Where Are We?...  Why Are We Here?... What Have We Done?
(dedicated to Admiral James Stockdale)

updated 21 April 2012


Soundclip from the 1992
Vice Presidential Debate 
(thanks to Michael Harms for technical assistance)

At the end of each week of the class, and sometimes during the week, I will briefly review where we are in the course and the readings, the major points we've covered, and what the next week will bring.  I will also post whatever idiosyncratic class information that pops up here.

--------------------------

21 April: We have entered the home-stretch.  Your papers are due at 2 PM on Monday, 23 April... the beginning of our make-up class in the Tower Center Boardroom.  By that time, they should also be uploaded on the SafeAssign link on the Blackboard page.

Readings, you ask?  Here they are:

Monday, 23 April: Finish PF/TP&M: Adderley, City Council v. Vincent, Perry, Hazelwood, Ward, Krishna Consciousness, Rosenberger, Morse.  Start Unconstitutional Conditions: Connick, Pico

Wednesday, 25 April: Finish UCC: Rankin, Rust, Roe.  Campaign Finance: McConnell, FEC v. Wisconsin RTL, Citizens United, Arizona v. Bennett

Friday, 27 April: Lochner v. New York (1905), Meyer v Nebraska (1923), Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Roe v. Wade (1973), Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health (1983), Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), Webster v. Health Services (1989)

Tuesday, 1 May: Cruzan v. Missouri Dep't. of Health (1990), Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), Stenberg v Carhart (2000), Lawrence v. Texas (2003), Gonzales v Carhart (2006)

The final exam is on Friday, 4 May.  If you'd like, we can have a review session on Wednesday evening, 2 May.

--------------------------

6 April: We have lagged a bit, but we will rebound.  Note the reading schedule for the next couple of weeks posted below:

Monday, 9 April (in the Tower Center Boardroom): Obscenity: Miller, Paris Adult Theatre, Ferber, Reno, Ashcroft v. ACLU, U.S. v. Stevens, Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass'n.  Commercial Speech: Valentine, Bigelow, VA State Board of Pharmacy, Central Husdon Gas

Wednesday, 11 April: Posados, 44 Liquormart, Lorillard.  Symbolic/Coerced: W.VA v. Barnette, O'Brien, Tinker, Wooley, Clark, Texas v. Johnson

Friday, 13 April: UW v. Southworth, Hurley, Dale, Rumsfeld.  Time, Place, and Manner: Hague, Schneider, Kunz, Finer, Adderley

Wednesday, 18 April: Time Place and Manner: City Council v. Vincent, Perry, Hazelwood, Ward, Krishna Consciousness, Rosenberger, Morse

ALSO, note the following:

--------------------------

22 March: We remain on track.  Remember, there will be no class this Friday, 23 March.  The make-up class will be held in the Tower Center Boardroom (dress appropriately) on Monday, 9 April, from 2-3:30 PM.  Our schedule for the next few classes follows:

Wednesday, 28 March: New York Times v. Sullivan, Time v. Hill, Gertz, Dun & Bradstreet, Hustler Magazine, R.A.V., Wisconsin v. Mitchell

Friday, 30 March: Virginia v. Black, Snyder v. Phelps; Roth/Alberts, Memoirs v. Mass, Ginzburg, Mishkin, Redrup, Stanley

Wednesday, 4 April: Miller, Paris Adult Theatre, Ferber, Reno, Ashcroft v. ACLU, U.S. v. Stevens, Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass'n.

Also, be sure to check out the "news and notes" link under the "Legal News" button on the Blackboard page.  The Affordable Healthcare Act (Obamacare) goes to the Supremes on Monday, 26 March.

--------------------------

3 March: We are on track.  Good discussion of Bork and Meiklejohn... now keep them in mind as we read the "general approaches" cases over the next few class periods.  To wit, here's a schedule to track as we seek to stay on track.

Wednesday, 7 March: Patterson, Schenck, Abrams, Gitlow, Whitney, Near

Friday, 9 March: Bridges, Dennis, Brandenburg, Cohen, New York Times, Hess

Wednesday, 21 March: Nebraska Press, Republican Party v. White

--------------------------

9 February: Yesterday in class I misspoke about our reading schedule for Friday (thanks to Ms. Moore for pointing it out), so as I sorted it out I thought -- what the hell -- I'll just frame out the reading/discussion schedule running up to the mid-semester exam on Wednesday, 29 February.  Here it is.  As always, we will tweak things as we go along.

 10 February: Lee, Zobrest, Kiras Joel, Rosenberger, Agostini, Doe, Mitchell
15 February: Zelman, Newdow, McCreary, Van Orden, Arizona v. Winn; Reynolds
17 February:  Cantwell, Prince, Ballard, Sherbert, Yoder, Goldman,
22 February: Lyng, Smith, Babalu Aye, Boerne, Locke
24 February: Cutter, Gonzales

--------------------------

28 January: I hope the backtracking and ground-working we did at the beginning of the class yesterday -- the discussion of the first three Establishment Clause cases, and the treatment of the accommodationist (reading the Establishment Clause as tolerant, and often supportive of governmental acknowledgement/support for religion) and separatist or separationist (reading the Establishment Clause as requiring the state to stand away from, as much as possible, matters relating to religion) approaches to that clause -- helped better frame the discussions of the cases we treated for you.  A good general gloss of these conceptual categories can be found at pp. 194-200 of this article by Richard Jones.  You might offer the discussion of Professor Linder, on his fine webpage, to be instructive.

Think, too, of the general arguments of Plato and Mill, their conceptions of freedom and the scope of the state's power over individual choice, as you ponder these cases. 

This groundwork laid, and having closely examined early E.C. cases, here is the reading sked for the remainder of our treatment of the clause.  Realize that we will likely fall behind a bit, but we may also catch up and go ahead here and there, so adjust your reading accordingly.

1 February: Epperson, Allen, Walz, Lemon, Tilton, Wolman, Marsh
3 February: Mueller, Lynch, Wallace, Edwards, Allegheny, Zobrest
8 February: Lee, Kiras Joel, Rosenberger, Agostini, Doe,
10 February: Mitchell, Zelman, Newdow, McCreary
15 February: Van Orden, Arizona v. Winn

--------------------------

25 January: Okay... three cases under our belts, so I presume you are now belted in.  That's good, because we are gonna take off like a rocket sled on rails.

For Friday's class, have all the cases we didn't get to today in hand, and add Lemon, Tilton, and Wolman.

Bring your casebook to class.  There will be points where I will direct you to specific text, and unless you have the text you will just look helplessly at the seminar table and think, "damn, I wish I had the casebook with me."

--------------------------

21 January: Humans, we have navigated two class meetings.  The discussion yesterday of freedom/liberty from the more "negative" stance of Mill and the more "positive" stance of Plato sets the stage for our discussion of cases and opinions that construct and apply concepts of liberty.  Keep in mind the arguments of these philosophers as you examine and assess the opinions of the justices who give meaning to constitutional liberty in the context of actual disputes under written law.

Wednesday we turn to the Religion Clauses, starting with the Establishment Clause.  For this discussion, read the cases noted under III.A.1. in the syllabus in chronological order.  We will take them up in this order: Everson, McCullom, Zorach, McGowan, Engel, Schempp, Epperson, Allen, and Walz. To aid you in your organization and understanding of these cases, I strongly suggest that you brief -- and brief means, among other things, brief -- them.  You will find discussion of briefing at pages 3 and 5 of the syllabus, and a detailed description of the elements and content of a brief in the "case briefing" link under the "handouts" button on the Blackboard page.

Note as well that sometimes I will randomly collect your briefs.  The briefs you hand in must be your own work and properly cited if elements are drawn from elsewhere (opinions, articles, web sources).  Read closely the strong words on page 5 of the syllabus.  I mean them.

You may choose to use the case summaries available on line for elements of your briefs, but they 1) will need to be supplemented by the elements noted in the “briefing form” to be of much use to you, and 2) they cannot be handed in as “your” brief when I occasionally collect briefs in class.  To do so is to commit plagiarism, and I will file a “faculty disposition form” with the Dean of Students to place a record of the student’s academic dishonesty in his or her judicial file.

--------------------------

31 December:  Welcome back.  It is time to get to work.  To that end, I will send you an email with information about and assignments for the first day of class... Wednesday, 18 January.  They follow:

1) Scope out the class webpage (Blackboard);

2) read Federalist 10, and 78. Think about how they paint 1) the nature of the government set up under the Constitution (limited or majoritarian), and the role of the judiciary within that structure. In the next couple of weeks, too, make sure you read/skim Van Alstyne's Chapter 1 for useful background;

3) print out, read, and bring to class the "Thoughts on the Judicial Role" handout on the Blackboard page;

4) print, read, sign, and turn in to me 2 copies of the "student contract" by 20 January, and

5) complete the "political compass" survey and bring the results to class by 25 January.

I will pass out the syllabus in class, so you need not print it yourself. Do, though, look over it. (It is posted, you will discover, under the "Course Info" link on Blackboard.)  Pay particular attention to the sections on the Honor Code and on case briefing.  All out-of-class written work will be submitted through "Safe Assign," and all classroom examinations will be closely monitored.  I'm serious about integrity, and you should be as well.

See you in class Wednesday, 18 January, at 2 PM on the dot.

--------------------------

(back to class homepage)