December 6, 2011

POS 282--INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 12/6, I handed back the Schroeder case briefs. I also distributed two handouts; the comment key to the briefs, and my own version of the Schroeder brief. The class did class evaluations. We went over the Bohlander personal jurisdiction case. I went over the three methods of obtaining general personal jurisdiction over a defendant, and contrasted general jurisdiction with specific jurisdiction. We then started going over the recent U.S. Supreme Court case of McIntyre v. Nicastro. I discussed the plurality opinion that said it was not enough to foresee that a product would enter the stream of commerce; instead, there must be specific targeting into a particular state. I will contrast this with the concurring and dissenting opinions on Thursday. On Thursday as well I will discuss some Maine personal jurisdiction cases. We will also go over the previously assigned subject-matter jurisdiction case of Edwards. There is no additional reading for Thursday; just review Edwards.

POS 359--THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
UPDATE: The final vote was 6-5 saying that the case was justiciable, and also 6-5 saying that Congress does have the power to direct the State Department in this way. Zivotofsky wins!


In class today, Tuesday 12/6, I distributed one handout, Assignment #3 which is reproduced below. The class filled out class evaluations. We then did our Case Conference. The votes were as follows: 5-3 to find that the case is justiciable; and 4-4 on whether Congress has the power to direct the State Department in this matter. After polling the absent class members, I will update this blog regarding the final vote. That vote will tell you whether you are writing a majority or dissenting opinion for Assignment #3.

Assignment #3
You are the 10th Supreme Court Justice. Your job as a Justice is to write an opinion in the Zivotofsky v. Clinton case.

What you write for an opinion will be based on your view of how the case should be decided. What type of opinion you will be writing (majority; concurring; dissenting; combination) will depend on how the class votes at our case conference on Tuesday 12/6.

Here are some guidelines for writing that I want you to observe:

• You should deal specifically with the issues raised by the side that is opposed to your view of the case. What’s wrong with the positions taken by the other Justices?

• You should have at least three specific references to the oral argument. Your citations to the oral argument transcript should give page and line numbers.

• If it fits into you Opinion, you should include a reference to the class oral argument (posted on the blog) and to the class Case Conference.

• You should deal specifically with both issues that were the issues presented in the case; justiciability (should the Court be hearing this case in the first place?) and distribution of powers (was Congress acting within its powers when it passed the law?)

• You should deal with other sub-issues as you locate them in the briefing and the oral argument.


You should use primarily your own words, quoting only in snippets when the particular words of an exchange or a brief are crucial.


Here’s a fictitious example to demonstrate the format that I’m looking for:

This Court rejects Clinton’s position that the Executive branch has exclusive power to decide what the contents of a passport are. While her brief argues that Congress has no constitutional right to conduct foreign policy, at oral argument Verilli conceded that the Government’s only textual claim was based on the authority of the Executive to receive foreign ambassadors (17:6). This is too thin a reed to bear the weight of exclusive executive passport authority.

The paper should be a minimum of 3 pages long, and no more than 5 pages. Brevity should be seen as an asset, not a liability. It will be due at noon on Thursday December 15. You should e-mail the paper to me by that time. I will acknowledge receipt of papers--if you don’t get an acknowledgment, that means that I didn’t get the paper. See the syllabus for more information, or if you do not have the paper done on time.

The paper will not be graded on whether I agree with your analysis of how the case should be decided, but rather by how well you identify specific sub-issues, evaluate them, and support your position. The paper will also be graded on how well you write English, and how clearly you organize your thoughts. Try using an outline. I encourage you to use the UM writing center to help with your English.

The work should be entirely your own, with no collaboration, and no plagiarism.