April 18, 2014

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today Friday, 4/18, I distributed one handout, my version of the Jeremiah T. brief. I collected the case briefs, and plan to return them on Monday. We went over them, getting basically through the main issues in the case. We have a few stray issues to clean up, including the holdings themselves, the disposition, the use of the 13 factors, the relationship between best interest and fundamental right to parent, and the "other" constitutional question. We will start with those on Monday, and then go back to Conflict of Laws and finish the Collins v. Trius bus accident case. The assignment for Monday 4/21 is to read through p. 114 of the text, Hubbard v. Greeson.


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today Friday, 4/18, I distributed two handouts: the Drake Reply Brief, and Assignment #2, reproduced below. We went over the assignment, which is due Monday 4/28 (not Friday 4/25, as previously planned). I also announced that we'll have a guest speaker on Wednesday 4/23, Shenna Bellows, who was until recently the leader of the ACLU of Maine. She arguably knows more about Civil Liberties in Maine than anyone else, and she's a great speaker. We then continued going over the N.J. Brief in Opposition to the cert petition. We talked about the characterization of the "longstanding" presumption (is it an "exception"?); about the actual history of the N.J. laws since 1905; about the definition of "longstanding" and its relationship to founding-era originalism; and the deference due to legislative judgments about the fit between "justifiable need" restrictions and public safety. We'll pick up at that point on Monday. The assignment for Monday 4/21 is to review the rest of the Jerejian BIO, to read the Drake Reply Brief, and to begin work on the assignment.

Assignment #2 Due Monday, April 28th.
For this assignment, I’m asking you for two sections (numbered I and II).

First, I would like you to make a Jerejian v. Drake chart of the Drake cert petition briefs. Using your own words, identify each position in which there’s a clash between the Jerejian Brief In Opposition, and the Drake’s Reply Brief. (Drake’s Reply Brief has a more complete outline structure than Jerejian’s BIO, though, so use that Reply Brief outline structure as your organizing outline.)

You need to go into the details of each position. It’s not sufficient to just include the ultimate conclusary positions: (“Jerejian: the N.J. “justifiable need” standard has a reasonable fit with the state’s interest in public safety. Drake: No it doesn’t.”). You need to include the trench fighting of the sub-parts of each contention. You should be listing such propositions as the characterization of the severity of the N.J. permitting regime; the characterization of the Third Circuit’s assumption of the Second Amendment’s application out side the home; the role of evidence in the determination of fit; etc. Each segment should briefly state the proposition, and its basic justification.

Here’s an (inaccurate) example of what I’m looking for:
Jerejian:
1. There’s no need for N.J. to produce evidence that the justifiable need standard promotes public safety, because common sense itself is sufficient to demonstrate the connection between fewer guns and more safety.
Drake:
1. There is need for N.J. to produce this evidence, because when a constitutional right is being infringed, common sense is insufficient; specific evidence must be submitted. Anything less does not satisfy intermediate scrutiny.

Second, give (and explain) your own opinion about who should win this case (assume for this section that the Supreme Court will grant the cert petition). You have to take Heller as a given. Does the N.J. law infringe on rights explained in Heller, or does that law exist fine within Heller’s rules? The explanation of your conclusion is the point of the assignment.

Your papers will not be graded on which view of the issues you take, but rather on how well you complete the assignment and 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 3 to 5 pages.
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 Monday 4/28, 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 I do not reply, then I have not received the assignment.

The work should be entirely your own, with no collaboration or plagiarism. Don’t look at other student’s outlines, and don’t show your outline to anyone. See the syllabus regarding plagiarism and collaboration.



POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today Friday, 4/18, we talked about U.A.R.G. v. EPA. This case raises the question of EPA regulation of greenhouse gases from stationary sources. We first talked about the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, and the problem of climate change. We went over the 2007 Mass. v. EPA case and the 2009 EPA regulation of light trucks for their greenhouse gas emissions. We saw how that triggered EPA regulation of stationary sources as well. We looked at the structure of the Clean Air Act, and how the various titles of the Act interact. We talked about PSD, BACT, NAAQS, and NSPS. We left off by talking about some part of the oral argument in the case. I want to continue on Monday with a look specifically at Kennedy's participation in the oral argument. From there we'll go on the other cases before the Court. The assignment for Monday 4/21 is to show up for class.