POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 9/29, we spent pretty much the entire class going over the Jones case brief that is due next Thursday. We explored all of the arguments made (by the Commissioner, the Solicitor General, the dissent, and even by Jones) and the responses given (issues and holdings). We also talked about the dissenting opinion, and how they challenged specific holdings of the majority. Finally, I spent a little time talking about the cause of action in Katko, and the nature of a common law cause of action. The assignment for Tuesday 10/4 is to work on your Jones case brief, and review Katko and the Maine statute on use of force.
Thursday, September 29, 2016
Wednesday, September 28, 2016
September 28, 2016
POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Wednesday 9/28, we began by going through the Crosby opinion, and putting it into an outline format. We discussed the basis of Scalia's concurrence. I also talked about Obama's order of two weeks ago to terminate sanctions, and how the presidential ability to stop sanctions was a big part of the Court's decision. We then went through Arizona v. U.S., going through the different forms of preemption found by the Court majority, as well as the provision that was not preempted. We discussed the three dissenting opinions. We then left preemption and started the new federalism topic of coercion. We started with Steward Machine, and the did South Dakota v. Dole. We began our discussion of NFIB. I discussed the overall plan of Obamacare to push all groups into the insured circle, and talked about how the Congressional power to impose the individual mandate was located not in the commerce power, but rather under the taxing power of Congress. We began our discussion of the Medicaid expansion. We got up to the part of Roberts' opinion that looked at South Dakota v. Dole (p.565), which is where we'll pick up next week. The assignment for Wednesday 10/5 is to review NFIB, outlining (for yourself) the remainder of Roberts' opinion, as well as the Medicaid expansion parts of the Ginsburg and Scalia opinions. Also, read in the text pp. 415-439.
In class today, Wednesday 9/28, we began by going through the Crosby opinion, and putting it into an outline format. We discussed the basis of Scalia's concurrence. I also talked about Obama's order of two weeks ago to terminate sanctions, and how the presidential ability to stop sanctions was a big part of the Court's decision. We then went through Arizona v. U.S., going through the different forms of preemption found by the Court majority, as well as the provision that was not preempted. We discussed the three dissenting opinions. We then left preemption and started the new federalism topic of coercion. We started with Steward Machine, and the did South Dakota v. Dole. We began our discussion of NFIB. I discussed the overall plan of Obamacare to push all groups into the insured circle, and talked about how the Congressional power to impose the individual mandate was located not in the commerce power, but rather under the taxing power of Congress. We began our discussion of the Medicaid expansion. We got up to the part of Roberts' opinion that looked at South Dakota v. Dole (p.565), which is where we'll pick up next week. The assignment for Wednesday 10/5 is to review NFIB, outlining (for yourself) the remainder of Roberts' opinion, as well as the Medicaid expansion parts of the Ginsburg and Scalia opinions. Also, read in the text pp. 415-439.
Tuesday, September 27, 2016
September 27, 2016
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 9/27, I distributed 3 handouts: assignment #1 (reproduced below): the case you'll be briefing, Jones v. Flowers, 547 US 220 (2006): and the Maine statute regarding use of force in defense of premises (to go with the Katko case). I began by going over the requirements of the assignment. We then finished going over the Speelman hypotheticals that I had distributed last week. We looked at whether there were defenses to the letter that the BHA had sent, and also how the case might have come out if the BHA had needed to do some research in order to figure out in which jail Speelman was being kept. We began the Katko case, going over the brief segments down to the cause of action. When we resume our discussion of Katko, we'll begin with the concept of common law. The assignment for Thursday 9/29 is to begin the Jones case brief assignment. I'll take your questions about the briefing of Jones, so be sure to get started on that process. Also, review the Katko case and its briefing, and study the Maine statute handed out today, asking yourself whether the Brineys could have been convicted in a Maine criminal case for the spring gun.
Assignment due Thursday, October 6, 2016
The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the case of Jones v. Flowers 547 U.S. 220 (2006) (also distributed to the class today).
Brief all of the issues that you determine that the Court ruled on. Remember that the purpose of the brief is to be useful. Check your holdings to make sure that they give the most useful rules possible. Mere conclusory facts just tell us who won and who lost, but not what circumstances determine the winner and loser.
Follow the format from the Sample Briefs that I’ve distributed. Do not include the “even though…” segment. Brief only the majority opinion. For the dissenting opinion, summarize in plain English (not using the Brief Format) all those points on which the dissent disagrees with the majority.
Note especially that, after the “Issue” is composed, the “Facts” 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. Do not show your work to anyone else; do not look at anyone else’s work. Do not discuss your case brief with anyone but me.
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.
In class today, Tuesday 9/27, I distributed 3 handouts: assignment #1 (reproduced below): the case you'll be briefing, Jones v. Flowers, 547 US 220 (2006): and the Maine statute regarding use of force in defense of premises (to go with the Katko case). I began by going over the requirements of the assignment. We then finished going over the Speelman hypotheticals that I had distributed last week. We looked at whether there were defenses to the letter that the BHA had sent, and also how the case might have come out if the BHA had needed to do some research in order to figure out in which jail Speelman was being kept. We began the Katko case, going over the brief segments down to the cause of action. When we resume our discussion of Katko, we'll begin with the concept of common law. The assignment for Thursday 9/29 is to begin the Jones case brief assignment. I'll take your questions about the briefing of Jones, so be sure to get started on that process. Also, review the Katko case and its briefing, and study the Maine statute handed out today, asking yourself whether the Brineys could have been convicted in a Maine criminal case for the spring gun.
Assignment due Thursday, October 6, 2016
The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the case of Jones v. Flowers 547 U.S. 220 (2006) (also distributed to the class today).
Brief all of the issues that you determine that the Court ruled on. Remember that the purpose of the brief is to be useful. Check your holdings to make sure that they give the most useful rules possible. Mere conclusory facts just tell us who won and who lost, but not what circumstances determine the winner and loser.
Follow the format from the Sample Briefs that I’ve distributed. Do not include the “even though…” segment. Brief only the majority opinion. For the dissenting opinion, summarize in plain English (not using the Brief Format) all those points on which the dissent disagrees with the majority.
Note especially that, after the “Issue” is composed, the “Facts” 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. Do not show your work to anyone else; do not look at anyone else’s work. Do not discuss your case brief with anyone but me.
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.
Thursday, September 22, 2016
September 22, 2016
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 9/22, I distributed two handouts: my version of the Speelman case brief, and some hypothetical variations of Speelman. I gave the class my planned schedule for the upcoming graded case brief: I plan to assign the brief on Tuesday 9/27, with the assignment due Thursday 10/6. We talked about the relationship between the 5th Amendment due process clause, and the 14th Amendment clause. We then launched into the Speelman case brief. I went over federal statutory citation form, and state court opinion citation form. I discussed injunctive relief, preliminary injunctions, and temporary restraining orders. I also went over the concept of mandatory authority, as contrasted with persuasive authority. We then discussed the hypotheticals down to the end of question one. We will start next Tuesday with how the hearing on the merits might go: whether Speelman had violated the rules, what the notice said, and whether she should in fact lose her voucher. The assignment for Tuesday 9/27 is to read in the text through p. 43 and prepare (for yourself) a case brief of Katko v. Briney.
In class today, Thursday 9/22, I distributed two handouts: my version of the Speelman case brief, and some hypothetical variations of Speelman. I gave the class my planned schedule for the upcoming graded case brief: I plan to assign the brief on Tuesday 9/27, with the assignment due Thursday 10/6. We talked about the relationship between the 5th Amendment due process clause, and the 14th Amendment clause. We then launched into the Speelman case brief. I went over federal statutory citation form, and state court opinion citation form. I discussed injunctive relief, preliminary injunctions, and temporary restraining orders. I also went over the concept of mandatory authority, as contrasted with persuasive authority. We then discussed the hypotheticals down to the end of question one. We will start next Tuesday with how the hearing on the merits might go: whether Speelman had violated the rules, what the notice said, and whether she should in fact lose her voucher. The assignment for Tuesday 9/27 is to read in the text through p. 43 and prepare (for yourself) a case brief of Katko v. Briney.
Wednesday, September 21, 2016
September 21, 2016
POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Wednesday 9/21, I distributed two handouts, my versions of the New York and the Prinz opinion (majority, concurrence, and dissent). After reviewing National League of Cities and Garcia, we went through the outline of New York v. US. Along the way, we went over the concepts of following, distinguishing, and overruling precedent. We then outlined the Prinz case. We went through Missouri v. Holland, and along the way went through the organization of the federal court system. We began the facts of Crosby v. NFTC, which is where we'll pick up next week. The assignment for Wednesday 9/28 is to review Crosby and Arizona (through p. 414), previously assigned, and then to read in the text pp. 553-568.
In class today, Wednesday 9/21, I distributed two handouts, my versions of the New York and the Prinz opinion (majority, concurrence, and dissent). After reviewing National League of Cities and Garcia, we went through the outline of New York v. US. Along the way, we went over the concepts of following, distinguishing, and overruling precedent. We then outlined the Prinz case. We went through Missouri v. Holland, and along the way went through the organization of the federal court system. We began the facts of Crosby v. NFTC, which is where we'll pick up next week. The assignment for Wednesday 9/28 is to review Crosby and Arizona (through p. 414), previously assigned, and then to read in the text pp. 553-568.
Tuesday, September 20, 2016
September 20, 2016
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 9/20, I distributed one handout, my version of the Lawrence v. Texas case brief. We began by going over the Obergefell handout, looking at both the majority and the dissent in terms of their treatment of Glucksberg. We discussed the options of following, distinguishing, or overruling precedent. Kennedy and Roberts disagreed about how the Obergefell Court was treating the Glucksberg precedent. Kennedy and Roberts also disagreed about the proper role of the courts in this dispute, compared to the role of the state legislatures. We then moved on to Lawrence v. Texas. We went through a case brief of the case. We looked at both the due process and equal protection arguments, and why Kennedy chose one rather than the other. We also looked at the flow chart that Kennedy seemed to be following, and then how he pulled an unexpected word out of his hat at the end of the case. The assignment for Thursday 9/22 is to read in the text pp. 34-38, and to write out (for yourselves, not handed in) a case brief of Speelman.
In class today, Tuesday 9/20, I distributed one handout, my version of the Lawrence v. Texas case brief. We began by going over the Obergefell handout, looking at both the majority and the dissent in terms of their treatment of Glucksberg. We discussed the options of following, distinguishing, or overruling precedent. Kennedy and Roberts disagreed about how the Obergefell Court was treating the Glucksberg precedent. Kennedy and Roberts also disagreed about the proper role of the courts in this dispute, compared to the role of the state legislatures. We then moved on to Lawrence v. Texas. We went through a case brief of the case. We looked at both the due process and equal protection arguments, and why Kennedy chose one rather than the other. We also looked at the flow chart that Kennedy seemed to be following, and then how he pulled an unexpected word out of his hat at the end of the case. The assignment for Thursday 9/22 is to read in the text pp. 34-38, and to write out (for yourselves, not handed in) a case brief of Speelman.
Thursday, September 15, 2016
September 15, 2016
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 9/15, I distributed two handouts, my version of the Glucksberg case brief, and the Maine statutes regarding aiding suicide. We went through the Glucksberg case brief. Along the way, we laid out the organization of the federal court system, the difference between a panel opinion of a court of appeals decision versus an en banc opinion, and the citation form that lets you know what level of court opinion you are reading. We went over the Maine statute, and also citation form for Maine statutes. We will begin on Tuesday 9/20 with Obergefell (distributed on Tuesday). The additional reading for Tuesday 9/20 is to read in the text pp. 67-72 (Lawrence v. Texas).
In class today, Thursday 9/15, I distributed two handouts, my version of the Glucksberg case brief, and the Maine statutes regarding aiding suicide. We went through the Glucksberg case brief. Along the way, we laid out the organization of the federal court system, the difference between a panel opinion of a court of appeals decision versus an en banc opinion, and the citation form that lets you know what level of court opinion you are reading. We went over the Maine statute, and also citation form for Maine statutes. We will begin on Tuesday 9/20 with Obergefell (distributed on Tuesday). The additional reading for Tuesday 9/20 is to read in the text pp. 67-72 (Lawrence v. Texas).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)