{"id":17,"date":"2022-06-20T16:18:44","date_gmt":"2022-06-20T16:18:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/sites.la.utexas.edu\/amcondev1\/?page_id=17"},"modified":"2026-02-06T02:37:36","modified_gmt":"2026-02-06T02:37:36","slug":"assignments","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"http:\/\/sites.la.utexas.edu\/amcondev1\/assignments\/","title":{"rendered":"Assignments"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

<\/h1>\n\n\n

Constitutional Development I
Fall 2025<\/em><\/h1>\n
\n

First a caveat: the order and content of each assignment may change throughout the semester. Content changes are most likely as we get toward the end of the semester.\u00a0 The Supreme Court may issue an opinion in some area we are studying. For instance, that opinion may overrule an assigned opinion or provide more clarity on the issues than the previous opinion.\u00a0 At least 2 weeks notice will be given for changes in order of assignments.<\/p>\n

Cases and readings are denominated in 3 ways. First, those for which you should have a written brief are marked ‘brief’ next to case. Second, those that you should read and just know issue and holding are not marked. Third, those Dr. Sager will discuss are marked “Dr. Sager will discuss”.<\/p>\n

In addition,\u00a0 cases in the online supplement and not in the text book are so marked. From time to time you may be asked to turn in some questions about the cases to be briefed for a particular day.<\/p>\n

Your briefs should be on a written or printed page not on your computer. Recitation from your phone, ipad, computer etc will not be considered as being prepared. Recitation from memory will be fine.\u00a0 Assigned cases that are in the book are not otherwise noted on the schedule. Assigned cases on the publisher’s website for the Epstein and Walker are noted as being in the supplement. A few cases or topics can be reached by clicking the links in the schedule.<\/p>\n

Most assigned cases have relatively simple fact situations, e.g. Congress or a state\u00a0 passed a law about this or that and someone claims it violates the constitution or some administrator did this or that and someone claims they had no power to do that.<\/p>\n

Lastly, Dr. Sager will discuss some cases as noted. You should know the facts of these cases when you come to class that day.\u00a0 Knowing the facts means you can state in a couple of sentence who did what to whom and why the case got to court.\u00a0 Asterisked cases are in the supplement. Other cases he will cover are neither in the main text nor on the website containing supplemental cases. You can find the facts on the web.\u00a0 Previous student briefs for some of the later cases assigned are so noted on the website and you are welcome to use these. There are also assigned videos usually with a number associated with them.\u00a0 The videos are numbered on\u00a0 the video page<\/a>. Not all of those videos are assigned.\u00a0 Some are there to provide additional context to the assigne<\/p>\n

Again, check this page\u00a0 regularly for changes.<\/strong><\/p>\n

For sample briefs and a description\u00a0 of how to brief a case, go to the Syllabus page of the class website.<\/h5>\n

Note: My links to supplement may not work for you.\u00a0 If you bought Supplement, you will be able to find Supplement cases on link provided by Sage Publications. Most of the cases Dr. Sager discusses\u00a0 are in the Supplement.\u00a0 If you don’t have Supplement, full text of cases can be found at Findlaw and other places on web.\u00a0 You do not need to read full case of any cases Dr. Sager discusses.<\/span><\/h4>\n

________________________________________________________________________________________<\/span><\/p>\n

Class #1 Monday<\/strong> Monday August 25th<\/span><\/h3>\n
Introduction: Over the first two weeks read Epstein and Walker 1-63 (This is introductory material. Some of you may already know much of this\u00a0 from high school and\/or\u00a0 basic government classes or other government classes.\u00a0 Read the Declaration of Independence and begin reading the Constitution.\u00a0 Both are available in the Arnn book.\u00a0 Watch video 6 a good
9 minute or so analysis of each part of the Declaration of Independence.<\/h5>\n
The Pre-Marshall and Marshall Courts 1787-1835
Property Rights and Transcendent Rights<\/h5>\n

1. Calder v. Bull(brief)<\/span><\/strong> (click here for case<\/a>)\u00a0 Note:\u00a0 The Findlaw formatting for this case may have Justice Iredell’s name tucked in at the end of Justice Paterson’s opinion not heading his separate opinion (looks like this:”technical, which is also their common and general, acceptation, and are not to be understood in their literal sense. <\/a>[3 U.S. 386, 398] ”\u00a0 Iredell, Justice.\u00a0
Though I concur in the general result of the opinions, which have been delivered, I cannot entirely adopt the reasons that are assigned upon the occasion.”<\/p>\n

Note: This is a pre-Marshall case,\u00a0 Each of the 4 Justices who heard the case wrote \u00a0an opinion.\u00a0 This was called seriatim opinions.<\/strong> \u00a0 This was the way the highest court in England delivered its opinions.\u00a0 Supreme Court\u00a0 followed this procedure at its inception.\u00a0 It was not required by the Constitution or any federal law. \u00a0 Marshall started the custom of a single justice writing a majority opinion and attempting to get unanimous support. Those who disagreed could write a concurrence or dissent.
For some notes,\u00a0 on reading this case click here.<\/a> Quotes about the Constitution which will be cited in Class 1 (click here) <\/a><\/p>\n

2. Begin reading Arnn book, The Founder’s Key\u00a0 There may be references to it in this first class. \u00a0 We will include it\u00a0 more formally in our discussion by the 2nd class. \u00a0 The author has an interesting point of view and argument about the relationship between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.\u00a0 The first 20 pages or so of the book layout his basic argument.\u00a0 While Justices don’t directly write about that relationship, as we go through the semester, you will see a number of opinions that that don’t necessarily agree with this point of view or fundamentally disagree with it. \u00a0As we go th<\/p>\n

3. Read a \u00a0 brief summary of two fundamental notions of how to interpret the Constitution and what it might mean during the\u00a0 2019 Supreme Court term, by John Yoo a conservative writer, Berkeley law professor and former Bush\u00a0 Justice Department official. (click here<\/a>).\u00a0 One writer calls these two views Originalism and Interpretivism. (Professor Yoo was also on list to\u00a0 be cancelled by some in Biden administration.\u00a0 So far he still writes and speaks.)<\/strong> These are just one set of many distinctions we will cover during this semester.\u00a0 A major way we learn is by creating distinctions. We will see many varieties of each of this two approaches.\u00a0\u00a0 Be clear about this dichotomy from the start and be able to state it in your own words. We will also look at the distinctions called activism\/restraint<\/strong> which can also be denominated as upholding a state policy versus striking down a state policy<\/strong>.\u00a0<\/strong> A simple version of these is that activism is overruling the law, statute, act etc. of a legislative or administrative body versus restraint which is upholding these same\u00a0 actions. Always try to figure out the uphold\u00a0 vs strike down sidea. This is a very important way to relate cases to each other over time.<\/p>\n

At times there are two state parties in the Court and and one on\u00a0 each side.\u00a0 \u00a0One side will be representing the states view and one side will be representing an individuals view. We need to identify which is which in order to compare cases as well as understand outcomes.\u00a0 We will be using these terms to compare the\u00a0 the ebb and flow of Supreme Court opinions. These terms are<\/strong>
separate from conservative versus liberal judges and opinions.\u00a0 There\u00a0 <\/strong>are conservative activists and liberal restraintists as well as conservative restraintists and liberal activists.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

4. Madison quote from Federalist 51:<\/p>\n

\u201cIf Men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and the next place, oblige it to control itself.\u201d<\/h4>\n

What does this have to do with what we are doing in this course.<\/p>\n

View Video 5 Why Study The Founding Fathers<\/p>\n

\n

Class #2 Wednesday August 27th<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\n

The Taxing Power<\/strong><\/p>\n

2. Hylton v. U.S.(brief<\/span>)(supplement)(Findlaw)<\/a><\/strong>
Issue in this case relates to what is a direct versus<\/strong>
and indirect tax<\/strong>, proportionate versus uniform taxes<\/strong> and
what taxing power is given to Congress under the
Constitution as of 1787? If you don’t have supplement
yet click here<\/a> for full text about 10 pages. Make sure you understand
distinction between a direct and an indirect tax.<\/p>\n

3. Chisholm v. Georgia(Brief)<\/span>(supplement<\/a>)
(Note this case came even earlier than Calder and really was not a Marshall Court case. It is a pre-Marshall Court case so it has what are called
seriatim opinions) Per our class discussion of Justice Cushings opinion: here is the text I have found for the case. It looks like there is a Court Reporters error or someone else’s error(click here)<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

Judicial Review
4 Marbury v. Madison brief<\/span><\/strong>
View Video: Marbury v. Madison.
For Joel Grossman’s excellent analysis on the 200th Anniversary of
Marbury(click here<\/a>) Note Grossman’s question at the end written in 2004 and\u00a0 may\u00a0 be answered in several ways by the end of this course. Also you should know his main points about why Marbury is still important.<\/p>\n

\u00a0How many different arguments can you find in Marshal’s\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 opinion\u00a0 in favor of judicial review by the Supreme Court. You should get at least 4 of the 6. <\/strong>Try to reduce the arguments to as few words as possible.
<\/strong><\/p>\n

How would you characterize the source or nature of\u00a0 of Justice Marshall’s arguments originalist, textualist, current policy needs or living constitution, or something other than these . <\/strong><\/p>\n

5. Eakin v. Raub Dr. Sager<\/span> will discuss the dissenting opinion which is an argument about judicial review
<\/strong><\/p>\n

Read Federalist No. 78 in Epstein and Walker Appendix. <\/strong>How many different arguments \u00a0for judicial review of \u00a0legislative acts can you find in Federalist 78? \u00a0<\/i>If you do not have access to the Appendix because you bought a used book here is a link to Fed 78 on the web(click here<\/a>). While searching for a link to a full copy of Fed 78, I just found this summary of Fed 78 on a Tea Party website along with summaries of all of the Federalist Papers(click here)<\/a>
Surprisingly, the website does not contain summaries of the Anti-Federalist Papers. Looks like there are other summaries available. <\/strong>(Might be interesting to compare them; perhaps a worthwhile project for a paper in a government course. Might take 2 or 3 major Federalist Papers, say 10 and 78 and see how accurate all the summaries are compared to your reading of them. Then see if there is an ideological content to the summaries. )<\/p>\n

Videos 4 and 6a.
<\/strong><\/p>\n

Van Geel Chart Multicolors<\/strong> (click here)<\/a><\/p>\n

Van Geel Chart\u00a0 Black and White(click here)<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

Class 3 Wednesday September 3rd<\/span><\/h3>\n

Early Challenges To Judicial Supremacy <\/strong><\/p>\n

6. Impeachment Trial of Justice Samuel Chase<\/strong><\/span> (Dr. Sager to discuss in class)<\/span><\/p>\n

If you want to delve into the life of\u00a0 James Callender, the scandalmonger, who libeled and defamed both Adams and then Jefferson, William Safire wrote an historical novel entitled Scandalmonger. There is an\u00a0 interview with\u00a0 Safire on C-Span that covers the book.\u00a0\u00a0 Safire is interviewed by “The Book Guys.”\u00a0 They know\u00a0 this historical period well.\u00a0\u00a0 Click here<\/a>\u00a0 Part of the charges stemmed from Chase’s behavior in the Callender case.
Make sure you know the section of the Constitution on impeachment and treason.
<\/strong><\/p>\n

7.<\/strong> U.S. v. Aaron Burr<\/span> You Tube video in 2 parts 30 minutes eacg <\/strong><\/span><\/span>
To prepare this case see the description of Burr’s Alleged Treasonous Activities and the story of the case <\/strong>(click here)<\/a>
For Marshall’s opinion(click here<\/a>) Just skim it to get a sense of what he is saying. Linder summary which is linked above will be sufficient. You should come to class with\u00a0 brief for this case just like any other case in the textbook.\u00a0 The\u00a0 Burr video will help you
understand\u00a0 the case in detail.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Carefully watch the Burr video before class:<\/em> U.S. v. Aaron Burr <\/strong>
(Youtube video in 2 parts on video page) #14 on the video page or search Youtube and you will find this.Note: THIS VIDEO in total is 1 hour 20 minutes long total for both parts.\u00a0 There is part of the video missing about 30% into part II.\u00a0 There in a discussion with another\u00a0 Justice they discuss how to distinguish the definition of treason\u00a0 in the Bollman and Swarthout case from the Burr case.\u00a0 It appears Marshall used the English version in that case. one says well the Bollman and Swarthout not on trial for treason. The sued for and got\u00a0 a writ of habeas corpus<\/em> to get out of prison.\u00a0 Rule in Burr case does not affect ultimate judgment in that case. Definition of treason in that case what is called obiter dicta, not essential to the ruling. This is raised again later in the video as well.
Can anything in the Burr case be related to some of the political issues we have seen over the past 4 years specifically?\u00a0 If so what and how?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Congressional Powers and the States<\/strong><\/p>\n

8. McCulloch v. Maryland(brief)<\/span>(Note: There are two issues in this case and they are covered in different parts of the book. We will cover both issues: creating a bank and state taxing powers).\u00a0 Can you relate
This case to the essence of the story of Ben Franklin telling Thomas Jefferson about the Hatter’s sign?
<\/strong>For a critique of Marshall’s view(click here<\/a>)
View video: McCulloch v. Maryland which can be found on Youtube. The link is on the video page.
A number of Marshall quotes in McCulloch are among his most famous. Can you pick them out?
<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/h3>\n

The Contracts Clause I <\/strong><\/p>\n

9. Fletcher v. Peck(Brief)<\/span>
<\/strong><\/p>\n

10. Dartmouth College v. Woodward(Brief)<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Watch whatever you can especially the ESPN\u00a0 parody of Burr Hamilton Duel)Videos 18, 19, 20, 21, 33<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

Class #4\u00a0 Monday September 8th<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\n

The Commerce Power and National Economy<\/strong><\/p>\n

11. Gibbons v. Ogden(Brief)<\/span>
View video: Gibbons v. Ogden<\/strong><\/p>\n

Using the Van geel chart compare McCullough as the precedent case and Gibbons as the main case. Which box?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Questions: Restate Marshall’s definition of the following terms: commerce, among the several states, regulate.<\/span>
What is the source of these definitions?
What is difference between Justice Johnson’s view and C.J. Marshall’s?<\/span>
Based on Marshall’s view of the commerce clause, what are the limits?
What role do states have in commerce based on Marshall’s views?
View Clip #30 on video page<\/a>, Justice Roberts on Justice Duval who appears in several of these early cases<\/strong>
videos. Roberts calls him the most insignificant Justice ever. Might look at comments on video as well <\/strong><\/p>\n

Watch Folsom video about Robber Barons on video page. Also see Milton Friedman videos #36 and #37 Here To\u00a0 relate Gibbons<\/span> to the steamship story in the video\u00a0 (click here)<\/a>.
<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Federal Judicial Power and the States<\/strong><\/p>\n

12. Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee(Brief)<\/span>
(Take Marbury as precedent for Martin’s. Attempt to figure out which box in the Van geel chart you would be in with Marbury as the precedent case and
Martin as the main case. Did Martin narrow or broaden Marbury. What aspect of the Marbury case did Martin apply to? What do we remember most about the impact of Chisholm?)<\/strong><\/p>\n

13. Cohens v. Virginia(A summary appears in the text after Martin case. Read opinion in supplement to get some of the fine Marshall quotes)Dr, Sager to discuss(Query<\/span>:
what does Cohen case add to Martin? Attempt to figure out which box in the Van geel chart you would be in with Martin as the precedent case and
Cohens as the main case. Did Martin narrow or broaden Cohens. To what aspect of the Martin case did Cohens apply to?)<\/strong><\/p>\n

Click Here for\u00a0 Chisholm, Martin and Cohens cases in word form<\/a><\/p>\n

Federal Judicial Power and the States Taxation
<\/strong><\/p>\n

14. Brown v. Maryland (supplement)( Click here for brief<\/a>) Dr. Sager to discuss<\/span>
<\/strong>Note: This brief is not as extensive as the one you will be doing with your assigned Supreme Court case
The Bill of Rights and the States<\/strong>
15. Barron v. Baltimore(Brief)<\/span>( supplement)(click here for another edited version<\/a>)<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

Paper #1 <\/strong>This will be discussed in class. It is a brief of a Supreme Court case. Note in the past some students have mistakenly done the lower court opinion.\u00a0 All\u00a0 cases assigned\u00a0 were decided by the U.S. Supreme Court The brief is due Thursday February 11th. A\u00a0 list of\u00a0 of case assignments by last name\u00a0 will be posted before class on February 2nd.\u00a0 For the briefing form to use for this brief and points for each part of brief\u00a0 (click here)<\/a>\u00a0 Find your case through Findlaw or other online databases of Supreme Court cases and bring any questions about it to class on Wednesday. (For your assigned case\u00a0 (click here<\/a>)case You are expected to do the case you are assigned so be sure you know how to find it.\u00a0 For your case and the points given for each part of the brief Two copies of paper which should be no longer than <\/span>
3 pages, about 750-900 words will be due at beginning of Class 10 on February 13.\u00a0 You can hand it in any time before that.\u00a0 After being graded, you can redo your brief if your score is less than 92 and get up to a 92 by getting 1\/2 the points back based on 1\/2*(100-your score).\u00a0 It is advised the sooner you get this done, the better because it will improve your reading and briefing skills.\u00a0 NOTE THESE BRIEFS NEED To BE IN YOUR OWN WORDS UNLESS YOU ARE USING THE WORDING OF A STATUTE OR THE CONSTITUTION OR A SHORT QUOTE FROM\u00a0 A JUSTICE IN THE OPINION SECTION OF THE BRIEF. YOU CAN ALSO USE A RELEVANT PHRASE FROM OPINION IN ISSUES, ARGUMENTS AND\u00a0 HOLDING SECTION.<\/span>
<\/span><\/p>\n

Click Here for\u00a0 Chisholm, Martin and Cohens cases in word form<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

Class #5\u00a0 Wednesday\u00a0 September 10th<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

The Contracts Clause and the National Economy<\/strong>
16. Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge(Brief)<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

B. Taney Court 1836-1864<\/em><\/strong>
The Commerce Clause and the National Economy<\/strong>
17.<\/span> Mayor of City of New York v. Miln<\/span>(Brief)(supplement)(click here for another edited version<\/a>)
<\/strong><\/p>\n

For a discussion related to Gibbons about\u00a0 competition between Vanderbilt and his crony capitalist competitors see the following lecture by Burt Folsom It also explains how crony capitalism worked in this case based on his research using the Congressional records from the 1800’s. (click here)<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

Congressional Preemption –Federal Judicial Power and the States<\/strong><\/h3>\n

18. Prigg v. Pennsylvania Dr. Sager to discuss<\/span>(click here for excellent edited version of case<\/a>) The following is a brief for this case. (read sample brief)<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Dr. Sager will discuss this case which is not in your text. <\/strong><\/p>\n

Federal Jurisdiction: Political Questions
<\/strong><\/p>\n

19. Luther v. Borden Dr. Sager to discuss<\/span>(supplement)<\/a><\/strong>click here for another edited version<\/a>)For\u00a0 a discussion of Luther based on upholding or striking down a government policy (click here)<\/a>
<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Commerce Clause and the National Economy<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a020. Cooley v. Board of Wardens(Brief)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Federal Jurisdiction, Congressional Power and Slavery<\/strong><\/p>\n

21. Dred Scott v. Sanford(Brief)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Videos 7, 8, 23, 24 25 These will help you more fully understand the case. A couple are reenactments of parts of the Lincoln Douglas debates.
Be sure you have completed Arnn book through Chapter 6 which\u00a0 is about the Founders and Slavery.\u00a0 For exam you will need to have read Chapters 1-6 and the last chapter entitled “Conclusion.”<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

Class #6\u00a0 Monday September 15th<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\n

Executive Power: The War Power<\/strong><\/h3>\n

22. The Prize Cases(Brief)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

C. Chase Court 1864-1873<\/em><\/strong>
Executive Power During War<\/strong><\/p>\n

23. Ex Parte Milligan(Brief)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Federal Jurisdiction: Congressional Limitations<\/strong><\/p>\n

24. Ex Parte McCardle(Brief)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Federal Jurisdiction and State’s Rights <\/strong><\/p>\n

25. Texas v. White(Not in book or supplement. Dr. Sager will discuss.)<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\n

26. Mississippi v. Johnson(Brief) <\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/em>State and Federal Income Taxation<\/p>\n

27.<\/span> Collector v. Day Dr. Sager to discuss(supplement)<\/span><\/strong><\/h4>\n

28<\/span>. Springer v. U.S.Dr. Sager to discuss (supplement)<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

Class #7 Wednesday September 17<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\n

The Bill of Rights and the States<\/strong><\/p>\n

29. The Slaughterhouse Cases(Brief)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Read carefully the following articles.\u00a0 Are you, or will you be or become,\u00a0 part of\u00a0 the narrative? Compare to Dr. Arnn’s views on the
Declaration as it relates to the Constitution. This article suggests one reason I organize this course historically as well as what a larger purpose\u00a0 might be\u00a0 for being in this course.<\/p>\n

Read Professor Arnn’s discussion slavery.\u00a0 ” 1776 truth vs 1619 falsehoods” (click here)<\/a> and evaluate along with the Balkin article\u00a0 below.
Yale Law Professor Jack Balkin’s “The Declaration and the Promise of a Democratic Culture”\u00a0 (click here)<\/a><\/p>\n

Summary of Chase Court(Dr. Sager)<\/strong><\/p>\n

D. The Waite Court 1874-1888<\/em><\/strong>
State Police Powers, Due Process and Property Rights<\/strong>
30. Munn v. Illinois(Brief)<\/strong><\/span>
How, if in any way, does this opinion relate to the Miller, Field and Bradley opinions in the Slaughterhouse Cases<\/em>?
What are the grounds of agreement and disagreement with each opinion.
The Contracts Clause <\/strong>
31. Stone v. Mississippi<\/strong>(Brief)<\/strong><\/span>
What is the status of the contracts clause after this case?<\/p>\n

The Commerce Power, State Action and Individual Rights<\/strong>
32. The Civil Rights Cases(Dr. Sager to discuss in class. Not in book or supplement)<\/span> <\/strong><\/p>\n

State Police Power, Property Rights and Due Process<\/strong>
33. Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad(Dr. Sager to discuss in class. Not in book or supplement)<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

D. The Fuller Court 1888-1910<\/em><\/strong>
State Police Powers, Property Rights and Due Process <\/strong><\/p>\n

34. Chicago and Milwaukee RR. v. MinnesotaDr. Sagerto discuss(supplement)<\/span>
How does this case add to or subtract from the Munn case.\u00a0 Be sure to read the text book notes before and after Munn.
<\/strong><\/p>\n

New book assignment<\/strong>: Begin reading Burton Folsom, New Deal, Raw Deal<\/em>. Available on Amazon for less than $9.00. It should be finished right after\u00a0 Spring Break. It will provide some good background and context to the many of the cases we will cover in the Taft, Hughes and Stone Courts, especially Classes 16 and 17.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Class 8 Monday September 22<\/span><\/h3>\n

The Commerce Power, Taxing Power and the National Economy<\/p>\n

35. U.S. v. E.C.Knight<\/strong>(brief)<\/span>
36 Ch<\/span>ampions v. Ames<\/strong> (Brief)<\/span>\u00a0 Same questions as above
37 McCr<\/span>ay v. United States<\/strong><\/span> (brief)What does this case along with Ames change about one of the fundamentals of the Constitution<\/p>\n

The Taxing Power <\/strong><\/p>\n

38. Pollock v. Home Savings and Loan (Dr. Sager to discuss)<\/span> <\/strong><\/p>\n

Federal Police Powers, Due Process and Property Rights<\/strong><\/p>\n

39. Adair v. U.S. (Dr. Sager to discuss)<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Class #9\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong>Wednesday September 24th<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

Exam 1<\/span><\/h2>\n
    \n
  1. Cases covered for the purposes of the van geel chart, case policy, facts, issues\u00a0 and uphold or strike down will go through #37 McCray for the United. States. There will be at least\u00a0 10 van geel comparisons<\/li>\n
  2. For hypotheticals you can use all the relevant cases you want<\/li>\n
  3. Other objective questions will mainly focus on cases that class was to brief<\/li>\n
  4. Arnn book through chapter 6 may be covered on the exam. Focus is on main themes<\/li>\n
  5. All parts of the Constitution covered in cases\u00a0 discussed in class could be on exam.\u00a0 There will certainly be at least a 5 part match question for parts of the Constitution.<\/li>\n
  6. There will be at least one matching question on important quotes\u00a0 from various Justices<\/li>\n
  7. There will be some questions on the various justices views in cases with multiple opinions.\u00a0\u00a0 except for including Calder all multiple opinion cases will come from Marshall courts where there were very few, up through\u00a0 Fuller\u00a0 court.<\/li>\n
  8. \u00a0There may be questions about the various reenactments of famous cases.<\/li>\n
  9. There will be 2 essay questions that will require you make arguments for at least 2 sides, e.g.,
    is this treason under the constitution. Won’t ask this one and\u00a0 of course, there was an argument about this in the Burr case.<\/li>\n
  10. Of course, important issues, background\u00a0 etc discussed in class could be on the exam.<\/li>\n
  11. A question might ask\u00a0 about the difference a particular fact situation might be treated by the Marshall Court versus the Taney or later Court<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
    \n

    Class 10 Monday September 29th<\/span><\/h3>\n

    40. Lochner v. New York(Brief)<\/span>(Click here for votes)<\/a> (Votes at bottom of chart are totaled as uphold vs. strikedown. Vote on side are votes of Justice who was on the Court when Ellis was decided. Year is year that original Justice left the Court)Be sure you review chart carefully before coming to class.
    How does this case relate to Adair, discussed by Dr. Sager and E.C. Knight.
    What are the famous quotes in the Holmes dissent?<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Begin watching\u00a0 Trust Us a Pacific Legal<\/p>\n

    State Police Powers, Due Process and Property Rights<\/strong><\/p>\n

    41 Muller v\u00a0 Oregon<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

    F.The White Court 1910-21<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

    The Commerce Clause, Due Process and Property Rights <\/strong><\/p>\n

    42. Hammer v. Dagenhart(Brief)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

    The Commerce Clause<\/strong><\/p>\n

    43. Shreveport Rate Cases Houston East & West Texas Railway Co. v. U.S.(Brief) (supplement)(also discussed in text) What is the criteria for determining if something
    is part of interstate commerce and how does this relate to Gibbons and previous commerce clause cases? Now go over actual case. \u00a0\u00a0    https:\/\/caselaw.findlaw.com\/us-supreme-court\/234\/342.html<\/a>
    <\/strong><\/p>\n

    44. Missouri v. Holland(brief)<\/span>
    What are the important quotes by Justice Holmes.<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Begin watching Trust Us<\/strong> a video put together by Pacific Legal Foundation a conservative think tank about the rise of the Administrative state which is discussed in the latter chapters of the Arnn book. A lot of the cases in this area are about delegation of power and interpretation of particular laws or executive orders.. For the 45 video (click here<\/a>) The administrative state is called The Fourth Branch of Government and will be discussed indirectly in a number of cases throughout the rest of the semester. This video will be on the 2nd exam.\u00a0<\/p>\n

    \n

    Class 11\u00a0\u00a0 Wednesday October 1st<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\n

    G.The Taft Court 1921-30<\/a><\/em><\/strong>
    Taxing Power <\/strong>
    45. Bailey v. Drexel Furniture(Brief)<\/strong><\/span>
    Federal Judicial Power: Standing<\/strong>
    46. Frothingham v. Melon(Brief)(supplement) Dr. Sager to discuss<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

    State Police Powers, Due Process and Property Rights<\/strong><\/p>\n

    47. Adkins v. Children’s Hospital(Brief)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

    48. Pierce v. Society of Sisters and 48a. Meyer v. Nebraska Click here <\/a>for Pierce, <\/span>Click here for Meyer<\/span><\/a><\/strong>
    (Dr. Sager to discuss)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

    Congressional Powers: Investigations
    <\/strong> 49. McGrain v. Daugherty(Brief)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

    Executive Power:Removal
    <\/strong>50. Myers v. U.S.(Brief)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

    Class 12 Monday\u00a0\u00a0 October 6th<\/span><\/h3>\n

    The Takings Clause
    <\/strong> 51. Euclid v. Ambler Realty<\/span> (Dr. Sager to discuss. Not in book or supplement)<\/span> <\/strong><\/p>\n

    Sutherland “pull quote”<\/p>\n

    “Regulations, the wisdom, necessity, and validity
    of which as applied to existing conditions are now
    uniformly sustained, a century ago, or even half a
    century ago probably would have been
    rejected as arbitrary and oppressive.”<\/p>\n

    “and in this there is no inconsistency, for, while the
    the meaning of constitutional guarantees never
    varies, the scope of their application must expand
    or contract to meet the new and different
    conditions which are constantly coming within the
    field of their operations. In a changing world it is
    impossible that is should be otherwise.”<\/p>\n

    \u00a0 52. Pennsylvania Coal Company v. Mahon(Brief)(supplement)(Dr. Sager to discuss)<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

    \n

    Class 13 Wednesday\u00a0 October 8th<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

    H. The Hughes Court 1930-1941<\/em><\/strong>
    The Contracts Clause<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Find the great\u00a0 quotes of Chief Justice Hughes in Blaisdell (which is below, Case No. 53) and Justice Sutherland dissenting in Blaisdell and another case we will get to West Coast Hotel v. Parrish<\/span> reflecting on this quote. \u00a0 For class today read and carefully compare and contrast the two justices approach to understanding the Constitution and to constitutional interpretation.\u00a0\u00a0 Which do you agree with and why?\u00a0 Now argue the other side. (Click Here)<\/a><\/p>\n

    53. Home Building and Loan Assoc. v Blaisdell Brief<\/strong><\/span>
    <\/strong><\/p>\n

    Executive Powers: Removal<\/strong><\/p>\n

    54. Humphrey’s Executor v. U.S.(Brief)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

    (will begin referencing\u00a0 Folsom book in class today)<\/strong><\/p>\n

    What is the relationship, if any, between the some or all of the book contents and what we are covering in class?
    Conceptualize this as broadly as you can.
    <\/strong><\/p>\n

    The Commerce Power, The National Economy and Businesses
    55. Schechter Poultry v. U.S(Brief)<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

    The Taxing Power<\/strong>
    56. U.S. v. Butler(Brief)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

    State Police Powers, Due Process and Property Rights<\/strong>
    57. Nebbia v. New York(Brief)<\/span>
    58. West Coast Hotel v. Parrish(Brief)<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

    Class 14 Monday October 13th<\/span><\/h3>\n

    The Commerce Power and the National Economy<\/strong><\/p>\n

    59. NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin Steel(Brief)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

    The Taxing and Spending Power<\/strong><\/p>\n

    60. Steward Sewing Machine v. Davis(Brief)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

    Videos 1,1a, 2, 2a and 2b (these will be on 2nd exam)<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Executive Powers: Treaty and War Power<\/strong><\/p>\n

    61. U.S. v. Curtis Wright(Brief)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

    Judicial Review, Due Process, Congressional Power and the National Economy<\/strong><\/p>\n

    62.\u00a0 Ex Parte\u00a0 Grossman<\/span> (brief) I have added this because of its contemporary relevance. \u00a0 See if you can uncover\u00a0 what current situations, \u00a0 if any,\u00a0 it might\u00a0 apply to today.\u00a0\u00a0 Also for it to apply a couple of things which are\u00a0 strong possibilities would have to happen. The current situation involves different facts-Grossman was about selling alcohol-but could be the same general legal situation down the road.<\/strong><\/p>\n

    I. The Stone Court 1941-1946<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

    The Commerce Power and the National Economy<\/strong><\/p>\n

    63. U.S. v. Darby Lumber(Brief)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

    64. Wickard v. Filburn(Brief)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

    Class\u00a0 15\u00a0 Wednesday October 15<\/span><\/h3>\n

    \u00a065\u00a0 U.S.\u00a0 v. Carolene Products NIB\u00a0 Dr. Sager to briefly discuss<\/span><\/h4>\n

    Chief Justice Stone’s famous footnote 4 in Carolene Products:<\/strong>
    “There may be narrower scope for operation of the presumption of constitutionality when legislation appears on its face to be within a specific prohibition of the Constitution, such as those of the first ten amendments….It is\u00a0 unnecessary to consider now whether legislation which restricts those political processes which can ordinarily be expected to bring about repeal of undesirable legislation, is to be subjected to more exacting judicial scrutiny under the general prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment…Nor need we inquire …whether prejudice against discrete and insular minorities may be a special condition, which tends seriously to curtail the operation of those political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect minorities, and which may call for a correspondingly more searching judicial inquiry.”<\/p>\n

    66. Ex Parte Quirin(Brief)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

    67. Korematsu v. U.S.(Brief)<\/span>
    View #13 on Video page which is several short videos about the Korematsu case and Pearl Harbor. Most important is last one
    with Michelle Malkin defending her\u00a0 position on the need for the
    internment on what was a show entitled Hannity and Colmes(conservative vs liberal) back in early 2000’s.\u00a0 Her position
    has received enormous scholarly criticism.
    <\/strong><\/p>\n

    The Commerce Power and the States: The Dormant Commerce Clause
    <\/strong><\/p>\n

    68. Southern Pacific v. Arizona(Brief)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    \n

    Class 16\u00a0 Monday October 20th<\/span><\/h3>\n

    J. The Vinson Court 1946-1953<\/strong>
    Takings<\/strong><\/p>\n

    69. U.S. v. Causby(Brief) <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

    Executive Powers The War Power
    70. Youngstown Sheet and Tube v. Sawyer(Brief)<\/span>
    Carefully read at least twice the Jackson concurrence in this case.\u00a0 It is considered much more important than
    Black’s majority opinion.\u00a0 In addition, you might find it applicable to many current issues and perhaps if followed determinative of some ongoing or potential Supreme Court cases.<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Go over the Principles of Constitutional Construction (click here)<\/a>
    \u00a0See how these principles fit into the model Dr. Sager constructed in class.<\/p>\n

    The Warren Court 1953-1969<\/span>
    <\/strong><\/h3>\n

    Takings: Public Use
    <\/strong><\/p>\n

    71. Berman v. Parker(Brief)<\/span> <\/strong><\/p>\n

    Congressional Preemption
    <\/strong><\/p>\n

    72. Pennsylvania v. Nelson (Dr. Sager to discuss)<\/span>
    <\/strong><\/p>\n

    Congressional Powers; Investigation
    <\/strong><\/p>\n

    73. Watkins v. U.S.(Brief)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

    74. Barenblatt v. U.S. (Brief)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

    Dr. Sager will briefly the two spy cases from the 40’s, U.S. from Rosenberg and the Alger Hiss case.\u00a0 They will not directly be on the exam.\u00a0 However, if somehow you find a use for them in one of the essay hypotheticals you can.<\/p>\n

    In case you have time for lighter reading, here is a set of letters about meand my teaching that appeared in the Daily Texas in 2001 with a minor post script from me about 8 or more years later. (click here<\/a>)<\/p>\n

    75.<\/span> Cooper v. Aaron(Dr. Sager to discuss. Not in book or supplement)<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

    \n

    Paper #2 Assignment
    The assignment is to read 3 Supreme Court briefs
    that were filed in your case.\u00a0 Read both party’s
    original briefs, stated as\u00a0 petitioner\/respondent or appellant\/appellee. \u00a0 Then read a brief for one of the numerous Amicus Curiae.\u00a0 You choose
    which\u00a0 amicus brief you read.\u00a0 Write a 3-4\u00a0 page analysis,
    1000 words max, comparing and contrasting the major\u00a0 arguments in the briefs with the arguments used by the majority in the Supreme
    Court in case you briefed for the 1st paper. You can find the
    complete set of briefs on\u00a0 Scotus Blog or The American Bar Association website or Lexis\/Nexix.\u00a0 U.T. has a subscription to Lexis\/Nexis.
    Cases are usually ordered by\u00a0 Term of the Court and then by when the case was argued within that Term.
    Best way to search:\u00a0 put name of your case then Scotus Blog in search bar.
    <\/strong>Make sure you can find briefs for your case before you come to class on November 3rd\u00a0<\/strong>\u00a0Be sure you have looked at the list of briefs for your case so can ask any questions that may come up.<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Paper will be due Wednesday before Thanksgiving break.<\/strong><\/p>\n

    In case you have time for lighter reading, here is a set of letters about my and my teaching that appeared in the Daily Texas in 2001 with a minor post script from me about 8 or more years later. (click here<\/a>)<\/p>\n

    Federal Jurisdiction: Political Questions and Standing<\/strong><\/p>\n

    76. Baker v. Carr(Brief)<\/span>
    77. Flast v. Cohen(Brief)<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

    The Commerce Power and the National Economy
    <\/strong>78 Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S.(Brief)(Dr. Sager to discuss)<\/span>
    <\/strong><\/p>\n

    Modern Substantive Due Process
    <\/strong> 79\u00a0 Williams v. Lee Optical(Dr. Sager to discuss)<\/span>
    <\/strong><\/p>\n

    Congressional Power: Taxation
    <\/strong>80. U.S. v. Kahringer(Brief)(Supplement)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

    Congressional Power: Privileges
    <\/strong> 81. Powell v. McCormack(Brief)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

    L. The Burger Court 1969-1986<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

    Executive Powers: The War Power<\/strong><\/p>\n

    82. New York Times v. U.S.(Dr. Sager to discuss. Not in book or supplement)<\/span> <\/strong><\/p>\n

    83. U.S. v. U.S. District Court(Dr. Sager to discuss. Not in book or supplement)<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

    \n

    Class 18 Monday October 27th<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\n

    Exam 2<\/h1>\n
      \n
    1. Will cover all cases up to Case#79 Williams v Lee Optical. Cases briefed and cases listed for Dr. Sager to discuss will be on the\u00a0 exam Kahringer, Powell v McCormick, and following 2 cases will not be on exam.<\/strong><\/li>\n
    2. Cases discussed by Dr. Sager. Just need to know very basic facts, government policy and whether uphold or strike down so you can relate themto other cases we have covered.<\/strong><\/li>\n
    3. You should be able to place cases in time. That is an essay hypothetical question may ask if the outcome would be different if case arose 50 years ago. Don’t hold me to 50 years since some changes occur over longer or shorter periods.<\/li>\n
    4. Other materials on exam:\u00a0\u00a0 New Deal Raw Deal<\/strong> will be covered,\u00a0 videos assigned on Roosevelt Administration related to depression,\u00a0 videos about WWII and\u00a0 Korematsu and Michelle Malkin arguments for and against interment.\u00a0\u00a0<\/li>\n
    5. Not on this exam the video Trust Us.<\/li>\n
    6. In addition to being able to identify famous quotes in cases briefed, (and many casesdon’t have them), there are a number of quotes on this assignment pages you should be able to identify. Also you need to be able to identify quotes or content from cases with multiple opinions.\u00a0 We have had relatively few cases with 2 or more opinions.<\/li>\n
    7. You will not need to know cases from Section 1\u00a0 covered on prior exam<\/li>\n
    8. There will be some questions on the Chief Justices through Chief Justice Stone.<\/li>\n
    9. Here is a note on uphold\/strike down if it is still unclear for you. Remember the title of this course is American Constitutional Development\u00a0 (click here)<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

       <\/p>\n

      Class 19 Wednesday October 29th<\/span><\/h3>\n

      The\u00a0 Burger Court continued<\/strong><\/p>\n

      Takings<\/strong><\/p>\n

      84. Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff(Brief)<\/span> <\/strong><\/p>\n

      The Commerce Power <\/strong><\/p>\n

      85. Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising(Brief)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      In case you have time for lighter reading, here is a set of letters about my<\/span> and my teaching that appeared in the Daily Texas in 2001 with a minor post script from me about 8 or more years later. (click here<\/a>)<\/p>\n

      86. Gravel v. U.S.(Brief)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      Judicial Review and Executive Powers: Executive Privilege<\/strong><\/p>\n

      87. U.S. v. Nixon(Brief)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      Congressional Powers: Delegation and Legislative Veto<\/strong><\/p>\n

      \u00a088. I.N.S. v. Chadha(Brief)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      Congressional Powers: Delegation<\/strong><\/p>\n

      89.<\/span> Bowsher v. Synar(Dr. Sager to discuss)*<\/span> <\/strong><\/p>\n

      The Contracts Clause<\/strong><\/p>\n

      90 Allied Structural Steel v. Spannus(Brief)Dr. Sager to discuss<\/span>
      <\/strong><\/p>\n

      __________________________________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n

      Class 20\u00a0 Monday November 3rd
      <\/span><\/h3>\n

      The Takings Clause<\/strong><\/p>\n

      91. Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of N.Y.(Brief)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      92. Keystone Bituminous Coal v. Benedectin Dr. Sager to discuss<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      Separation of Powers
      <\/strong><\/p>\n

      93. Morrison v. Olson(Brief)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      94 <\/strong><\/span>Mistretta v. United States(brief fact)<\/span>
      Now compare Bowsher, Chadha and Morrison. What are similarities and differences.
      Also as best you can compare the voting behavior of justices who decided all 3 cases.
      If you knew only how\u00a0 they voted in these cases and the similarities and differences
      in these cases how might they vote in the following case: Read the facts only in Mistretta v. U.S.
      Can you make a prediction about the newly appointed Justice Scalia based on what you think
      his views were before he was appointed to the Court?<\/strong><\/p>\n

      Federal State Relations<\/strong>
      95. Pacific Gas and Electric v. State Energy Commission<\/strong>(Dr. Sager to discuss)<\/span><\/p>\n

      Executive Powers: War Power and Treaties<\/strong><\/p>\n

      \n

      Class 21\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 November 5th<\/span><\/span><\/h3>\n

      The Supreme Court and State Constitutions<\/strong><\/p>\n

      97. Michigan v. Long(Dr. Sager to cover in class)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      The Commerce Power and the National Economy.\u00a0 The Tide Turns?
      <\/strong><\/p>\n

      98 National League of Cities v. Usery(Dr. Sager to discuss)<\/span>
      99.\u00a0 Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan\u00a0 Transportation Authority (brief)<\/span>
      <\/strong><\/p>\n

      M. Rehnquist Court 1986-2005<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

      The Commerce Clause, 10th Amendment and the National Economy,.The Tide Turns Again?
      <\/strong><\/p>\n

      100. U.S. v. Lopez(Brief)<\/span>
      101\u00a0 Printz v. U.S.(Brief)<\/span>
      <\/strong><\/p>\n

      Class 22 Monday November 10th<\/span><\/h3>\n

      The Commerce Clause, 10th Amendment and the National Economy,.The Tide Turns Again?
      <\/strong><\/p>\n

      102. U.S. v. Morrison(Brief)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      103\u00a0 Granhold v. Heald(Brief)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      The Taxing and Spending Power<\/strong><\/p>\n

      104 South Dakota v. Dole(Brief)<\/span> <\/strong><\/p>\n

      State Powers and Federalism<\/strong><\/p>\n

      105\u00a0 Alden v. Maine(brief)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      \n

      \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

      Class 23 Wednesday November 12th<\/span><\/h3>\n

      106. Gonzales v. Reich (brief)<\/span>
      <\/strong><\/p>\n

      \u00a0107. Oregon Waste Systems v. Department of Environmental Quality of State of Oregon(brief)<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

      State Powers and Federalism<\/strong><\/p>\n

      108 U.S. Term Limits v Thorton (Dr. Sager to discuss)<\/span>
      <\/strong><\/p>\n

      109\u00a0<\/span> \u00a0Virginia Community College v. Katz(Dr. Sager to discuss)<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

      110 Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Authority(Brief)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      111 Kelo v. City of New London(Brief)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      View videos 3 and 29 on Kelo case\u00a0\u00a0 Will be part of the exam.<\/p>\n

      Some notes on Chief Justice\u00a0 <\/strong>Earl Warren<\/strong><\/p>\n

      Class 24\u00a0 Monday November 17th<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

      Executive Powers: Immunity<\/strong>
      112 Clinton v. Jones(Brief)<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\n

      Judicial Power
      113<\/span> Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation(Dr. sager to discuss)
      <\/span><\/h3>\n

      \u00a0<\/strong>Executive Power<\/span>
      114 Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (brief)<\/span><\/h3>\n

      115 Bond v. United States (Dr. Sager to discuss)<\/span><\/h3>\n

      M Roberts Court 2007-??<\/strong><\/h2>\n

      Mainly new takes on old issues<\/span><\/h3>\n

      Federal Taxing Power\u00a0 and Commerce Power
      116\u00a0 NFIB v. Sibelieus<\/span><\/h3>\n

      Executive Power<\/strong>
      117<\/span> \u00a0Clapper v Amnesty International(Dr. Sager to discuss)<\/span>
      <\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/h3>\n

      Two views of the\u00a0 Clarence Thomas relationship with Harlan Crow<\/span><\/h3>\n

      1. https:\/\/www.lawdork.com\/p\/clarence-thomas-rules-are-for-losers<\/h3>\n

      2.\u00a0 https:\/\/www.wsj.com\/articles\/clarence-thomas-supreme-court-propublica-harlan-crow-1c4c2f41?mod=opinion_lead_pos1<\/h3>\n

      We will discuss the video\u00a0 Trust Us<\/span><\/h3>\n

      Class 25 Wednesday November 19th<\/span>
      Executive Powers<\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/h3>\n

      118 . Zivotofsky v Kerry<\/span><\/h3>\n

      Takings
      119\u00a0 Horn v. Department of\u00a0 of Agriculture(brief)<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

      Executive Power
      120 Clinton v. New York(Dr. Sager to discuss)<\/span>
      <\/strong><\/h3>\n

      States Taxation<\/strong>
      121 South Dakota v. Wayfare(brief)<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

      Legislative Power<\/strong>
      122. G<\/span>undy v. United States(brief)<\/span>
      <\/strong><\/h3>\n

      Nation Preemption
      123\u00a0 <\/span>Arizona v. United States(brief)<\/span>
      <\/span>124 Murphy v NCAA(brief)<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\n

      Paper #2 was assigned, Due on Wednesday November 19th<\/h2>\n

      Fall Break\u00a0\u00a0 Nov 24-29th<\/span><\/h3>\n

      Class 26 Monday December 1<\/span><\/h3>\n

      Recent Roberts Court cases<\/span><\/h2>\n

      Judcial Power
      125 Patcha v Zinke(Dr. Sager to discuss)<\/strong><\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/h3>\n

      Federal Powers
      126\u00a0 Sween v. Melin(brief)<\/strong><\/span><\/span>
      <\/span><\/h3>\n

      Executive Power
      127\u00a0 Trump v Vance(brief)<\/span><\/span>
      <\/span><\/h3>\n

      Legislative Power
      128\u00a0 Trump v. Mazar(brief)<\/span><\/span> This case is important for many reasons.\u00a0 A major one is that it is a review of many of the cases we have covered this semester. Clinton v. Jones, U.s. v Nixon, McGrain v Daugherty, Watkins and Barenblatt.
      <\/span><\/h3>\n

      \u00a0Final Word On State Control of Interstate Commerce?<\/h3>\n

      129\u00a0 National Pork Producers Council v. Ross(Brief)<\/span><\/h3>\n

      Executive Power Again<\/h3>\n

      130 Trump v U.S.\u00a0 (Brief)<\/span><\/h3>\n

       <\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

      \u00a0<\/h3>\n
      \n

      Class 27\u00a0 Wednesday<\/span><\/h3>\n

      December\u00a0 3rd
      Exam #3<\/span><\/span><\/h3>\n
      \n

      \u00a0<\/h2>\n

      \u00a0<\/h2>\n

      \u00a0<\/h2>\n

      Right now there will be an objective and two essays for exa<\/h2>\n

      \u00a01. Videos will be Trust Me and two videos on the Kelo case<\/h2>\n

      2. Cases assigned since last exam starting with #89 Powelll v McCormick to 130.\u00a0 Trump v. U.S.\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Also casew\u00a0 \u00a0Virginia Community College v. Katz, Michigan v Long and Alden v Maine will not be on objective part of exam.\u00a0<\/strong> If you can use them in an essay that is fine.\u00a0 Can do essays without them as well.
      3. Chief Justices:\u00a0 from Vinson to Roberts II
      4<\/strong> For some comparison questions, like Van Geel, it may be expected you recall some of the\u00a0 major cases from each era for example,\u00a0 Calder,\u00a0 Gibbons, Korematsu, Marbury, McCullough,\u00a0 Dred Scott, Milligan, Munn, Lochner, NLRB v Jones and Laughlin, Wickard, Youngstown.\u00a0 This is a not an exhaustive list<\/span>.\u00a0 We, and justices, have mentioned a good number of past cases that relate to current ones in the\u00a0 many classes since last exam.\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong>
      <\/strong><\/em><\/h2>\n

      5. You may\u00a0 use the case you briefed and used for paper #2 if that fits into your answer on any of the essays.\u00a0 Both essays on exam\u00a0 will be hypotheticals.\u00a0 You will need to get through objective which is a bit shorter than the first two exams and get to essays as quickly as you can.<\/h2>\n

      Class 28\u00a0 Monday December 8th 50ish plus or so Semi Annual End of Year Awards Dinner at Dr. Sager’s home.\u00a0<\/span>
      Usually runs 6-8 p.m.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/h2>\n

      \u00a0<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      Constitutional Development IFall 2025 First a caveat: the order and content of each assignment may change throughout the semester. Content changes are most likely as we get toward the end of the semester.\u00a0 The Supreme Court may issue an opinion in some area we are studying. For instance, that opinion may overrule an assigned opinion […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":443,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":3,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-17","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/sites.la.utexas.edu\/amcondev1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/17","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/sites.la.utexas.edu\/amcondev1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/sites.la.utexas.edu\/amcondev1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/sites.la.utexas.edu\/amcondev1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/443"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/sites.la.utexas.edu\/amcondev1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=17"}],"version-history":[{"count":449,"href":"http:\/\/sites.la.utexas.edu\/amcondev1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/17\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1099,"href":"http:\/\/sites.la.utexas.edu\/amcondev1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/17\/revisions\/1099"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/sites.la.utexas.edu\/amcondev1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}