February 28, 2014

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Friday 2/28, the class took exam #1. I will return the exam and we will review it, when we next meet on 3/17. The additional reading assignment for Monday 3/17 is to read in the text through p. 56 (Gregg v.Georgia).
Have a good and safe Spring Break.


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Friday 2/28, the class took exam #1. I will return the exam and we will review it, when we next meet on 3/17. The additional reading assignment for Monday 3/17 is to read in the text through p. 258 (R.A.V. v. St. Paul).
Have a good and safe Spring Break.

POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Friday 2/28, I first distributed assignment #2 (below) and we went over it. We then talked about this week's 6-3 decision in the Fernandez case, which raised the question of third-part (roommate) consent to a search even though defendant has refused consent. The assignment for Monday 3/17 is to begin work on your Lozano paper.
Have a good and safe Spring Break.

Assignment #2

Good news! In order to foster a more youthful outlook at the Supreme Court, Congress increased the membership of the Court to ten, and you, because of your outstanding dedication to The Law, have been chosen to be that 10th Justice.

Your first job as a new Justice is to write a part of the Court’s opinion in the Lozano v. Alvarez case. You’ve been assigned the “Analysis” section of Part I of Petitioner’s Brief: “Under the Text of the Convention, the Common Law Doctrine of Equitable Tolling Should Be Available to a Left-Behind Parent with Respect to the One-Year Period Under Article 12 in the United States”. In the Petitioner’s Brief, this section has three subparts, and you need to address all three.

Your opinion is not a prediction of the votes; don’t worry about the other Justices, just concentrate on reaching and justifying the decision that you think makes the most sense. Where you cite to the oral argument, you’re looking to the response of the lawyers rather than any viewpoint expressed by the other Justices.

Since this will be your first Supreme Court opinion, here are some guidelines for writing that I want you to observe:
• You should deal specifically with the issues raised by the party that is opposed to your view of the case. What’s wrong with the argument raised by the losers, both in their brief and in the oral argument?
• You should have at least one specific reference to each party’s position from the briefing regarding each of the three sections of the argument (one for Lozano, and one for Alvarez, for each of the three sections, for a total of six), with specific reference to the page number of the argument.
• You should have at least three specific references total to the oral argument. Your citations to the oral argument transcript should give page and line numbers. At the beginning of your paper, state where the page numbers are located in your version of the oral argument transcript.

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 Alvarez’s position that 12(1) is not a statute of limitations (Res. p. 47). As Lozano pointed out, a Statute of Limitations need not totally foreclose a cause of action (Reply Brief, p. 25). At oral argument Alvarez conceded that proposition (17:6). We think that our prior decisions do establish that a Statute of Limitations need not totally foreclose a cause of action, because, in both situations, the exercise of right is limited by a specific time limit, regardless of whether the entire cause of action is foreclosed.

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 the beginning of the class on Friday, March 21. 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. 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 evaluate the issues, 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.

As I write this assignment, the Supreme Court has not yet decided this case; naturally, I hope they don’t decide it before March 21, because that would really complicate the process of evaluating your analysis. But, if they do decide the case before March 21, we will discuss any needed modification in class, plus I will post a modification to the assignment on the blog, as well as e-mail you through the MaineStreet portal. Be sure to check the blog (even if you don’t miss any classes) to see if the Court has weighed in prematurely.