POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today Wednesday 10/10, I first went over a few points regarding the Bragg brief. I discussed the question of when a suspect has freedom to leave, and also how to incorporate, in the case brief, the loser's facts into an "even though..." phrase. We then turned to the previous handout of the Maine statute regarding use of force to defend your premises, your home, or your stuff. We went over proper citation form for a statute, and then looked in some detail over what Maine allows for those situations. The assignment for Friday 10/12 is to finish the Bragg case brief which is due Friday, and also review the previously assigned Smith case (violent sexual predator).
POS 359 FEDERALISM
In class today, Wednesday 10/10, we continued with our discussion of Ginsburg's NFIB opinion. We went over Scalia's taxonomy of Necessary and Proper powers in Raich, and saw how Ginsburg fit one category of Scalia's structure into her NFIB argument. This enabled her to justify the individual mandate even if that mandate does not regulate economic activity. We will continue with her criticism of the Roberts NFIB opinion on Friday. The assignment for Friday 10/12 is to finish work on Assignment #1.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Wednesday 10/10, we first listened to a clip from c-span in which Adam Liptak, NY Times Supreme Court reporter, discussed the significance of today oral argument in Fisher. Of particular interest was his discussion of how the decision might reach private, as well as public universities, and how the decision might be either broadly or narrowly applicable. We then turned to Thomas' Grutter dissent, discussing the Introduction and Part I of the opinion. We will continue with the Thomas dissent, and then go on to the Fisher Petitioner's Brief, on Friday. The assignment for Friday 10/12 is to review the remainder of the Thomas Grutter dissent, and the Fisher Petitioner's Brief.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Friday, October 5, 2012
October 5, 2012
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Friday 10/5, we first went over some aspects of the Bragg (assigned case brief) case that might be confusing. We went over the concept of a Terry stop, from the 4th amendment case that allows the police to briefly detain and question a person without having "probable cause". We discussed the different standards of review by appellate courts involved in factual issues ("clear error") versus legal issues ("de novo"). We went over why U.S. constitutional issues dealt with by the First Circuit Court of Appeals (our circuit) are not mandatory authority over the Maine Supreme Court faced with those same constitutional issues. And finally, I reminded the class that in my case brief format, there is no segment that relates the story of a case, or the background facts; the "key facts" segment of the case brief only includes those specific circumstances that are relied on by the court to decide the operative legal question.
We then finished the Katko case brief. We looked at why the cited U.S. Supreme Court case was not treated as mandatory authority. We went over the failure of Briney's lawyer to properly object to the punitive damages jury instruction, and how the Iowa Supreme Court dealt with that. We then went over the two objections by the dissenting Justice. We went over four levels of mental state regarding the injurious conduct (intent, knowledge, recklessness and negligence) and then examined the difference between the intent that the dissenting Justice thought should be required under Iowa common law versus the intent that was included in the jury instructions. Finally we looked at the dissenting Justice's view of punitive damages.
The assignment for Wednesday 10/10 is to continue working on the Bragg case brief, and, in addition, read and prepare to discuss pp. 32-36 of the text.
POS 359 FEDERALISM
In class today, Friday 10/5, only one student in the class showed up. Looks like the early vacation bug hit hard. When we are all in class again on Wednesday, we will continue with the previously assigned Ginsburg dissent, as well as the two previously assigned adjuncts to her dissent, the Scalia concurrence in Gonzalez v. Raich, and the NFIB Joint Dissent discussion of the Necessary and Proper Clause. The assignment is to continue work on Assignment #1.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Friday 10/5, we continued with the Grutter dissenting opinions. looking at both the Kennedy and Scalia dissents. We will finish up with the Thomas dissent when we convene again on Wednesday. Rearding the Thomas dissent, I asked the class to go through it and give a one sentence label to each of the seven numbered parts of the opinion. The additional reading for Wednesday 10/10 is to read the Petitioner's Brief in Fisher v. University of Texas. To access the brief, go to the supremecourt.gov site, select Merits Briefs/ Online Merits briefs (which takes you to the ABA site). select October 2012, and then scroll down to Week 2, Fisher v. University of Texas. Select Petitioner's Brief, although we'll be reading all 3 of the merits briefs, so you may as well print them all now.
In class today, Friday 10/5, we first went over some aspects of the Bragg (assigned case brief) case that might be confusing. We went over the concept of a Terry stop, from the 4th amendment case that allows the police to briefly detain and question a person without having "probable cause". We discussed the different standards of review by appellate courts involved in factual issues ("clear error") versus legal issues ("de novo"). We went over why U.S. constitutional issues dealt with by the First Circuit Court of Appeals (our circuit) are not mandatory authority over the Maine Supreme Court faced with those same constitutional issues. And finally, I reminded the class that in my case brief format, there is no segment that relates the story of a case, or the background facts; the "key facts" segment of the case brief only includes those specific circumstances that are relied on by the court to decide the operative legal question.
We then finished the Katko case brief. We looked at why the cited U.S. Supreme Court case was not treated as mandatory authority. We went over the failure of Briney's lawyer to properly object to the punitive damages jury instruction, and how the Iowa Supreme Court dealt with that. We then went over the two objections by the dissenting Justice. We went over four levels of mental state regarding the injurious conduct (intent, knowledge, recklessness and negligence) and then examined the difference between the intent that the dissenting Justice thought should be required under Iowa common law versus the intent that was included in the jury instructions. Finally we looked at the dissenting Justice's view of punitive damages.
The assignment for Wednesday 10/10 is to continue working on the Bragg case brief, and, in addition, read and prepare to discuss pp. 32-36 of the text.
POS 359 FEDERALISM
In class today, Friday 10/5, only one student in the class showed up. Looks like the early vacation bug hit hard. When we are all in class again on Wednesday, we will continue with the previously assigned Ginsburg dissent, as well as the two previously assigned adjuncts to her dissent, the Scalia concurrence in Gonzalez v. Raich, and the NFIB Joint Dissent discussion of the Necessary and Proper Clause. The assignment is to continue work on Assignment #1.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Friday 10/5, we continued with the Grutter dissenting opinions. looking at both the Kennedy and Scalia dissents. We will finish up with the Thomas dissent when we convene again on Wednesday. Rearding the Thomas dissent, I asked the class to go through it and give a one sentence label to each of the seven numbered parts of the opinion. The additional reading for Wednesday 10/10 is to read the Petitioner's Brief in Fisher v. University of Texas. To access the brief, go to the supremecourt.gov site, select Merits Briefs/ Online Merits briefs (which takes you to the ABA site). select October 2012, and then scroll down to Week 2, Fisher v. University of Texas. Select Petitioner's Brief, although we'll be reading all 3 of the merits briefs, so you may as well print them all now.
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
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.
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.
Monday, October 1, 2012
October 1, 2012
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Monday 10/1, I distributed two handouts: my version of the Katko brief, and the Maine statute regarding use of force in defense of premises. We finished our discussion of Glucksberg, going over the concepts of following, distinguishing, or overruling precedent. We also went over Justice Souter's concurrence. We then started going over the Katko brief, getting as far as the first issue that the court dealt with, and along the way discussing citation form for state courts in the West publishing regional reporters. The assignment for Wednesday 10/3 is to read over the two handouts, asking yourself what the outcome in Maine would have been of a criminal trial of the Brineys.
POS 359 FEDERALISM
In class today, Monday 10/1, we finished going over the Comstock opinions from the text. Then we started on the Roberts Necessary and Proper discussion in the Obamacare decision. I gave some background in terms of the individual mandate, guaranteed issue, and community rating. We left off with the government's argument of how the mandate, if it's not authorized by the commerce clause, could still be authorized by the Necessary and Proper clause. We will finish up the Roberts opinion on Wednesday. The additional reading for Wednesday 10/3 is to read Justice Ginsburg's dissent on the Necessary and Proper issue, which can be found at pp. 31-36 of her opinion. Please bring both excerpts (Roberts and Ginsburg) with you to class.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Monday 10/1, we first celebrated the first day of the new Supreme Court term by going over some of the proceedings in the Court today. We then got back to work on Grutter, concluding our discussion of the O'Connor and Ginsburg opinions. We will continue with the remainder of the Grutter opinions on Wednesday. Review those opinions, and prepare to discuss them.
In class today, Monday 10/1, I distributed two handouts: my version of the Katko brief, and the Maine statute regarding use of force in defense of premises. We finished our discussion of Glucksberg, going over the concepts of following, distinguishing, or overruling precedent. We also went over Justice Souter's concurrence. We then started going over the Katko brief, getting as far as the first issue that the court dealt with, and along the way discussing citation form for state courts in the West publishing regional reporters. The assignment for Wednesday 10/3 is to read over the two handouts, asking yourself what the outcome in Maine would have been of a criminal trial of the Brineys.
POS 359 FEDERALISM
In class today, Monday 10/1, we finished going over the Comstock opinions from the text. Then we started on the Roberts Necessary and Proper discussion in the Obamacare decision. I gave some background in terms of the individual mandate, guaranteed issue, and community rating. We left off with the government's argument of how the mandate, if it's not authorized by the commerce clause, could still be authorized by the Necessary and Proper clause. We will finish up the Roberts opinion on Wednesday. The additional reading for Wednesday 10/3 is to read Justice Ginsburg's dissent on the Necessary and Proper issue, which can be found at pp. 31-36 of her opinion. Please bring both excerpts (Roberts and Ginsburg) with you to class.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Monday 10/1, we first celebrated the first day of the new Supreme Court term by going over some of the proceedings in the Court today. We then got back to work on Grutter, concluding our discussion of the O'Connor and Ginsburg opinions. We will continue with the remainder of the Grutter opinions on Wednesday. Review those opinions, and prepare to discuss them.
Friday, September 28, 2012
September 28, 2012
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Friday 9/28, I distributed one handout, my version of the Glucksberg case brief. We went through the Cruzan and Casey cases, and discussed how the Court found different rights involved in those cases. We also discussed from Cruzan the concept of varying burdens of persuasion, from preponderance, to clear and convincing, to beyond reasonable doubt. Finally we saw how the Court identified "legitimate" interests for the State of Washington in outlawing assisted suicide. We will pick up on Monday with a brief discussion of how Justice Souter's opinion differs from that of the majority. The additional assignment for Monday 10/1 is to read pp. 36-41 of the text, and to write out (for yourselves, not handed in) a case brief of the Katko case.
POS 359 FEDERALISM
In class today, Friday 9/28, we continued with our discussion of the Comstock case. We finished going over the majority's five reasons, and then got through the Kennedy and Alito concurrences. We began going through the Thomas dissent, with which we will continue on Monday. The additional assignment for Monday 10/1 is to read Chief Justice Roberts' discussion of the Necessary and Proper Clause in the Obamacare decision. To find the discussion, go to supremecourt.gov, select Opinions/ Latest Slip Opinions,select R-75, 6/28/12, NFIB v. Sebelius, and read section 2 regarding the Necessary and Proper Clause, pp. 27-30 of the Roberts opinion pagination.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Friday 9/28, we continued our discussion of the Grutter case. We outlined the O'Connor majority decision, seeing how she held that student body diversity was a compelling interest, and that the school's program was narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. The assignment for Monday 10/1 is to read the remainder of the Grutter opinions.
In class today, Friday 9/28, I distributed one handout, my version of the Glucksberg case brief. We went through the Cruzan and Casey cases, and discussed how the Court found different rights involved in those cases. We also discussed from Cruzan the concept of varying burdens of persuasion, from preponderance, to clear and convincing, to beyond reasonable doubt. Finally we saw how the Court identified "legitimate" interests for the State of Washington in outlawing assisted suicide. We will pick up on Monday with a brief discussion of how Justice Souter's opinion differs from that of the majority. The additional assignment for Monday 10/1 is to read pp. 36-41 of the text, and to write out (for yourselves, not handed in) a case brief of the Katko case.
POS 359 FEDERALISM
In class today, Friday 9/28, we continued with our discussion of the Comstock case. We finished going over the majority's five reasons, and then got through the Kennedy and Alito concurrences. We began going through the Thomas dissent, with which we will continue on Monday. The additional assignment for Monday 10/1 is to read Chief Justice Roberts' discussion of the Necessary and Proper Clause in the Obamacare decision. To find the discussion, go to supremecourt.gov, select Opinions/ Latest Slip Opinions,select R-75, 6/28/12, NFIB v. Sebelius, and read section 2 regarding the Necessary and Proper Clause, pp. 27-30 of the Roberts opinion pagination.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Friday 9/28, we continued our discussion of the Grutter case. We outlined the O'Connor majority decision, seeing how she held that student body diversity was a compelling interest, and that the school's program was narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. The assignment for Monday 10/1 is to read the remainder of the Grutter opinions.
Monday, September 24, 2012
September 24, 2012
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Monday, 9/24, we continued going over the Glucksberg case brief. We got as far as the first issue that the Court dealt with, the question of whether the right to assist a suicide was a fundamental right. We will continue with the next issue, the use of precedent, when I am next in class, which will be on Friday 9/28. On Wednesday 9/26 (another religious holiday for me), the class will watch the next part of the PBS Supreme Court series, this one about the recognition of individual liberties.
POS 359 FEDERALISM
In class today, Monday, 9/24, we started going over the Comstock decision. I began with the background of the case of Kansas v, Hendricks, in which the Court conservatives fought back a challenge to the state assertion of power to lock up sexual predators under the ex post facto prohibition. We got as far in Comstock as the fourth of Justice Breyer's justification for the use of the Necessary and Proper clause, that there is no great threat in this case to state sovereignty. We will continue with the rest of the Breyer opinion, the concurrences, and the dissent, when I am next in class, which will be on Friday 9/28. On Wednesday 9/26 (another religious holiday for me), the class will watch the next part of the Founding Brothers series, this one starting with the Adams presidency and continuing on from there with the story of Federalists versus Jeffersonians, with many interesting twists.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Monday 9/24, I began class by going over the 1978 Bakke case, and then the two 2003 University of Michigan cases that were decided by 5-4 votes, Gratz and Grutter. We went through the lineup of Justices in all three cases, and also talked about how strict scrutiny was used in the analysis. We will continue with Grutter when I am next in class, which will be on Friday 9/28. On Wednesday 9/26 (another religious holiday for me), the class will watch the next part of the PBS Supreme Court series, this one about the creation of substantive due process and the protection of economic interests. The additional reading for Friday 9/28 is to read the dissents of Justice Scalia and Justice Kennedy in Grutter (or, go ahead and read all of the opinions).
In class today, Monday, 9/24, we continued going over the Glucksberg case brief. We got as far as the first issue that the Court dealt with, the question of whether the right to assist a suicide was a fundamental right. We will continue with the next issue, the use of precedent, when I am next in class, which will be on Friday 9/28. On Wednesday 9/26 (another religious holiday for me), the class will watch the next part of the PBS Supreme Court series, this one about the recognition of individual liberties.
POS 359 FEDERALISM
In class today, Monday, 9/24, we started going over the Comstock decision. I began with the background of the case of Kansas v, Hendricks, in which the Court conservatives fought back a challenge to the state assertion of power to lock up sexual predators under the ex post facto prohibition. We got as far in Comstock as the fourth of Justice Breyer's justification for the use of the Necessary and Proper clause, that there is no great threat in this case to state sovereignty. We will continue with the rest of the Breyer opinion, the concurrences, and the dissent, when I am next in class, which will be on Friday 9/28. On Wednesday 9/26 (another religious holiday for me), the class will watch the next part of the Founding Brothers series, this one starting with the Adams presidency and continuing on from there with the story of Federalists versus Jeffersonians, with many interesting twists.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Monday 9/24, I began class by going over the 1978 Bakke case, and then the two 2003 University of Michigan cases that were decided by 5-4 votes, Gratz and Grutter. We went through the lineup of Justices in all three cases, and also talked about how strict scrutiny was used in the analysis. We will continue with Grutter when I am next in class, which will be on Friday 9/28. On Wednesday 9/26 (another religious holiday for me), the class will watch the next part of the PBS Supreme Court series, this one about the creation of substantive due process and the protection of economic interests. The additional reading for Friday 9/28 is to read the dissents of Justice Scalia and Justice Kennedy in Grutter (or, go ahead and read all of the opinions).
Friday, September 21, 2012
September 21, 2012
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Friday 9/21, I distributed one handout, an opinion piece about assisted suicide. We finished with the Brown v. EMA Supreme Court opinions, going over Justice Alito's concurring opinion, and then the Justice Thomas and the Justice Breyer dissents. Then we got a brief start on the Glucksberg case brief, getting only as far as the first segments of the "Parties" category. We will continue with the Glucksberg case brief on Monday. The assignment for Monday 9/24 is to continue working on the Glucksberg case brief.
POS 359 FEDERALISM
In class today, Friday 9/21, we finished our discussion of MCCullough v. Maryland. We went through the various arguments made by Maryland both about the scope of the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the taxing power of the state. The assignment for Monday 9/24 is to read and prepare to discuss the United States v. Comstock (pp. 485-496 of the text). In your reading, be prepared to go paragraph by paragraph to put into English the argument that's being made, and the answer that's being given by the various Justices.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Friday 9/21, I distributed two handouts: one was an article by Linda Greenhouse discussing how Constitution Day may be unconstitutional under the June Affordable Care Act decision, and the other was the Official Ballot for the case that the class will tackle. After some explanation of the different cases in the Court's October Term, the class chose the case of Fisher v. University of Texas for "our" case. The assignment for Monday September 24th is to read the case that supplies the grounds on which Fisher will be argued, Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 US 306 (2003). You can Google the case for a number of sites on which the decision is reported. One that I find particularly useful is the Cornell University site (Legal Information Institute) as it separates out the various opinions. Read for Monday at least Justice O'Connor's majority opinion, although we will get eventually get to all of the opinions.
In class today, Friday 9/21, I distributed one handout, an opinion piece about assisted suicide. We finished with the Brown v. EMA Supreme Court opinions, going over Justice Alito's concurring opinion, and then the Justice Thomas and the Justice Breyer dissents. Then we got a brief start on the Glucksberg case brief, getting only as far as the first segments of the "Parties" category. We will continue with the Glucksberg case brief on Monday. The assignment for Monday 9/24 is to continue working on the Glucksberg case brief.
POS 359 FEDERALISM
In class today, Friday 9/21, we finished our discussion of MCCullough v. Maryland. We went through the various arguments made by Maryland both about the scope of the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the taxing power of the state. The assignment for Monday 9/24 is to read and prepare to discuss the United States v. Comstock (pp. 485-496 of the text). In your reading, be prepared to go paragraph by paragraph to put into English the argument that's being made, and the answer that's being given by the various Justices.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Friday 9/21, I distributed two handouts: one was an article by Linda Greenhouse discussing how Constitution Day may be unconstitutional under the June Affordable Care Act decision, and the other was the Official Ballot for the case that the class will tackle. After some explanation of the different cases in the Court's October Term, the class chose the case of Fisher v. University of Texas for "our" case. The assignment for Monday September 24th is to read the case that supplies the grounds on which Fisher will be argued, Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 US 306 (2003). You can Google the case for a number of sites on which the decision is reported. One that I find particularly useful is the Cornell University site (Legal Information Institute) as it separates out the various opinions. Read for Monday at least Justice O'Connor's majority opinion, although we will get eventually get to all of the opinions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)