|
POS 4603: Honors Constitutional Law I
Fall 2007
TR 4-5:20 in WB 105
Description: Close reading of important Supreme Court opinions concerning federalism, property rights, and substantive and criminal due process. Special attention will be given to theories of how the constitution's text is to be interpreted, to the role the Court has played in the political and economic development of the United States, and to political theories addressing the proper role of government and courts in a democratic society.
Requirements: Class will combine lecture and discussion and it is important for students to come to class prepared to discuss the cases scheduled for that meeting. You should outline the cases--you will be permitted to use the outlines you authored on exams. Grades are based on a midterm (25%), final exam (40%), moot court brief/opinion (25%), and class participation (10%). The participation grade will be reduced 1/3 letter for each unexcused absence beyond 2.
Reading: All cases are available at myfau in a folder marked "Cases" within the "Files" section. Other readings are at myfau in the "Files" section, and some readings are online. A paperback edition of the U.S. Constitution is available for purchase at the bookstore. Reading listed under each class is to be done prior to that class meeting. All cases are to be briefed. A sample brief is online.
For those interested, unedited versions of cases are available online using westlaw (preferred) or lexis-nexis--access these via the FAU library database. To access these databases off-campus you must create a proxy. Supreme Court Oral Arguments are available for many of the cases since the 1960s. 'Garraty' refers to John Garraty's Quarrels that have shaped the Constitution, which is on reserve in the library.
Office Hours: Before or after class, or drop by HC 133--no appointment is needed. I can also be reached by phone (799-8670), or email (tunick@fau.edu).
Honor Code: Students are expected to adhere to the honor code, http://www.fau.edu/divdept/honcol/academics_honor_code.htm
8/28 Introduction
The Constitution and federalism
8/30 Reading: U.S. Constitution and Amendments; Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883); sample brief (online)
For those interested: Tour of Supreme Court, online; Draft Constitution of the European Union; Calvin Johnson, "The dubious enumerated power doctrine," Constitutional Commentary 22(1):25-61 (Spring 2005), online ; US Constitution, online
9/4 Rdg: Shelley v Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948); U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995); The Articles of Confederation (online)
Judicial Review
9/6 Rdg: Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
Recommended reading: "The Case of the Missing Commission," in Garraty, ch. 1 (myfau).
9/11 Rdg: McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819); Antonin Scalia, "Originalism: The Lesser Evil" (myfau); William J. Brennan, "The Constitution of the U.S.: Contemporary Ratification"(myfau); Ronald Dworkin, excerpt from Taking Rights Seriously (myfau).
Executive Powers
9/13 Rdg: Youngstown Co. v. Sawyer (Steel Seizure Case), 343 U.S. 579 (1952)
9/18 Rdg: U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright, 299 U.S. 304 (1936)
Recommended reading: "The Case of the Smuggled Bomber," in Garraty, ch. 15 (myfau).
For those interested:
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S.Ct. 2749 (2006): held that the President's procedures for military tribunals to try alleged terrorists in Guantanamo Bay violated Congressional limits and the Geneva Conventions; "Scholar Barred from US, but No One Will Tell Her Why" (NYT 9/17/2007, on State dept's power to revoke visas) and Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280 (1981).
Proclamation of National Emergency (Sept 14, 2001); National Emergencies Act ; War Powers Resolution (1973) ; Gulf of Tonkin Incident ; Joint Resolution to Authorize Armed Forces in Iraq (2002)
Commerce Clause: National legislative power
9/20 Rdg: Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824); Champion v. Ames (Lottery Case), 188 U.S. 321 (1903)
Recommended reading: "The Steamboat Case," in Garraty ch. 4 (myfau).
For those interested: Rapanos v. U.S. (04-1034, June 19, 2006): Does Congress's Clean Water Act apply to wetlands not directly connected to navigable waters?
9/25 Rdg: Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 (1918); Carter v. Carter Coal Coal, 298 U.S. 238 (1936); Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U.S. 1 (1888)
For those interested: Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U.S. 100 (1890)(striking down Iowa law prohibiting importation of liquor); and Wilkerson v. Rahrer, 140 U.S. 545 (1891)(upholding Congress's "local option" law allowing states to subject imported liquor to domestic liquor laws).
9/27 Rdg: Background to NLRB (myfau); NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin, 301 U.S. 1 (1937); U.S. v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 (1940); Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)
10/2 Rdg: Heart of Atlanta Hotel v. U.S., 379 U.S. 241 (1964); United States v. Lopez, 514 US 549 (1995)
For those interested:
(1) Does the commerce clause authorize Congress to enact laws against prostitution, or immoral acts that are not commercial transactions? See the amended version of the Mann Act. An earlier version, the "White Slave Traffic Act," was upheld in Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470 (1917).
(2) California enacted Prop. 215 in 1996, permitting marijuana for medical uses; this conflicts with the federal Controlled Substances Act, which prohibits even medical uses of marijuana. In Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), the Court held that the CSA is a valid exercise of commerce clause powers and supersedes state law.
(3)
Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995
Commerce Clause: State legislative power
10/4 Rdg: South Carolina v. Barnwell, 303 U.S. 177 (1938); Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona, 325 U.S. 761 (1945); Baldwin v. GAF Seelig, 294 U.S. 511 (1935)
10/9 Rdg: Dean Milk v. Madison, 340 U.S. 349 (1951); Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines, 359 U.S. 520 (1959); Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U.S. 617 (1978); Maine v. Taylor, 477 U.S. 131 (1986); Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460 (2005)
For those interested: May the state of New York prohibit its utility companies from selling their 'pollution credits' to polluters from out of state in order to prevent those out-of-state polluters from contributing to acid rain within New York? See New York Times, May 2, 2000, Raymond Hernandez, "Albany battles Acid Rain Fed by Other States"--available by searching lexis-nexis news.
10/11 Mid-term review
10/16 Mid-term
Substantive Due process
A. Economic Substantive Due Process or, 'The Constitution and Capitalism'
10/18 Rdg: Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873); Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905)
For those interested: "Limits on Truckers' Work Hours," New York Times, July 25, 2007 (myfau)
10/23 Rdg: Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502 (1934); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)
B. Non-Economic Substantive Due Process
10/25 Rdg: Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
10/30 Rdg: Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992); Gonzalez v. Carhart, 550 U.S. ___(2007)
11/1 Rdg: Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986); Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).
Property Takings
11/6 Rdg: Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 465 U.S. 1097 (1984); Kelo v. City of New London, 125 S.Ct. 2655, 545 U.S. 469 (2005); Miller v. Schoene, 276 U.S. 272 (1928); Penna. Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922)
11/8 Rdg: Penn Central v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978); Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926); Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255 (1980); Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp, 458 U.S. 419 (1982)
11/13. Rdg: Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987); Lucas v. S. Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992); Dolan v.City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994)
For those interested: Private Property Protection Act of 1995; Mark Tunick, 'Constitutional Protections of Private Property: Decoupling the Takings and Due Process Clauses', University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 3:885-925 (May 2001): Available via westlaw or lexis-nexis.
Moot Court on property takings: You will be given a case concerning property takings. Class will break up into small groups consisting of two opposing parties (each consisting of two attorneys), and Supreme Court Justices. Attorneys will present their arguments before the Justices and respond to their questions. Justices will question the attorneys, and after deliberation, announce a decision. Attorneys will turn in a brief, Justices, an opinion. The moot court will require two sessions: one to present oral arguments, the other for deliberation and voting.
Moot Court Instructions
Moot Court Case
11/15, 11/20 Moot Court in HC 130. Group I: 4-5 pm; Group II: 5-6 pm
Criminal Due Process
11/27 Pre-revolution
Rdg: Packer, "Two Models of the Criminal Process" (1964), excerpts (myfau); Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 (1936); McNabb v. U.S., 318 U.S. 332 (1943); Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455 (1942); Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949)
Moot court opinion/brief due.
11/29 Criminal Due Process Revolution and retreat?
Rdg: Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966); Brewer v. Williams (Williams I), 430 U.S. 387 (1977); Nix v. Williams (Williams II), 467 U.S. 431 (1984)
For those interested: Dickerson v. U.S., 530 U.S. 428 (2000)(myfau); Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963)(myfau); "Case of the Florida Drifter," in Garraty, ch. 19 (myfau).
12/4 Post 9-11 developments: is there a foreign intelligence exception to the 4th Amendment?
Rdg: U.S. v. Marzook, 435 F. Supp.2d 778 (N.D. Ill)(2006); Mayfield v. U.S., 2007 WL 2792447 (D. Or.)(2007)
For those interested: U.S. v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984)(myfau)
Final exam: Tuesday Dec. 11