October 22, 2012

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Monday 10/22, I handed back the exams, and we went over them. Then we began our discussion of Lawrence v. Texas, talking about both the concept of morality in legislation, and the process by which a court decides the nature of the protected liberty interest involved (to decide whether strict scrutiny applies or not). We will continue with our discussion of Lawrence on Wednesday. The additional assignment for Wednesday 10/24 is to read pp. 50-56 of the text.


POS 359 FEDERALISM
In class today, Monday 10/22, I distributed one handout, the current federal statute regulating the interstate traffic in lottery tickets. We talked about the dormant commerce clause prohibiting the state governments from regulating that interstate commerce, and we looked at how Congress expressly provided for states to regulate this, if they chose to. We then discussed Hammer v. Dagenhart, and discussed the lack of deference by the Court to Congress, as well as the inquiry into the "actual purpose" of Congress. We also looked at how the Dagenhart Court distinguished the Lottery Case. We will continue with the New Deal decisions on Wednesday. The assignment for Wednesday 10/22 is to review the previously assigned pp. 295-306.

POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Monday 10/22, we first voted on what the subject of the Fisher assignment would be. The class voted to stand in the shoes of Justice Kennedy. I plan to distribute that assignment on Wednesday 10/24, and have it due Friday 11/2. I also announced that I have decided to make a change to the syllabus, by having the third paper be optional. That will all be spelled out in the assignment. Then we turned our attention back to the Fisher briefing. We looked at two additional clashes, one having to do with a compelling interest in diversity within racial groups, and the other with the relationship between underrepresentation and critical mass. We then started our discussion of the oral argument. We talked about the requirement of standing, both how it historically developed, and the policy interests in having a barrier to access to courts. We will continue with the oral argument on Wednesday, so the assignment is to review that transcript again (and again...).