeal. Also, because this is an appeal from an administrative agency, treat the agency’s decision as the prior proceeding.
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.
For this brief, include only the winner’s facts (“..., when...”) and not the loser’s facts (“..., even though...”)
Follow the format from the Sample Briefs that I’ve distributed. For this assignment, do not include the loser’s facts (the “even though” portion of the facts).
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 Tuesday 11/20, 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.
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.
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. To the extent that we discuss this case in class, do not share that discussion with others, even if they have missed class. Do no outside research. Do not troll the internet. Just work from the handout itself. See the syllabus regarding plagiarism and collaboration.
Tuesday, November 6, 2018
November 6, 2018
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Tuesday 11/6, I distributed two handouts: assignment #2 (reproduced below) and the opinion you'll be outlining, Breyer's dissent in NIFLA v. Becerra. I went over the requirements of the assignment. We then talked about a recent poll that reported that one-third of college students felt that violence was justified in order to stop hate speech. We counted votes in Alvarez, and then went through the plurality opinion. We began by reviewing the flow chart of strict scrutiny, and then saw how for Kennedy, government was able to jump the compelling interest hurdle, but not the necessary and causal link hurdle. We also went over the categories of unprotected speech, and saw how Kennedy was loathe to expand that list. We saw how Breyer's concurrence disagreed with the flow chart altogether, and favoring a balancing test instead of a high hurdles/low hurdles pigeon-holing. We will begin on Thursday with the dissent in Alvarez, and then move on to the majority opinion in NIFLA.
The assignment for Thursday 11/8 is to review Alvarez and the majority NIFLA opinion, and begin work on assignment #2. In reviewing Thomas' NIFLA opinion, work out the outline for the opinion (not handed in or graded, but definitely useful for the assignment).
Assignment due at the beginning of class Thursday, November 15, 2018
The assignment is to do an outline of Justice Breyer’s dissenting opinion in NIFLA v. Becerra (also distributed to the class today).
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; Lower Case Roman Numerals.
For example:
I. (Question)
A. (Question and Answer)
1. (Question and Answer)
2. (Question and Answer)
a. (Question and Answer)
b. (Question and Answer)
i. (Question and Answer)
ii. (Question and Answer)
B. (Question and Answer)
II. (Question)
Follow the structure already provided by Justice Breyer:
Introductory paragraph
I.
A.
B.
C.
1.
2.
D.
II.
Add additional sub-elements to this as is appropriate, but don’t alter Breyer’s structure. What makes an additional sub-element appropriate? Basically, it's when Breyer is addressing a different 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.
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 Thursday 11/15, 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.
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.
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. The only source you can address for questions or feedback is me.
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/6, we first went through the Maine Hindering Apprehension statute and discussed how Ms. Mobbley might be charged. We then discussed the Holland case, both in terms of the creation of common law crimes, and then in terms of the crime of failing to report a felony. We looked at the Maine statute regarding common law crimes, and then looked at the Maine statutes that do impose a duty to report crimes or neglect in certain limited situations. We also looked at the federal statute about misprision of a felony. Then we turned to Lawrence v. Texas. We talked about the difference between the due process and the equal protection claims, the precedent of Bowers v Hardwick, and the reason for the decision to deal with due process instead of equal protection. We saw how Kennedy looked at both the description of the right asserted and the history and tradition of those restrictive laws, and found Hardwick lacking in both questions. We will pick up on Thursday with a look at the precedent relied on by Kennedy.
The assignment for Thursday 11/8 is to review Lawrence v. Texas, and to read in addition through p. 77 of the text, including Glassford v. BrickKicker.
In class today, Tuesday 11/6, I distributed two handouts: assignment #2 (reproduced below) and the opinion you'll be outlining, Breyer's dissent in NIFLA v. Becerra. I went over the requirements of the assignment. We then talked about a recent poll that reported that one-third of college students felt that violence was justified in order to stop hate speech. We counted votes in Alvarez, and then went through the plurality opinion. We began by reviewing the flow chart of strict scrutiny, and then saw how for Kennedy, government was able to jump the compelling interest hurdle, but not the necessary and causal link hurdle. We also went over the categories of unprotected speech, and saw how Kennedy was loathe to expand that list. We saw how Breyer's concurrence disagreed with the flow chart altogether, and favoring a balancing test instead of a high hurdles/low hurdles pigeon-holing. We will begin on Thursday with the dissent in Alvarez, and then move on to the majority opinion in NIFLA.
The assignment for Thursday 11/8 is to review Alvarez and the majority NIFLA opinion, and begin work on assignment #2. In reviewing Thomas' NIFLA opinion, work out the outline for the opinion (not handed in or graded, but definitely useful for the assignment).
Assignment due at the beginning of class Thursday, November 15, 2018
The assignment is to do an outline of Justice Breyer’s dissenting opinion in NIFLA v. Becerra (also distributed to the class today).
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; Lower Case Roman Numerals.
For example:
I. (Question)
A. (Question and Answer)
1. (Question and Answer)
2. (Question and Answer)
a. (Question and Answer)
b. (Question and Answer)
i. (Question and Answer)
ii. (Question and Answer)
B. (Question and Answer)
II. (Question)
Follow the structure already provided by Justice Breyer:
Introductory paragraph
I.
A.
B.
C.
1.
2.
D.
II.
Add additional sub-elements to this as is appropriate, but don’t alter Breyer’s structure. What makes an additional sub-element appropriate? Basically, it's when Breyer is addressing a different 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.
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 Thursday 11/15, 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.
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.
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. The only source you can address for questions or feedback is me.
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/6, we first went through the Maine Hindering Apprehension statute and discussed how Ms. Mobbley might be charged. We then discussed the Holland case, both in terms of the creation of common law crimes, and then in terms of the crime of failing to report a felony. We looked at the Maine statute regarding common law crimes, and then looked at the Maine statutes that do impose a duty to report crimes or neglect in certain limited situations. We also looked at the federal statute about misprision of a felony. Then we turned to Lawrence v. Texas. We talked about the difference between the due process and the equal protection claims, the precedent of Bowers v Hardwick, and the reason for the decision to deal with due process instead of equal protection. We saw how Kennedy looked at both the description of the right asserted and the history and tradition of those restrictive laws, and found Hardwick lacking in both questions. We will pick up on Thursday with a look at the precedent relied on by Kennedy.
The assignment for Thursday 11/8 is to review Lawrence v. Texas, and to read in addition through p. 77 of the text, including Glassford v. BrickKicker.
Thursday, November 1, 2018
November 1, 2018
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Thursday 11/1, I distributed one handout, the majority and concurring opinions in the recent Supreme Court case of National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra. We then went through Snyder v. Phelps. I also talked about the history of free speech protection in defamation and infliction of emotional distress cases, starting with New York Times v. Sullivan. We went over the protections for public officials, and then public figures, and then matters of public concern. I talked about the web site that the Phelps family ran, and how the Supreme Court avoided the issue of the rules for web-based attacks. This led to a discussion of another recent Supreme Court, U.S. v. Elonis, that also ducked the issue of on-line threats and their free speech protection. In Elonis, the Court ruled instead on the implied (not spelled out in the text of the statute) mental state required for a conviction for threatening: negligence (on which the jury had been instructed) was not sufficient, and intent or knowledge was sufficient. On Tuesday we will pick up with U.S. v. Alvarez.
The assignment for Tuesday 11/6 is to review U.S. v. Alvarez (textbook; previously assigned), and read and prepare to discuss both the outline and the substance of today's handout of NIFLA.
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 11/1, I distributed one handout, excerpts from Maine and federal statutes about hindering apprehension, common law crimes, and duty to report, and misprision of a felony. We began our discussion by finishing the dissenting opinions in Gregg v. Georgia. We saw how Brennan and Marshall differed from each other, as well as from the plurality opinion. We went through the Mobbley case, looking at the rules of statutory interpretation. I also used Mobbley to discuss the concept of dictum, statements made by the Court that are not strictly needed in order for the Court to reach its holding. I went over the President's proposal for an executive order to end U.S. citizenship by birth, and how statements made by the U.S. Supreme Court in an old case might be characterized as dictum. Finally we looked at the Maine statute about hindering apprehension, and saw that Maine has no spousal safe-haven similar to the one in Mobbley. We will pick up next week with the question of the exact crime with which the prosecution might charge Ms. Mobbley if her conduct had happened in Maine.
The assignment for Tuesday 11/6 is to read today's handout, review Holland (previously assigned) and to read in addition in the text through p. 72 (including Lawrence v. Texas).
In class today, Thursday 11/1, I distributed one handout, the majority and concurring opinions in the recent Supreme Court case of National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra. We then went through Snyder v. Phelps. I also talked about the history of free speech protection in defamation and infliction of emotional distress cases, starting with New York Times v. Sullivan. We went over the protections for public officials, and then public figures, and then matters of public concern. I talked about the web site that the Phelps family ran, and how the Supreme Court avoided the issue of the rules for web-based attacks. This led to a discussion of another recent Supreme Court, U.S. v. Elonis, that also ducked the issue of on-line threats and their free speech protection. In Elonis, the Court ruled instead on the implied (not spelled out in the text of the statute) mental state required for a conviction for threatening: negligence (on which the jury had been instructed) was not sufficient, and intent or knowledge was sufficient. On Tuesday we will pick up with U.S. v. Alvarez.
The assignment for Tuesday 11/6 is to review U.S. v. Alvarez (textbook; previously assigned), and read and prepare to discuss both the outline and the substance of today's handout of NIFLA.
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 11/1, I distributed one handout, excerpts from Maine and federal statutes about hindering apprehension, common law crimes, and duty to report, and misprision of a felony. We began our discussion by finishing the dissenting opinions in Gregg v. Georgia. We saw how Brennan and Marshall differed from each other, as well as from the plurality opinion. We went through the Mobbley case, looking at the rules of statutory interpretation. I also used Mobbley to discuss the concept of dictum, statements made by the Court that are not strictly needed in order for the Court to reach its holding. I went over the President's proposal for an executive order to end U.S. citizenship by birth, and how statements made by the U.S. Supreme Court in an old case might be characterized as dictum. Finally we looked at the Maine statute about hindering apprehension, and saw that Maine has no spousal safe-haven similar to the one in Mobbley. We will pick up next week with the question of the exact crime with which the prosecution might charge Ms. Mobbley if her conduct had happened in Maine.
The assignment for Tuesday 11/6 is to read today's handout, review Holland (previously assigned) and to read in addition in the text through p. 72 (including Lawrence v. Texas).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)