PLS 306 Writing Assignment and Presentation (Analytic Paper)
Fall 2009
Dr. Mark J. Richards
You have been issued a special invitation to participate in a conference from 12/1 – 12/8. The theme of the conference is “Major Rehnquist and Roberts Court Rulings on Government Power in the New Millennium: War on Terror, Commerce Clause, Takings Clause, and Campaign Finance.” You are very excited to participate because you love the theme, plus it will count for 30% of your grade in PLS 306.
Paper is due Th 12/3 via email (richardm@gvsu.edu).
Grading
95% of your grade on this assignment will be based on the final version of your paper.
5% of your grade on this assignment will be based on your oral presentation for the conference panel
In grading your final paper, the main criteria I will take into account will be:
How well did the paper demonstrate thorough preparation and research?
How well written was the paper in terms of style, organization, and mechanics?
Did the paper take into account major counterarguments and respond to them?
Oral Presentation for conference panel
Prepare an 5 minute presentation based on your research. The presentation should highlight your main findings. You will be graded based on length and quality of presentation. Do not just read from your paper. You should prepare a presentation of appropriate length and practice it to make sure that you are within the time limit. Cutting and pasting portions of your paper and adapting this material to the panel format is encouraged. You can use PowerPoint, but it is not required. I will serve as the discussant for the panel, and offer feedback on each paper. I will group the panels according to topic. You will be encouraged to offer questions and comments on your peers’ presentations.
Page limit and Format
6 double-spaced pages minimum (to avoid an F). 10 double-spaced pages maximum.
Use page numbers.
Your research should be written in American Political Science Association (APSA) format, unless indicated otherwise here (see section on citing cases below). Information on APSA format for citations, references can be found at:
http://www.wisc.edu/writing/Handbook/DocAPSA.html
All GVSU policies and codes regarding academic honesty and plagiarism apply. You should cite any language or key ideas taken from sources such as legal opinions, texts or articles. Cite the name of the author, year, and page number. Case citations should include the name of the case, volume, reporter name, first page number of case, page from which the material was taken, and year, (e.g. Smith v. Jones, 100 U.S. 123, 144, 1999). If you cite it again, you can just use the name and key page number (e.g. Smith, 146). If you cite a case from the O'Brien casebook, use the name of the case, volume, reporter name, first page number of case, and year (and cite O'Brien the first time you use it; e.g. Smith v. Jones, 100 U.S. 123, 1999, cited in O'Brien 2008); for additional citations it would be: (Smith 123).
As a general rule, your main citation should be to the source you are reading. Be sure to cite a lower court opinion when you use it, even when you read a lower court opinion that is citing the Supreme Court. Example 1: If you have a direct quote from a lower court opinion that contains other citations (known as internal citations), you should include the internal citations and cite the lower court. Example 2: If you use an idea from an opinion called McDonaugh v. State that you read about in an opinion called Hogwallop v. U.S., you should use Hogwallop v. U.S. as your main citation, but mention McDonaugh v. State. Your sentence might look like this: McDonaugh v. State (98 U.S. 333, 335, 2001) established strict scrutiny as the standard of review (Hogwallop v. U.S., 100 U.S. 123, 144, 2002). Alternatively, you could phrase it like this: Hogwallop v. U.S. (100 U.S. 123, 144, 2002), citing McDonaugh v. State (98 U.S. 333, 335, 2001), noted that the standard of review is strict scrutiny.
Choosing a case
Everyone will analyze one of the major cases decided during the recent time period, based on the attached table. I will pass around a sign-up sheet in class so you can pick your case. There will be a maximum of four people who can choose the same case. Everyone must do his/her own work, including research.
Finding your case:
For the most recent cases I have included a direct link to Findlaw in the table.
Westlaw: Westlaw is accessible from home.
1. Start at the GVSU homepage: www.gvsu.edu
2. Select "Library."
3. Scroll down to and click "Databases."
4. Click on "W."
5. Click on "WestLaw Campus."
6. Read the access agreement. If you consent, click "Go."
7. Click on the Law tab. Refer to the citation of the case you are retrieving. In the box titled: "Find a Document by citation" (located in the top left corner) enter the citation, including volume, reporter (or law review) name, and page number, e.g. 222 F. 3d 719. Now click "Go."
8. If everything went right, you should only have one search result. Check to see that the citation and date are correct. If so, then save and/or print.
9. Note: When you use Westlaw it will provide multiple West keynotes at the top of the article. Just ignore those as they are not officially part of the opinion and are primarily designed for lawyers doing more in-depth research.
Writing
Essentially you are analyzing one case in great depth. Your required research is to read and analyze your case. You will also be referring to key precedents. In analyzing your case, here are some of the questions you should consider:
What are the main issues in the case? I encourage you to check with me to make sure you have the issues correct.
How did the justices vote on the issues? Make a table something like this:
Justice Attitudes (Appointing President)Issue 1 (briefly describe) Issue 2
Rehnquist (RN, RR) Pro-government Pro-government
Stevens (GF) Anti-government Pro-government
O’Connor (RR) Pro-government Pro-government
Scalia (RR) Anti-government Pro-government
Kennedy (RR) Pro-government Pro-government
Souter (GB) Anti-government Pro-government
Thomas (GB) Pro-government Pro-government
Ginsburg (WC) Anti-government Anti-government
Breyer (WC) Anti-government Anti-government
Roberts (GWB) If necessary
Alito (GWB) If necessary
Be sure to get the voting alignments correct per issue. Please note in the text which justices wrote an opinion and which justices joined each opinion.
Did the majority opinion apply a standard of review? (If there is not a majority, use the plurality opinion.) If so, what standard did they apply? Why? Did the concurring or dissenting justices apply a different standard? Why? How did the standard apply, and was there disagreement? (E.g. If the justices applied strict scrutiny, explain whether they found a compelling government interest and whether they found the government used the least restrictive means to achieve that interest.) If there is not a dissenting opinion, use the view of the party that lost instead.
What are the main precedents used by the majority? Did the dissenting justices apply the same precedents or different ones? How did the precedents apply? Was there disagreement over how the precedents applied? (Note on citation: Be sure to attribute sources correctly. If you are quoting the precedent as you read it from your case, be sure to cite both sources, otherwise it gives the false impression that you read the precedent directly.)
Did the politics of the justices matter in their decision making?
Analysis of Briefs: In Westlaw, after you have found the case and opened it, at the top of the page, immediate after the citations, click on the link “Briefs and Other Related Documents.” Read the petitioner’s brief and the respondent’s brief. The petitioner is the party listed first in the Supreme Court opinion and is the party challenging the ruling of the highest court that took the case prior to it coming to the Supreme Court. There may also be a number of briefs labeled “amicus curiae,” which means friend of the court. Count how many are in favor of petitioner and respondent, and note that in your paper; if there are none, note that instead. Also note whether there was an amicus brief filed by the United States, and which side the U.S. supported. If the U.S. is a party to the case the U.S. brief would be either a petitioner or respondent brief. Read one amicus curiae brief, if available, and note which one you read in your paper. In your analysis of the petitioner, respondent and amicus curiae briefs, discuss the following: Did you find any legal, policy, or normative arguments in any of the briefs that were not addressed by the Court’s opinion(s)? In your view, which side wrote a better brief, and why? For the amicus brief, why do you think this group filed the brief? E.g., did the group filing the brief make any normative or policy arguments that seemed to reflect the perspective of the group? Did you find these arguments persuasive and did they matter to the Court?
Did the majority make the right decision, in your view? In answering this, think about the relevance of law, precedent, politics, normative values, and policy. By policy I mean the effect it will have on future cases and on how policy is made or how people behave. As you answer this, be sure to explain the best arguments of the opposing side, and why you think they are wrong.
What issues did the justices leave unresolved, if any? What additional issues are likely to arise in the future as a result of the Court’s decision?
Monday, November 9, 2009
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Office Hours and Contact Information, Fall 2009
Mark J. Richards, Ph.D.
Fall 2009 Office Hours and Contact Information
Office Hours in 1106 ASH: Tu 10-1, or by appointment. I will also have office hours Th 11-1 in PERL (GVSU's pre-law residence hall, located in Johnson Living Center, next Robinson Field and behind MAK; knock on the window to the right of the front door and I'll let you in.)
E-mail: richardm@gvsu.edu
Blog: http://freespeechpolitics.blogspot.com
Voice mail: 331-3457
Fall 2009 Office Hours and Contact Information
Office Hours in 1106 ASH: Tu 10-1, or by appointment. I will also have office hours Th 11-1 in PERL (GVSU's pre-law residence hall, located in Johnson Living Center, next Robinson Field and behind MAK; knock on the window to the right of the front door and I'll let you in.)
E-mail: richardm@gvsu.edu
Blog: http://freespeechpolitics.blogspot.com
Voice mail: 331-3457
Reading List By Date, Constitutional Law I, Fall 2009
Reading List By Date, Constitutional Law I, Fall 2009
Course Outline and Reading List
Notes: All Supreme Court case names refer to case opinions in the O'Brien texts (see table of contents or index of cases, bold font). I will also assign additional readings from the O'Brien texts that are not limited to particular cases, and these are indicated by page numbers.
All other readings are found on the course website under lecture outlines.
I. Judicial Review and Democracy
Tu 9/1: Introduction
The U.S. Constitution, O'Brien pp. 1-21
Th 9/3: Judicial Review and Democracy
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Tu 9/8: Labor Day Holiday (no class)
Th 9/10: Liberty of Contract
O'Brien pp. 1020-1032
Lochner v. NY (1905)
West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937)
Tu 9/15: Theories of Constitutional Interpretation
O'Brien pp. 23-27, 66-97, 174
Th 9/17: Jurisdiction and Justiciable Controversies
O'Brien pp. 102-128
Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc. (2007)
Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (2004)
Tu 9/22: Jurisdiction and Justiciable Controversies continued
Baker v. Carr (1962)
Goldwater v. Carter (1979)
Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan. 568 F. Supp. 596, aff’d 770 F.2d 202 (1985) (on course blog under 306 assignments, 306 readings)
II. President and Foreign Affairs Power
Th 9/24: Two Views
O'Brien pp. 232-240
U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright Corp. (1936)
Youngstown Sheet and Tube v. Sawyer (1952)
Dames and Moore v. Regan (1981)
Tu 9/29: War-Making Powers
O'Brien pp. 264-269
The Prize Cases (1863)
War Powers Resolution (pp. 325-330)
Th 10/1-Tu 10/6: Emergency Powers and Civil Liberties
Ex Parte Milligan (1866)
Korematsu v. U.S. (1944)
Th 10/8: Recent Issues in the War on Terror
O'Brien pp. 269-276
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004)
Rasul v. Bush (2004)
Tu 10/13: Recent Issues in the War on Terror continued
O'Brien, pp. 330-337
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006)
Boumediene v. Bush (2008) (on course blog under 306 assignments, 306 readings)
III. Oral Argument
Readings on oral argument, conference deliberations, opinion writing, and opinion days: O'Brien pp. 181-190
Th 10/15 – Th 10/22
IV. Presidential Accountability and Immunities
Tu 10/27: Presidential Accountability and Immunities
Oral Argument Paper Due
Th 10/29: Presidential Accountability and Immunities
O'Brien, pp. 453-460
US v. Nixon (1974)
Clinton v. Jones (1997)
V. Separation of Powers
Tu 11/3: Congressional Power
O'Brien pp. 416-424
INS v. Chadha (1983)
Clinton v. City of New York (1998)
VI. Federalism
Th 11/5: Federalism
O'Brien pp. 681-691
James Madison, Federalist 39 (find it on the Internet)
Federalism: Tenth and Eleventh Amendments
O'Brien pp. 728-735
Garcia v. San Antonio (1985)
Printz v. U.S. and Mack v. U.S. (1997)
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida (1996)
Alden v. Maine (1999)
Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs (2003)
VII. National and State Power
Tu 11/10: Finish Federalism
The Scope of National Power
O'Brien pp. 542-553
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
National Commerce Power
O'Brien pp. 585-591
Wickard v. Filburn (1941)
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S. and Katzenbach v. McClung (1964)
United States v. Lopez (1995)
United States v. Morrison (2000)
Gonzales v. Raich (2005)
Gonzales v. Oregon (2006)
Th 11/12: Finish National Commerce Power
Commerce Power and State Power
O'Brien pp. 691-697
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
Cooley v. Board of Wardens (1851)
VIII. Takings Clause and Just Compensation
O'Brien, pp. 1054-1059, 1077-1079
Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (1984)
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992)
Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut (2005)
IX. Voting Rights and Electoral Politics
Tu 11/17: Campaign Finance
O'Brien pp. 906-914
Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
McConnell v. FEC (2003)
FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life (2007)
Th 11/19: Voting Rights and Race
O'Brien pp. 833-844; 855-864
Grovey v. Townsend and Smith v. Allwright (see O'Brien p. 876)
Shaw v. Reno (1993)
Shaw v. Hunt (1996) (see p. 897)
Hunt v. Cromartie (2001)
Tu 11/24: Bush v. Gore (2000)
Th 11/26 Thanksgiving Holiday
X. Research paper panels
Tu 12/1 - Th 12/10 (Exact schedule to be determined)
Research paper due: Th 12/3
Final exam due: Monday, December 14, 2 p.m.
Course Outline and Reading List
Notes: All Supreme Court case names refer to case opinions in the O'Brien texts (see table of contents or index of cases, bold font). I will also assign additional readings from the O'Brien texts that are not limited to particular cases, and these are indicated by page numbers.
All other readings are found on the course website under lecture outlines.
I. Judicial Review and Democracy
Tu 9/1: Introduction
The U.S. Constitution, O'Brien pp. 1-21
Th 9/3: Judicial Review and Democracy
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Tu 9/8: Labor Day Holiday (no class)
Th 9/10: Liberty of Contract
O'Brien pp. 1020-1032
Lochner v. NY (1905)
West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937)
Tu 9/15: Theories of Constitutional Interpretation
O'Brien pp. 23-27, 66-97, 174
Th 9/17: Jurisdiction and Justiciable Controversies
O'Brien pp. 102-128
Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc. (2007)
Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (2004)
Tu 9/22: Jurisdiction and Justiciable Controversies continued
Baker v. Carr (1962)
Goldwater v. Carter (1979)
Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan. 568 F. Supp. 596, aff’d 770 F.2d 202 (1985) (on course blog under 306 assignments, 306 readings)
II. President and Foreign Affairs Power
Th 9/24: Two Views
O'Brien pp. 232-240
U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright Corp. (1936)
Youngstown Sheet and Tube v. Sawyer (1952)
Dames and Moore v. Regan (1981)
Tu 9/29: War-Making Powers
O'Brien pp. 264-269
The Prize Cases (1863)
War Powers Resolution (pp. 325-330)
Th 10/1-Tu 10/6: Emergency Powers and Civil Liberties
Ex Parte Milligan (1866)
Korematsu v. U.S. (1944)
Th 10/8: Recent Issues in the War on Terror
O'Brien pp. 269-276
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004)
Rasul v. Bush (2004)
Tu 10/13: Recent Issues in the War on Terror continued
O'Brien, pp. 330-337
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006)
Boumediene v. Bush (2008) (on course blog under 306 assignments, 306 readings)
III. Oral Argument
Readings on oral argument, conference deliberations, opinion writing, and opinion days: O'Brien pp. 181-190
Th 10/15 – Th 10/22
IV. Presidential Accountability and Immunities
Tu 10/27: Presidential Accountability and Immunities
Oral Argument Paper Due
Th 10/29: Presidential Accountability and Immunities
O'Brien, pp. 453-460
US v. Nixon (1974)
Clinton v. Jones (1997)
V. Separation of Powers
Tu 11/3: Congressional Power
O'Brien pp. 416-424
INS v. Chadha (1983)
Clinton v. City of New York (1998)
VI. Federalism
Th 11/5: Federalism
O'Brien pp. 681-691
James Madison, Federalist 39 (find it on the Internet)
Federalism: Tenth and Eleventh Amendments
O'Brien pp. 728-735
Garcia v. San Antonio (1985)
Printz v. U.S. and Mack v. U.S. (1997)
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida (1996)
Alden v. Maine (1999)
Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs (2003)
VII. National and State Power
Tu 11/10: Finish Federalism
The Scope of National Power
O'Brien pp. 542-553
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
National Commerce Power
O'Brien pp. 585-591
Wickard v. Filburn (1941)
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S. and Katzenbach v. McClung (1964)
United States v. Lopez (1995)
United States v. Morrison (2000)
Gonzales v. Raich (2005)
Gonzales v. Oregon (2006)
Th 11/12: Finish National Commerce Power
Commerce Power and State Power
O'Brien pp. 691-697
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
Cooley v. Board of Wardens (1851)
VIII. Takings Clause and Just Compensation
O'Brien, pp. 1054-1059, 1077-1079
Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (1984)
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992)
Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut (2005)
IX. Voting Rights and Electoral Politics
Tu 11/17: Campaign Finance
O'Brien pp. 906-914
Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
McConnell v. FEC (2003)
FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life (2007)
Th 11/19: Voting Rights and Race
O'Brien pp. 833-844; 855-864
Grovey v. Townsend and Smith v. Allwright (see O'Brien p. 876)
Shaw v. Reno (1993)
Shaw v. Hunt (1996) (see p. 897)
Hunt v. Cromartie (2001)
Tu 11/24: Bush v. Gore (2000)
Th 11/26 Thanksgiving Holiday
X. Research paper panels
Tu 12/1 - Th 12/10 (Exact schedule to be determined)
Research paper due: Th 12/3
Final exam due: Monday, December 14, 2 p.m.
Constitutional Law I Syllabus Fall 2009
PLS 306 Constitutional Law I: Federalism and Separation of Powers
Mark J. Richards, Ph.D.
Fall 2009, TR 1-2:15, D1233 MAK
Office Hours in 1106 ASH: Tu 10-1, or by appointment. I will also have office hours Th 11-1 in PERL (GVSU's pre-law residence hall, located in Johnson Living Center, next Robinson Field and behind MAK; knock on the window to the right of the front door and I'll let you in.)
E-mail: richardm@gvsu.edu
Blog: http://freespeechpolitics.blogspot.com/
Voice mail: 331-3457
Course Description: Federalism and separation of powers. This course examines the constitutional foundations of the power relationship between the federal government and the states, among the three branches of the federal government, and between the government and the individual, with special emphasis given to the role of the Supreme Court in a democratic political system. Prerequisite: PLS 102 or junior standing.
Course Objectives
- Understand how the U.S. political system and the Supreme Court relate to the concept of democracy
- Understand how the constitutional foundations of separate powers and federalism
- Understand the constitutional sources of presidential, congressional, state and national power
- Understand how the Constitution structures voting rights and electoral politics
- Make logical and consistent arguments
- Think critically and analytically
- Clearly express your opinions, both orally and in writing
- Articulate opposing viewpoints and respond to them
Course Requirements
Grades: Grades will be determined by the following:30%: oral argument paper 10%: participation in class discussions 5%: attendance30%: research paper25%: final exam
You must complete all components, including the oral and written components of the oral argument, to receive a passing grade.
Grade penalties will be imposed for late assignments. Make-up exams will not be given unless exceptional circumstances prevail. Leaving town early for vacation does not qualify as an exceptional circumstance.
Democracy Theme: This course is part of the Democracy General Education Theme.
Democracy Theme Objectives:
-Explore various definitions and concepts of democracy. The student will be able to explain how U.S. Supreme Court rulings have shaped the types and aspects of American democracy, such as varying conceptions of federalism and the separation of powers among the legislative, executive and judicial branches.
-Examine the role of the individual in democracies. The student will be able to evaluate the effect of U.S. Supreme Court rulings on the role of the individual in American democracy in areas such as voting rights.
-Analyze how social institutions embody democratic ideals, for example, legal, economic, civic, scientific, and educational institutions. The student will be able to analyze the extent to which democracy is embodied in the U.S. Supreme Court, Congress, the presidency, and state governments.
General Education Objectives:
This course is part of GVSU’s General Education Program. The goal of the program is to prepare you for intelligent participation in public dialogues that consider the issues of humane living and responsible action in local, national, and global communities. The program is designed to increase your knowledge and skills in the following areas:
Knowledge Goals
1. The major areas of human investigation and accomplishment - the arts, the humanities, the mathematical sciences, the natural sciences, and the social sciences.
2. An understanding of one's own culture and the cultures of others.
3. The tradition of humane inquiry that informs moral and ethical choices.
Skills goals
1. To engage in articulate expression through effective writing
2. To engage in articulate expression through effective speaking.
3. To think critically and creatively.
4. To locate, evaluate, and use information effectively.
5. To integrate different areas of knowledge and view ideas from multiple perspectives.
Grading policy:
The grades of "+" and "-" reflect variation among these categories.
A: The grade of A indicates the student has made an excellent effort, demonstrated thorough knowledge of the lecture materials and readings, and integrated knowledge in an analytic, concise, and cogent manner. The grade of A reflects that the student's work was superior with respect to all of these considerations, as compared to nearly everyone else in the class.
B: The grade of B indicates that the student has made an excellent effort, demonstrated solid knowledge of the lecture materials and readings, and integrated knowledge in an analytic, concise, and cogent manner. The grade of B reflects that the student's work could have been significantly improved with respect to at least one of these considerations.
C: The grade of C indicates that the student has made an average effort, demonstrated acceptable knowledge of the lecture materials and readings, and showed some integration of knowledge in an analytic, concise, and cogent manner. The grade of C reflects that the student's work could have been significantly improved with respect to at least two of these considerations
D: The grade of D indicates that the student has a serious deficiency in terms of at least one of the following factors: effort, knowledge of lecture materials and readings, and integration of knowledge.
F: The grade of F indicates that the student has a serious deficiency in terms of at least two of the following factors: effort, knowledge of lecture materials and readings, and integration of knowledge.
Grading scale
93-96 A
90-92 A-
87-89 B+
83-86 B
80-82 B-
77-9 C+
73-76 C
70-72 C-
67-9 D+
60-66 D
0-59 F
Preparation and participation: You should have the day’s readings completed before you attend lecture, and should be prepared to discuss the readings. The amount of reading is quite reasonable. You will be able to better understand lectures if you are prepared.
Grading for participation is based on the quantity and quality of participation and assessed according to the professor's discretion. Attendance is graded separately. A complete absence of participation results in a grade of zero for the participation component of the course. A general guideline is that students seeking an average grade for participation (B-) should participate meaningfully at least once per lecture topic, although this will vary depending on the nature of a particular class session.
Classroom Etiquette: When we are present in the classroom we are here to learn about the course subject and participate in the class. I have found that some types of behavior can be detrimental to your own learning or that of your peers. In order to foster an atmosphere of participation and learning, I have developed the following guidelines:
1. Please do not use any electronic devices (e.g. computers, cell phones, Blackberries, etc.). The exception would be if it is required as an accommodation due to a qualified disability and approved by me in advance.
2. Please be polite and do not talk or whisper when other people are talking.
3. Please do not do any work or activity not related to the course (e.g. reading newspaper or doing work for another course).
4. If you need to leave the class early, please let me know in advance.
5. Please do your best to arrive on time.
Failure to comply with these guidelines will negatively impact your participation grade, determined at my discretion.
Lecture outlines: Outlines of lectures will be available at the course blog:
http://freespeechpolitics.blogspot.com/
Keep in mind that these are only outlines, and you are still responsible for taking supplementary notes. The outlines are meant to facilitate your note taking and understanding, but are not a substitute for reading and participating in class.
Honesty: I expect full compliance with all GVSU policies and regulations regarding academic misconduct and plagiarism (see the GVSU Catalog and the Student Code). Please talk to me if you are having a problem. Don’t risk your reputation.
Access: If you have questions about anything related to the course, please visit or call during office hours, send e-mail, or set up an appointment.
Accommodations: If there is any student in this class who has special needs because of learning, physical or other disability, please contact me and Disability Support Services (DSS) at 616.331.249. Furthermore, if you have a disability and think you will need assistance evacuating this classroom and/or building in an emergency situation, please make me aware so I can develop a plan to assist you.
Attendance policy: Attendance is an integral part of your university education. Interacting with your instructor and your peers is essential to your education. Attendance is worth 5% of your overall course grade, unless you miss 6 or more courses (resulting in an F for the course), and is determined by the policy elaborated here.
Certain assignments may require your mandatory attendance.
I will pass around an attendance sheet at the beginning of each class. Sign it when you are present. There is no need to provide a reason or excuse for your absence as all absences affect your attendance grade. Keep in mind you can miss two classes and still get an A for attendance so try to save those two absences for anything important.
Absences for events related to GVSU athletics, student organizations, etc. must be supported by signed documentation from, as appropriate, a coach, designated staff, or faculty advisor.
The grading scale for attendance:
0 absences: 100
1-2 absences: A (95)
3 absences: B (85)
4 absences: C (75)
5 absences: D (65)
6 or more absences: FAIL THE COURSE
Pre-law advising: I am a pre-law advisor for GVSU. Any students interested in attending law school should consult the pre-law FAQ on my course blog:
http://freespeechpolitics.blogspot.com/
This pre-law FAQ is also available via:
http://gvsu.edu/prelaw
Course Material:The following required book will be available at the bookstore:
1. David M. O'Brien. 2008. Constitutional Law and Politics, vol. one: Struggles for Power and Governmental Accountability. 7th Edition.Some additional reading material in electronic form will be assigned during the semester.
Course Outline and Reading List
Notes: All Supreme Court case names refer to case opinions in the O'Brien texts (see table of contents or index of cases, bold font). I will also assign additional readings from the O'Brien texts that are not limited to particular cases, and these are indicated by page numbers.
All other readings are found on the course website under lecture outlines.
I. Judicial Review and Democracy
Tu 9/1: Introduction
The U.S. Constitution, O'Brien pp. 1-21
Th 9/3: Judicial Review and Democracy
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Tu 9/8: Labor Day Holiday (no class)
Th 9/10: Liberty of Contract
O'Brien pp. 1020-1032
Lochner v. NY (1905)
West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937)
Tu 9/15: Theories of Constitutional Interpretation
O'Brien pp. 23-27, 66-97, 174
Th 9/17: Jurisdiction and Justiciable Controversies
O'Brien pp. 102-128
Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc. (2007)
Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (2004)
Tu 9/22: Jurisdiction and Justiciable Controversies continued
Baker v. Carr (1962)
Goldwater v. Carter (1979)
Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan. 568 F. Supp. 596, aff’d 770 F.2d 202 (1985) (on course blog under 306 assignments, 306 readings)
II. President and Foreign Affairs Power
Th 9/24: Two Views
O'Brien pp. 232-240
U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright Corp. (1936)
Youngstown Sheet and Tube v. Sawyer (1952)
Dames and Moore v. Regan (1981)
Tu 9/29: War-Making Powers
O'Brien pp. 264-269
The Prize Cases (1863)
War Powers Resolution (pp. 325-330)
Th 10/1-Tu 10/6: Emergency Powers and Civil Liberties
Ex Parte Milligan (1866)
Korematsu v. U.S. (1944)
Th 10/8: Recent Issues in the War on Terror
O'Brien pp. 269-276
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004)
Rasul v. Bush (2004)
Tu 10/13: Recent Issues in the War on Terror continued
O'Brien, pp. 330-337
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006)
Boumediene v. Bush (2008) (on course blog under 306 assignments, 306 readings)
III. Oral Argument
Readings on oral argument, conference deliberations, opinion writing, and opinion days: O'Brien pp. 181-190
Th 10/15 – Th 10/22
IV. Presidential Accountability and Immunities
Tu 10/27: Presidential Accountability and Immunities
Oral Argument Paper Due
Th 10/29: Presidential Accountability and Immunities
O'Brien, pp. 453-460
US v. Nixon (1974)
Clinton v. Jones (1997)
V. Separation of Powers
Tu 11/3: Congressional Power
O'Brien pp. 416-424
INS v. Chadha (1983)
Clinton v. City of New York (1998)
VI. Federalism
Th 11/5: Federalism
O'Brien pp. 681-691
James Madison, Federalist 39 (find it on the Internet)
Federalism: Tenth and Eleventh Amendments
O'Brien pp. 728-735
Garcia v. San Antonio (1985)
Printz v. U.S. and Mack v. U.S. (1997)
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida (1996)
Alden v. Maine (1999)
Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs (2003)
VII. National and State Power
Tu 11/10: Finish Federalism
The Scope of National Power
O'Brien pp. 542-553
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
National Commerce Power
O'Brien pp. 585-591
Wickard v. Filburn (1941)
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S. and Katzenbach v. McClung (1964)
United States v. Lopez (1995)
United States v. Morrison (2000)
Gonzales v. Raich (2005)
Gonzales v. Oregon (2006)
Th 11/12: Finish National Commerce Power
Commerce Power and State Power
O'Brien pp. 691-697
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
Cooley v. Board of Wardens (1851)
VIII. Takings Clause and Just Compensation
O'Brien, pp. 1054-1059, 1077-1079
Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (1984)
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992)
Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut (2005)
IX. Voting Rights and Electoral Politics
Tu 11/17: Campaign Finance
O'Brien pp. 906-914
Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
McConnell v. FEC (2003)
FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life (2007)
Th 11/19: Voting Rights and Race
O'Brien pp. 833-844; 855-864
Grovey v. Townsend and Smith v. Allwright (see O'Brien p. 876)
Shaw v. Reno (1993)
Shaw v. Hunt (1996) (see p. 897)
Hunt v. Cromartie (2001)
Tu 11/24: Bush v. Gore (2000)
Th 11/26 Thanksgiving Holiday
X. Research paper panels
Tu 12/1 - Th 12/10 (Exact schedule to be determined)
Research paper due: Th 12/3
Final exam due: Monday, December 14, 2 p.m.
Mark J. Richards, Ph.D.
Fall 2009, TR 1-2:15, D1233 MAK
Office Hours in 1106 ASH: Tu 10-1, or by appointment. I will also have office hours Th 11-1 in PERL (GVSU's pre-law residence hall, located in Johnson Living Center, next Robinson Field and behind MAK; knock on the window to the right of the front door and I'll let you in.)
E-mail: richardm@gvsu.edu
Blog: http://freespeechpolitics.blogspot.com/
Voice mail: 331-3457
Course Description: Federalism and separation of powers. This course examines the constitutional foundations of the power relationship between the federal government and the states, among the three branches of the federal government, and between the government and the individual, with special emphasis given to the role of the Supreme Court in a democratic political system. Prerequisite: PLS 102 or junior standing.
Course Objectives
- Understand how the U.S. political system and the Supreme Court relate to the concept of democracy
- Understand how the constitutional foundations of separate powers and federalism
- Understand the constitutional sources of presidential, congressional, state and national power
- Understand how the Constitution structures voting rights and electoral politics
- Make logical and consistent arguments
- Think critically and analytically
- Clearly express your opinions, both orally and in writing
- Articulate opposing viewpoints and respond to them
Course Requirements
Grades: Grades will be determined by the following:30%: oral argument paper 10%: participation in class discussions 5%: attendance30%: research paper25%: final exam
You must complete all components, including the oral and written components of the oral argument, to receive a passing grade.
Grade penalties will be imposed for late assignments. Make-up exams will not be given unless exceptional circumstances prevail. Leaving town early for vacation does not qualify as an exceptional circumstance.
Democracy Theme: This course is part of the Democracy General Education Theme.
Democracy Theme Objectives:
-Explore various definitions and concepts of democracy. The student will be able to explain how U.S. Supreme Court rulings have shaped the types and aspects of American democracy, such as varying conceptions of federalism and the separation of powers among the legislative, executive and judicial branches.
-Examine the role of the individual in democracies. The student will be able to evaluate the effect of U.S. Supreme Court rulings on the role of the individual in American democracy in areas such as voting rights.
-Analyze how social institutions embody democratic ideals, for example, legal, economic, civic, scientific, and educational institutions. The student will be able to analyze the extent to which democracy is embodied in the U.S. Supreme Court, Congress, the presidency, and state governments.
General Education Objectives:
This course is part of GVSU’s General Education Program. The goal of the program is to prepare you for intelligent participation in public dialogues that consider the issues of humane living and responsible action in local, national, and global communities. The program is designed to increase your knowledge and skills in the following areas:
Knowledge Goals
1. The major areas of human investigation and accomplishment - the arts, the humanities, the mathematical sciences, the natural sciences, and the social sciences.
2. An understanding of one's own culture and the cultures of others.
3. The tradition of humane inquiry that informs moral and ethical choices.
Skills goals
1. To engage in articulate expression through effective writing
2. To engage in articulate expression through effective speaking.
3. To think critically and creatively.
4. To locate, evaluate, and use information effectively.
5. To integrate different areas of knowledge and view ideas from multiple perspectives.
Grading policy:
The grades of "+" and "-" reflect variation among these categories.
A: The grade of A indicates the student has made an excellent effort, demonstrated thorough knowledge of the lecture materials and readings, and integrated knowledge in an analytic, concise, and cogent manner. The grade of A reflects that the student's work was superior with respect to all of these considerations, as compared to nearly everyone else in the class.
B: The grade of B indicates that the student has made an excellent effort, demonstrated solid knowledge of the lecture materials and readings, and integrated knowledge in an analytic, concise, and cogent manner. The grade of B reflects that the student's work could have been significantly improved with respect to at least one of these considerations.
C: The grade of C indicates that the student has made an average effort, demonstrated acceptable knowledge of the lecture materials and readings, and showed some integration of knowledge in an analytic, concise, and cogent manner. The grade of C reflects that the student's work could have been significantly improved with respect to at least two of these considerations
D: The grade of D indicates that the student has a serious deficiency in terms of at least one of the following factors: effort, knowledge of lecture materials and readings, and integration of knowledge.
F: The grade of F indicates that the student has a serious deficiency in terms of at least two of the following factors: effort, knowledge of lecture materials and readings, and integration of knowledge.
Grading scale
93-96 A
90-92 A-
87-89 B+
83-86 B
80-82 B-
77-9 C+
73-76 C
70-72 C-
67-9 D+
60-66 D
0-59 F
Preparation and participation: You should have the day’s readings completed before you attend lecture, and should be prepared to discuss the readings. The amount of reading is quite reasonable. You will be able to better understand lectures if you are prepared.
Grading for participation is based on the quantity and quality of participation and assessed according to the professor's discretion. Attendance is graded separately. A complete absence of participation results in a grade of zero for the participation component of the course. A general guideline is that students seeking an average grade for participation (B-) should participate meaningfully at least once per lecture topic, although this will vary depending on the nature of a particular class session.
Classroom Etiquette: When we are present in the classroom we are here to learn about the course subject and participate in the class. I have found that some types of behavior can be detrimental to your own learning or that of your peers. In order to foster an atmosphere of participation and learning, I have developed the following guidelines:
1. Please do not use any electronic devices (e.g. computers, cell phones, Blackberries, etc.). The exception would be if it is required as an accommodation due to a qualified disability and approved by me in advance.
2. Please be polite and do not talk or whisper when other people are talking.
3. Please do not do any work or activity not related to the course (e.g. reading newspaper or doing work for another course).
4. If you need to leave the class early, please let me know in advance.
5. Please do your best to arrive on time.
Failure to comply with these guidelines will negatively impact your participation grade, determined at my discretion.
Lecture outlines: Outlines of lectures will be available at the course blog:
http://freespeechpolitics.blogspot.com/
Keep in mind that these are only outlines, and you are still responsible for taking supplementary notes. The outlines are meant to facilitate your note taking and understanding, but are not a substitute for reading and participating in class.
Honesty: I expect full compliance with all GVSU policies and regulations regarding academic misconduct and plagiarism (see the GVSU Catalog and the Student Code). Please talk to me if you are having a problem. Don’t risk your reputation.
Access: If you have questions about anything related to the course, please visit or call during office hours, send e-mail, or set up an appointment.
Accommodations: If there is any student in this class who has special needs because of learning, physical or other disability, please contact me and Disability Support Services (DSS) at 616.331.249. Furthermore, if you have a disability and think you will need assistance evacuating this classroom and/or building in an emergency situation, please make me aware so I can develop a plan to assist you.
Attendance policy: Attendance is an integral part of your university education. Interacting with your instructor and your peers is essential to your education. Attendance is worth 5% of your overall course grade, unless you miss 6 or more courses (resulting in an F for the course), and is determined by the policy elaborated here.
Certain assignments may require your mandatory attendance.
I will pass around an attendance sheet at the beginning of each class. Sign it when you are present. There is no need to provide a reason or excuse for your absence as all absences affect your attendance grade. Keep in mind you can miss two classes and still get an A for attendance so try to save those two absences for anything important.
Absences for events related to GVSU athletics, student organizations, etc. must be supported by signed documentation from, as appropriate, a coach, designated staff, or faculty advisor.
The grading scale for attendance:
0 absences: 100
1-2 absences: A (95)
3 absences: B (85)
4 absences: C (75)
5 absences: D (65)
6 or more absences: FAIL THE COURSE
Pre-law advising: I am a pre-law advisor for GVSU. Any students interested in attending law school should consult the pre-law FAQ on my course blog:
http://freespeechpolitics.blogspot.com/
This pre-law FAQ is also available via:
http://gvsu.edu/prelaw
Course Material:The following required book will be available at the bookstore:
1. David M. O'Brien. 2008. Constitutional Law and Politics, vol. one: Struggles for Power and Governmental Accountability. 7th Edition.Some additional reading material in electronic form will be assigned during the semester.
Course Outline and Reading List
Notes: All Supreme Court case names refer to case opinions in the O'Brien texts (see table of contents or index of cases, bold font). I will also assign additional readings from the O'Brien texts that are not limited to particular cases, and these are indicated by page numbers.
All other readings are found on the course website under lecture outlines.
I. Judicial Review and Democracy
Tu 9/1: Introduction
The U.S. Constitution, O'Brien pp. 1-21
Th 9/3: Judicial Review and Democracy
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Tu 9/8: Labor Day Holiday (no class)
Th 9/10: Liberty of Contract
O'Brien pp. 1020-1032
Lochner v. NY (1905)
West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937)
Tu 9/15: Theories of Constitutional Interpretation
O'Brien pp. 23-27, 66-97, 174
Th 9/17: Jurisdiction and Justiciable Controversies
O'Brien pp. 102-128
Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc. (2007)
Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (2004)
Tu 9/22: Jurisdiction and Justiciable Controversies continued
Baker v. Carr (1962)
Goldwater v. Carter (1979)
Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan. 568 F. Supp. 596, aff’d 770 F.2d 202 (1985) (on course blog under 306 assignments, 306 readings)
II. President and Foreign Affairs Power
Th 9/24: Two Views
O'Brien pp. 232-240
U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright Corp. (1936)
Youngstown Sheet and Tube v. Sawyer (1952)
Dames and Moore v. Regan (1981)
Tu 9/29: War-Making Powers
O'Brien pp. 264-269
The Prize Cases (1863)
War Powers Resolution (pp. 325-330)
Th 10/1-Tu 10/6: Emergency Powers and Civil Liberties
Ex Parte Milligan (1866)
Korematsu v. U.S. (1944)
Th 10/8: Recent Issues in the War on Terror
O'Brien pp. 269-276
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004)
Rasul v. Bush (2004)
Tu 10/13: Recent Issues in the War on Terror continued
O'Brien, pp. 330-337
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006)
Boumediene v. Bush (2008) (on course blog under 306 assignments, 306 readings)
III. Oral Argument
Readings on oral argument, conference deliberations, opinion writing, and opinion days: O'Brien pp. 181-190
Th 10/15 – Th 10/22
IV. Presidential Accountability and Immunities
Tu 10/27: Presidential Accountability and Immunities
Oral Argument Paper Due
Th 10/29: Presidential Accountability and Immunities
O'Brien, pp. 453-460
US v. Nixon (1974)
Clinton v. Jones (1997)
V. Separation of Powers
Tu 11/3: Congressional Power
O'Brien pp. 416-424
INS v. Chadha (1983)
Clinton v. City of New York (1998)
VI. Federalism
Th 11/5: Federalism
O'Brien pp. 681-691
James Madison, Federalist 39 (find it on the Internet)
Federalism: Tenth and Eleventh Amendments
O'Brien pp. 728-735
Garcia v. San Antonio (1985)
Printz v. U.S. and Mack v. U.S. (1997)
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida (1996)
Alden v. Maine (1999)
Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs (2003)
VII. National and State Power
Tu 11/10: Finish Federalism
The Scope of National Power
O'Brien pp. 542-553
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
National Commerce Power
O'Brien pp. 585-591
Wickard v. Filburn (1941)
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S. and Katzenbach v. McClung (1964)
United States v. Lopez (1995)
United States v. Morrison (2000)
Gonzales v. Raich (2005)
Gonzales v. Oregon (2006)
Th 11/12: Finish National Commerce Power
Commerce Power and State Power
O'Brien pp. 691-697
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
Cooley v. Board of Wardens (1851)
VIII. Takings Clause and Just Compensation
O'Brien, pp. 1054-1059, 1077-1079
Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (1984)
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992)
Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut (2005)
IX. Voting Rights and Electoral Politics
Tu 11/17: Campaign Finance
O'Brien pp. 906-914
Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
McConnell v. FEC (2003)
FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life (2007)
Th 11/19: Voting Rights and Race
O'Brien pp. 833-844; 855-864
Grovey v. Townsend and Smith v. Allwright (see O'Brien p. 876)
Shaw v. Reno (1993)
Shaw v. Hunt (1996) (see p. 897)
Hunt v. Cromartie (2001)
Tu 11/24: Bush v. Gore (2000)
Th 11/26 Thanksgiving Holiday
X. Research paper panels
Tu 12/1 - Th 12/10 (Exact schedule to be determined)
Research paper due: Th 12/3
Final exam due: Monday, December 14, 2 p.m.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Democracy Theme Information
Democracy Theme Information
Constitutional Law I
Themes: Theme 23: Democracy
The historical roots of democracy extend to ancient Greece, but only since the mid-eighteenth century has it become a principle embraced by the masses and capable of sparking revolution. Moreover, what we think democracy means today in the United States often bears little resemblance to what it has meant in the past and what it currently means for other peoples around the globe. In fact, one might argue that Americans in the twenty-first century take democracy for granted and have little clear idea of what it entails or how it has shaped their politics, educational institutions, social relations, cultural values, economic practices, and legal system. These charges will not apply to students choosing the Democracy theme, which explores the meanings of democracy and its far-ranging and often unanticipated consequences from various points of view.
Theme Goals
All courses in Theme 23 – Democracy include the following content:
1. To explore the various definitions and concepts of democracies.
2. To examine the role of the individual in democracies.
3. To analyze the societal institutions that embody democratic ideals, for example, legal, economic, civic, scientific, and educational institutions.
This course is part of GVSU’s General Education Program.
The goal of the program is to prepare you for intelligent participation in public dialogues that consider the issues of humane living and responsible action in local, national, and global communities.
The program is designed to increase your knowledge and skills in the following areas:
Knowledge Goals
1. The major areas of human investigation and accomplishment - the arts, the humanities, the mathematical sciences, the natural sciences, and the social sciences.
2. An understanding of one's own culture and the cultures of others.
3. The tradition of humane inquiry that informs moral and ethical choices.
Skills goals
1. To engage in articulate expression through effective writing
2. To engage in articulate expression through effective speaking.
3. To think critically and creatively.
4. To locate, evaluate, and use information effectively.
5. To integrate different areas of knowledge and view ideas from multiple perspectives.
Ensuring that undergraduate students receive a broad general education has been a primary goal of colleges and universities since their inception. In this era of increasing specialization and growing demand for professional expertise, it is vital that we continue to emphasize the value of general learning.
GVSU maintains that a complete education involves more than preparation for a particular career. A career occurs in the context of a life, and a sound general education helps one “make a life” as well as “make a living.” The university is committed to assuring that all undergraduate students, regardless of academic major, receive a broad education rooted in the arts and sciences.
Teaching in the liberal tradition is at the heart of Grand Valley's identity, and this focus is critical in our General Education Program. Liberal education transcends the acquisition of information; it goes beyond the factual to ask important evaluative and philosophical questions. Liberal learning holds the fundamental principles and suppositions of a body of knowledge up to inquiry, question, and discussion. It helps a person recognize the assumptions under which he or she operates and encourages the examination and questioning of those assumptions. Liberal learning begins in the General Education Program and continues through the more specialized studies comprising each student's major and minor areas of study.
Grand Valley State University educates students to shape their lives, their professions, and their societies.
Constitutional Law I
Themes: Theme 23: Democracy
The historical roots of democracy extend to ancient Greece, but only since the mid-eighteenth century has it become a principle embraced by the masses and capable of sparking revolution. Moreover, what we think democracy means today in the United States often bears little resemblance to what it has meant in the past and what it currently means for other peoples around the globe. In fact, one might argue that Americans in the twenty-first century take democracy for granted and have little clear idea of what it entails or how it has shaped their politics, educational institutions, social relations, cultural values, economic practices, and legal system. These charges will not apply to students choosing the Democracy theme, which explores the meanings of democracy and its far-ranging and often unanticipated consequences from various points of view.
Theme Goals
All courses in Theme 23 – Democracy include the following content:
1. To explore the various definitions and concepts of democracies.
2. To examine the role of the individual in democracies.
3. To analyze the societal institutions that embody democratic ideals, for example, legal, economic, civic, scientific, and educational institutions.
This course is part of GVSU’s General Education Program.
The goal of the program is to prepare you for intelligent participation in public dialogues that consider the issues of humane living and responsible action in local, national, and global communities.
The program is designed to increase your knowledge and skills in the following areas:
Knowledge Goals
1. The major areas of human investigation and accomplishment - the arts, the humanities, the mathematical sciences, the natural sciences, and the social sciences.
2. An understanding of one's own culture and the cultures of others.
3. The tradition of humane inquiry that informs moral and ethical choices.
Skills goals
1. To engage in articulate expression through effective writing
2. To engage in articulate expression through effective speaking.
3. To think critically and creatively.
4. To locate, evaluate, and use information effectively.
5. To integrate different areas of knowledge and view ideas from multiple perspectives.
Ensuring that undergraduate students receive a broad general education has been a primary goal of colleges and universities since their inception. In this era of increasing specialization and growing demand for professional expertise, it is vital that we continue to emphasize the value of general learning.
GVSU maintains that a complete education involves more than preparation for a particular career. A career occurs in the context of a life, and a sound general education helps one “make a life” as well as “make a living.” The university is committed to assuring that all undergraduate students, regardless of academic major, receive a broad education rooted in the arts and sciences.
Teaching in the liberal tradition is at the heart of Grand Valley's identity, and this focus is critical in our General Education Program. Liberal education transcends the acquisition of information; it goes beyond the factual to ask important evaluative and philosophical questions. Liberal learning holds the fundamental principles and suppositions of a body of knowledge up to inquiry, question, and discussion. It helps a person recognize the assumptions under which he or she operates and encourages the examination and questioning of those assumptions. Liberal learning begins in the General Education Program and continues through the more specialized studies comprising each student's major and minor areas of study.
Grand Valley State University educates students to shape their lives, their professions, and their societies.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Oral Argument Paper Spring 2009
PLS 307 Constitutional Law II
Oral argument paper due: Wednesday, May 20, 2009, in class.
Professor Mark J. Richards
Format: Your paper should be word-processed and submitted on paper. It should be double-spaced and use page numbers. There is no need for a cover page. Just place your name at the top of the first page.
Page requirement: 4-7 pages. Anything less than four full pages will automatically receive an F. Anything written in excess of seven pages will not be graded.
You must participate in oral argument in order to receive a passing grade in the class. The oral argument is scheduled for Wednesday, May 13.
Readings on oral argument, conference deliberations, opinion writing, and opinion days: O'Brien, pp. 175-90
Fourth Amendment
Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding (08-479)
Relevant case law and readings on Westlaw:
Redding v. Safford Unified School District #1, 531 F.3d 1071, July 11, 2008 (U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit).
New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 1985.
Grading: 30% of your overall course grade will be based on this exercise.
Your grade on this exercise will be comprised of the following:
5%: your verbal performance in oral argument exercise
5%: the accuracy of your portrayal of counsel or justice
90%: your use of legal reasoning to support your arguments and respond to the arguments of your opponents. You should include a statement of the issues, and (for justices) your holdings or (for counsel) your advocated holdings.
Oral Argument:
It is imperative that everyone shows up on time (or even early) for the days on which oral argument is scheduled.
Each attorney should take no more than 15 minutes. Attorneys can divide up their time according to the issues but they do not need to do so; overlap is inevitable.
Expectations for attorneys’ presentations: You should not merely read from your brief but be clear, concise and conversational. You should directly answer all of the justices’ questions. You will be interrupted, so be calm and polite. Also, be flexible enough to change your presentation in mid-flight so you will be able to incorporate everything you want to include. If you’ve already clearly answered questions on one issue in your speech, you may not need to present it again. Never talk when a justice begins to speak, or is speaking.
Justices are expected to come well prepared. Your questions should be relevant, demonstrate a familiarity with the issues, and reflect the style and ideology of the justice you are playing. Although the justices’ interruptions can be rude at times, you should strive to exhibit the dignity, stature and intellect of a Supreme Court justice.
The side listed first in the dispute, the petitioner, will speak first at oral argument. For example, in Machiavelli v. Augustine, attorneys for Machiavelli will speak first. Attorneys for respondent Augustine will speak last.
Grading Expectations for Brief and Opinion Writing:
Each justice will write his/her own opinion, but should indicate if it is a majority opinion or dissent. After OA is complete, the Chief Justice should take a vote so other justices know which type of opinion they are writing. The Chief should report this information to me, noting who voted which way, who will dissent, etc.
Attorneys should indicate which client they are representing. Attorneys may, if they wish, coordinate and divide up issues according to their time periods of oral argument, but each attorney should write his/her own brief which covers all of the issues.
Issues are stated in the form of a question. They should incorporate the actions (facts) in question and relevant statutes or constitutional clauses. There may be more than one issue in a case. Holdings (or for attorneys, your advocated holdings) are similar, but are presented in the form of statement.
You should use legal reasoning to support your arguments and respond to the arguments of your opponents. Legal reasoning is a complex and nuanced endeavor that typically involves four key components. The first is to identify relevant legal rules and offer your interpretation. These rules include clauses of the Constitution, statutes, and precedents. Interpretation may introduce questions regarding the text of the relevant constitutional clause or statute, original intent, and stare decisis (whether to follow precedent), as well as others. You will want to indicate why your interpretations are better than the ones offered by your opponents.
The second component of legal reasoning is intertwined with the first. It requires you to apply the rules to the facts. Here, you must decide which precedents are most relevant to the case, as well as whether (and how) the Constitution and statutes apply to the case. You will want to distinguish precedents which your opponents wish to apply by showing that other precedents are better or by indicating that your opponents’ precedents are not similar to the present case. Attorneys will want to present the facts and how they fit with the precedents to the advantage of their client, but should not lie or be inaccurate.
The third component involves your analysis of policy implications. What will be the policy effects of your (advocated) holding, if adopted? How will your (advocated) holding affect future cases? Analyze the policy implications of your opponents.
Finally, you will want to include relevant normative arguments, including morality, justice, liberty, democracy, and the rule of law.
1. Address the issues directly. Do not include information that is not directly relevant to the question.
2. Organize your paper.
3. Consider the best arguments that could be used against you, and respond to them.
4. Incorporate relevant information from lecture and readings, including brief direct quotes from the texts when useful.
5. Write with correct grammar, usage and spelling.
6. Write with clarity and concision. Although "legalese" can be confusing, well-written briefs and opinions clarify rather than muddle.
Citations: All GVSU policies and codes regarding academic honesty and plagiarism apply. You should cite any language or key ideas taken from sources such as legal opinions, texts or articles. Cite the name of the author, year, and page number. Case citations should include the name of the case, volume, reporter name, first page number of case, page from which the material was taken, and year, (e.g. Smith v. Jones, 100 U.S. 123, 144, 1999). If you cite it again, you can just use the name and key page number (e.g. Smith, 146). If you cite a case from the O'Brien casebook, use the name of the case, volume, reporter name, first page number of case, and year (and cite O'Brien and the page in O'Brien the first time you use it – e.g. Smith v. Jones, 100 U.S. 123, 1999, as cited in O'Brien, 1132; the second time, use the case name and page from O'Brien – e.g. Smith, 1132).
As a general rule, your main citation should be to the source you are reading. Be sure to cite a lower court opinion when you use it, even when you read a lower court opinion that is citing the Supreme Court. Example 1: If you have a direct quote from a lower court opinion that contains other citations (known as internal citations), you should include the internal citations and cite the lower court. Example 2: If you use an idea from an opinion called McDonaugh v. State that you read about in an opinion called Hogwallop v. U.S., you should use Hogwallop v. U.S. as your main citation, but mention McDonaugh v. State. Your sentence might look like this: McDonaugh v. State (98 U.S. 333, 335, 2001) established strict scrutiny as the standard of review (Hogwallop v. U.S., 100 U.S. 123, 144, 2002). Alternatively, you could phrase it like this: Hogwallop v. U.S. (100 U.S. 123, 144, 2002), citing McDonaugh v. State (98 U.S. 333, 335, 2001), noted that the standard of review is strict scrutiny.
Legal Research using Westlaw and Findlaw
Westlaw is a better source than Findlaw for state, federal district and federal circuit court opinions. Findlaw is accessible from home and has every U.S. Supreme Court opinion from 1893--yes, 1893, not 1993. You can also use Lexis if you prefer.
Westlaw: Westlaw is accessible from home.
1. Start at the GVSU homepage: www.gvsu.edu
2. Select "Library."
3. Scroll down to and click "Databases."
4. Click on "W."
5. Click on "WestLaw Campus."
6. Read the access agreement. If you consent, click "Go."
7. Click on the Law tab. Refer to the citation of the case you are retrieving. In the box titled: "Find a Document by citation" (located in the top left corner) enter the citation, including volume, reporter (or law review) name, and page number, e.g. 222 F. 3d 719. Now click "Go."
8. If everything went right, you should only have one search result. Check to see that the citation and date are correct. If so, then save and/or print.
9. Note: When you use Westlaw it will provide multiple West keynotes at the top of the article. Just ignore those as they are not officially part of the opinion and are primarily designed for lawyers doing more in-depth research.
Findlaw: Findlaw is accessible from home and has every U.S. Supreme Court opinion from 1893--yes, 1893, not 1993.
1. Navigate to www.findlaw.com
2. Click on "US Sup Ct" (under Laws: Cases and Codes).
3. If you have the U.S. Reports number of the case (e.g. 100 U.S. 201), enter these numbers in the citation search box and click "get it."
For recent decisions, you may need to use the browsing by year function. For example, to get Bush v. Gore, 2000, click on "by year," then click on "2000," and then click on "Bush v. Gore." You can also use the party name search function.
Oral argument paper due: Wednesday, May 20, 2009, in class.
Professor Mark J. Richards
Format: Your paper should be word-processed and submitted on paper. It should be double-spaced and use page numbers. There is no need for a cover page. Just place your name at the top of the first page.
Page requirement: 4-7 pages. Anything less than four full pages will automatically receive an F. Anything written in excess of seven pages will not be graded.
You must participate in oral argument in order to receive a passing grade in the class. The oral argument is scheduled for Wednesday, May 13.
Readings on oral argument, conference deliberations, opinion writing, and opinion days: O'Brien, pp. 175-90
Fourth Amendment
Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding (08-479)
Relevant case law and readings on Westlaw:
Redding v. Safford Unified School District #1, 531 F.3d 1071, July 11, 2008 (U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit).
New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 1985.
Grading: 30% of your overall course grade will be based on this exercise.
Your grade on this exercise will be comprised of the following:
5%: your verbal performance in oral argument exercise
5%: the accuracy of your portrayal of counsel or justice
90%: your use of legal reasoning to support your arguments and respond to the arguments of your opponents. You should include a statement of the issues, and (for justices) your holdings or (for counsel) your advocated holdings.
Oral Argument:
It is imperative that everyone shows up on time (or even early) for the days on which oral argument is scheduled.
Each attorney should take no more than 15 minutes. Attorneys can divide up their time according to the issues but they do not need to do so; overlap is inevitable.
Expectations for attorneys’ presentations: You should not merely read from your brief but be clear, concise and conversational. You should directly answer all of the justices’ questions. You will be interrupted, so be calm and polite. Also, be flexible enough to change your presentation in mid-flight so you will be able to incorporate everything you want to include. If you’ve already clearly answered questions on one issue in your speech, you may not need to present it again. Never talk when a justice begins to speak, or is speaking.
Justices are expected to come well prepared. Your questions should be relevant, demonstrate a familiarity with the issues, and reflect the style and ideology of the justice you are playing. Although the justices’ interruptions can be rude at times, you should strive to exhibit the dignity, stature and intellect of a Supreme Court justice.
The side listed first in the dispute, the petitioner, will speak first at oral argument. For example, in Machiavelli v. Augustine, attorneys for Machiavelli will speak first. Attorneys for respondent Augustine will speak last.
Grading Expectations for Brief and Opinion Writing:
Each justice will write his/her own opinion, but should indicate if it is a majority opinion or dissent. After OA is complete, the Chief Justice should take a vote so other justices know which type of opinion they are writing. The Chief should report this information to me, noting who voted which way, who will dissent, etc.
Attorneys should indicate which client they are representing. Attorneys may, if they wish, coordinate and divide up issues according to their time periods of oral argument, but each attorney should write his/her own brief which covers all of the issues.
Issues are stated in the form of a question. They should incorporate the actions (facts) in question and relevant statutes or constitutional clauses. There may be more than one issue in a case. Holdings (or for attorneys, your advocated holdings) are similar, but are presented in the form of statement.
You should use legal reasoning to support your arguments and respond to the arguments of your opponents. Legal reasoning is a complex and nuanced endeavor that typically involves four key components. The first is to identify relevant legal rules and offer your interpretation. These rules include clauses of the Constitution, statutes, and precedents. Interpretation may introduce questions regarding the text of the relevant constitutional clause or statute, original intent, and stare decisis (whether to follow precedent), as well as others. You will want to indicate why your interpretations are better than the ones offered by your opponents.
The second component of legal reasoning is intertwined with the first. It requires you to apply the rules to the facts. Here, you must decide which precedents are most relevant to the case, as well as whether (and how) the Constitution and statutes apply to the case. You will want to distinguish precedents which your opponents wish to apply by showing that other precedents are better or by indicating that your opponents’ precedents are not similar to the present case. Attorneys will want to present the facts and how they fit with the precedents to the advantage of their client, but should not lie or be inaccurate.
The third component involves your analysis of policy implications. What will be the policy effects of your (advocated) holding, if adopted? How will your (advocated) holding affect future cases? Analyze the policy implications of your opponents.
Finally, you will want to include relevant normative arguments, including morality, justice, liberty, democracy, and the rule of law.
1. Address the issues directly. Do not include information that is not directly relevant to the question.
2. Organize your paper.
3. Consider the best arguments that could be used against you, and respond to them.
4. Incorporate relevant information from lecture and readings, including brief direct quotes from the texts when useful.
5. Write with correct grammar, usage and spelling.
6. Write with clarity and concision. Although "legalese" can be confusing, well-written briefs and opinions clarify rather than muddle.
Citations: All GVSU policies and codes regarding academic honesty and plagiarism apply. You should cite any language or key ideas taken from sources such as legal opinions, texts or articles. Cite the name of the author, year, and page number. Case citations should include the name of the case, volume, reporter name, first page number of case, page from which the material was taken, and year, (e.g. Smith v. Jones, 100 U.S. 123, 144, 1999). If you cite it again, you can just use the name and key page number (e.g. Smith, 146). If you cite a case from the O'Brien casebook, use the name of the case, volume, reporter name, first page number of case, and year (and cite O'Brien and the page in O'Brien the first time you use it – e.g. Smith v. Jones, 100 U.S. 123, 1999, as cited in O'Brien, 1132; the second time, use the case name and page from O'Brien – e.g. Smith, 1132).
As a general rule, your main citation should be to the source you are reading. Be sure to cite a lower court opinion when you use it, even when you read a lower court opinion that is citing the Supreme Court. Example 1: If you have a direct quote from a lower court opinion that contains other citations (known as internal citations), you should include the internal citations and cite the lower court. Example 2: If you use an idea from an opinion called McDonaugh v. State that you read about in an opinion called Hogwallop v. U.S., you should use Hogwallop v. U.S. as your main citation, but mention McDonaugh v. State. Your sentence might look like this: McDonaugh v. State (98 U.S. 333, 335, 2001) established strict scrutiny as the standard of review (Hogwallop v. U.S., 100 U.S. 123, 144, 2002). Alternatively, you could phrase it like this: Hogwallop v. U.S. (100 U.S. 123, 144, 2002), citing McDonaugh v. State (98 U.S. 333, 335, 2001), noted that the standard of review is strict scrutiny.
Legal Research using Westlaw and Findlaw
Westlaw is a better source than Findlaw for state, federal district and federal circuit court opinions. Findlaw is accessible from home and has every U.S. Supreme Court opinion from 1893--yes, 1893, not 1993. You can also use Lexis if you prefer.
Westlaw: Westlaw is accessible from home.
1. Start at the GVSU homepage: www.gvsu.edu
2. Select "Library."
3. Scroll down to and click "Databases."
4. Click on "W."
5. Click on "WestLaw Campus."
6. Read the access agreement. If you consent, click "Go."
7. Click on the Law tab. Refer to the citation of the case you are retrieving. In the box titled: "Find a Document by citation" (located in the top left corner) enter the citation, including volume, reporter (or law review) name, and page number, e.g. 222 F. 3d 719. Now click "Go."
8. If everything went right, you should only have one search result. Check to see that the citation and date are correct. If so, then save and/or print.
9. Note: When you use Westlaw it will provide multiple West keynotes at the top of the article. Just ignore those as they are not officially part of the opinion and are primarily designed for lawyers doing more in-depth research.
Findlaw: Findlaw is accessible from home and has every U.S. Supreme Court opinion from 1893--yes, 1893, not 1993.
1. Navigate to www.findlaw.com
2. Click on "US Sup Ct" (under Laws: Cases and Codes).
3. If you have the U.S. Reports number of the case (e.g. 100 U.S. 201), enter these numbers in the citation search box and click "get it."
For recent decisions, you may need to use the browsing by year function. For example, to get Bush v. Gore, 2000, click on "by year," then click on "2000," and then click on "Bush v. Gore." You can also use the party name search function.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Office Hours and Contact Information Spring 2009
Office Hours and Contact Information for Dr. Mark J. Richards
1106 AuSable Hall
richardm@gvsu.edu
Spring 2009 semester (through 6/15/09):
I will have office hours in 410 Eberhard Center on M/W 5-6 p.m.
Office hours may also be made by appointment (richardm@gvsu.edu).
1106 AuSable Hall
richardm@gvsu.edu
Spring 2009 semester (through 6/15/09):
I will have office hours in 410 Eberhard Center on M/W 5-6 p.m.
Office hours may also be made by appointment (richardm@gvsu.edu).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
