September 26, 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 9/26, I distributed one handout, some hypothetical situations that ask you to think about some variations in the facts of Speelman. We finished our discussion of Glucksberg by going over the flow chart of "careful description", history and tradition, and high or low hurdles. We looked at Souter's concurrence in terms of the individual versus the government, the deference given by the judiciary to the legislative branch, and the relationship between the federal and state governments. We went through the Glucksberg case brief. We talked about the Maynard article and its assertion of the rights of the individual. We then went over the Obergefell excerpt, both the majority and the dissent. We then began our discussion of Speelman, going through the set-up portion of the case brief. We will pick up on Thursday with the remainder of the Speelman case brief.
The assignment for Thursday 9/28 is to write out a case brief of Speelman (not handed in or graded), and to read and prepare to discuss the Speelman hypotheticals distributed today.


POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 9/26, I distributed one handout, Assignment #1, which is reproduced below. We went over the requirements of that assignment. We finished our discussion of the two Christie Supreme Court briefs by contrasting their views on whether the federal prohibition on state action was the equivalent of a federal command for the state to enact legislation. We also discussed the Reno v. Condon statement that said that it was allowable under certain circumstances for the federal government to actually command the state to enact legislation. We then discussed Chicago v. Sessions, in which the court upheld the federal law by sticking to the letter of the precedent, but also added that the logic of the precedent could lead to a different result.
The assignment for Thursday 9/28 is to begin work on your Christie paper, and to read in the text pp. 557-568 (South Dakota v. Dole and NFIB v. Sebelius), about the limits on the federal spending power.


Assignment due at the beginning of class on Thursday, October 5, 2017

Congratulations! President Trump has summoned you to Trump Tower, and offered you the position of Constitutional Analyst. This newly created position analyzes up-coming Supreme Court cases to tell the President how they should come out in accordance with existing precedent. This is all in the service of improving the legal quality of the President’s tweets.

Your first assignment is to do an analysis of the Christie v. NCAA Supreme Court case. (To tweet about sports betting might help the President heal his relationship with the sports establishment.)

The President wants a very particular format:
I) a paragraph for each of the five sources below consisting of 1) a few sentences describing the holding of the case, and then a 2) a few sentences explaining how that holding would (or wouldn’t) apply to PASPA.

II) a short section analyzing, based on precedent, whether PASPA is an unconstitutional commandeering of the New Jersey state government in the 2014 Law. Examine the arguments both for and against the constitutionality of the federal statute, and then come to a conclusion. If you wish, you can add a proposed tweet to the end of your analysis.

As precedent, use the following cases from the textbook: New York v. U.S. (p.374); Printz v. U.S. (p.381); and the following handouts: Reno v. Condon; the 3rd Circuit opinion in Christie II; and the District Court decision in Chicago v. Sessions. Use no other cases, and do no outside research. This assignment is totally based on what you do with what’s in the textbook and the handouts. For the five cases in your discussion, don’t give background, story of the case, or vote of the Court. Just get right to the holding. Be as specific as possible. Make your language as clear and simple as possible. Remember your audience.

Here’s an example for the format for the paragraphs for the five cases:
In Garcia, the Court held that it is constitutional for Congress to tell the states that they have to pay their own state workers according to federal standards. That sounds like Congress telling the states how to run their own government, so why was it ok? New York distinguished Garcia on the basis that there, Congress had simply subjected the states - as employers - to the same employer standards as private employers were subjected to. In PASPA, both government and private persons are prohibited from "sponsoring, operating, advertising, or promoting" sports betting, so that might seem to be just like Garcia in that it subjected the states to the same rules as private parties. But the operative activity that is forbidden to only a state is to "authorize by law" sports betting. Only a state can "authorize by law", and so Garcia is distinguishable because PASPA does not subject a state to the same legislation applicable to private parties.

If you wish, you can criticize the lower court decisions (Christie II and Chicago) as being unfaithful to the Supreme Court cases, but you can’t criticize the Supreme Court cases themselves—they are a given. You can take the position that those Supreme Court case are distinguishable.

The assignment will be graded on both the structure and the content of your analysis. 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.

Please make two copies of your paper, one to hand in at the beginning of class, and the other for you to have during class for our discussion. I would expect the paper to be in the neighborhood of three pages long.

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.

The assignment is due at the beginning of class on Thursday 10/5. If you cannot be in class on that day, you should still e-mail me your assignment by the beginning of the class. If you do that, you will not have any grade deducted from your grade for the paper. If you do not, you should still contact me as soon as possible to see what options are available to you. See the Syllabus for the class rules regarding late papers.

The work should be entirely your own, with no collaboration or plagiarism. Do not show your paper to anyone. Do not look at anyone else’s paper. Do not troll the internet for other people’s analysis. The idea is to think it out for yourself. See the syllabus regarding plagiarism and collaboration.


IMPORTANT: If you e-mail your assignment to me, I will reply to confirm that I have received your assignment. If you do not get a reply, then I have not received the assignment.