October 3, 2012

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Wednesday 10/3, I distributed one handout, Assignment #1, which is due October 13th, and which is copied below. We went over that assignment, including the source of the requirement for Miranda warnings, and the various issues that come up ,in terms of when those Miranda rights attach, and what police behavior is allowable. We also covered Maine Supreme Court citation format. We then turned our attention back to Katko. We looked at the role of jury instructions, and then at secondary authority versus primary authority, with the subdivision of primary authority into mandatory versus persuasive authority. We also included a new category into our concept of following versus distinguishing authority, the concept of extending authority. We will finish Katko on Friday. The assignment is to begin work on the Bragg case brief.

Assignment due Friday, October 12, 2012
The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the case of State v. Bragg, 2012 ME 102, 48 A3d. 769. The case can be found on the website of the Maine Supreme Court.

To access the case, go to
http://www.courts.state.me.us/opinions_orders/supreme/publishedopinions.shtml

--scroll down to “This year’s opinions”

--select 2012 ME 102, State of Maine v. Tammy Bragg, (8/2/12)

Brief all of the issues that you determine that the Court ruled on.

Follow the format from the Sample Briefs that I’ve distributed. Note especially that the Facts, Issues, 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 10/6, 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.

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 359 FEDERALISM
In class today, Wednesday 10/3, I distributed one handout, Assignment #1 which is copied below. The assignment is due Friday 10/12. We continued our analysis of the NFIB opinion, finishing the Roberts opinion, and beginning with the Ginsburg opinion. We got as far as her use of Scalia's concurrence in Raich to show how the Necessary and Proper clause can enlarge the powers of Congress beyond what is allowable directly under the Commerce Clause power. In addition to starting work on the paper, the additional reading for Friday 10/5 is to read pp. 5-10 of the Joint dissenting opinion in NFIB, and to read pp. 343-346 in the text.

ASSIGNMENT #1
For this assignment, I would like you to write a paper about the interpretation of the Necessary and Proper clause made in the three U.S. Supreme Court decisions we have studied; McCulloch, Comstock, and NFIB.

Specifically, I would like you to address these topics:

1) Every Justice in Comstock and NFIB says that he or she is being faithful to McCulloch, while it’s those other Justices on the other side who have gone astray. Summarize the positions of Justices Breyer and Thomas in Comstock, and Roberts and Ginsburg in NFIB, regarding how McCulloch (“properly” understood) supports their position.

2) For each pair of those Justices, write how they would refute the opposite Justice (Breyer to Thomas, Thomas to Breyer, etc.); how do or would they demonstrate that their opposite number has it wrong? Include Justice Ginsburg’s response in footnote 11 to the NFIB Joint dissent, as well as her response to Justice Scalia’s concurrence in Raich.

3) Finally, give you own view in both Comstock and NFIB about whether the Necessary and Proper clause either does support the asserted Congressional power, or does not. Support your answer with specific arguments.

The writing should be your own words. I don’t want long quotations dropped into the paper. Any quotations that you use should just be snippets. When you do quote or otherwise make specific reference, be sure to provide a citation (use text page numbers for McCulloch and Comstock, and slip opinion page numbers for NFIB).

Your papers will not be graded on which view of the issues you take, but rather on how well you support your position. The paper 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.

The paper should be a minimum of 3 pages long, and no more than 5 pages (double spaced). Brevity should be seen as an asset, not a liability. It will be due at the beginning of the class on Friday, October 12. If you are unable to attend class on that date, you should e-mail the paper to me by the beginning of class. I will acknowledge receipt of any e-mailed papers--if you don’t get an acknowledgment, that means that I didn’t get the paper. If you do not have the paper done on time, be in touch with me right away.

The work should be entirely your own. See the syllabus regarding plagiarism or collaboration.


POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
IN class today, Wednesday 10/3, we continued our discussion of Grutter by going over the Rehnquist dissent in the case, the only one in which all four dissenters joined. We will continue on Friday with the remainder of the Grutter dissenting opinions. The assignment is to review those previously assigned opinions.