{"id":12,"date":"2012-12-18T14:12:18","date_gmt":"2012-12-18T14:12:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/sites.la.utexas.edu\/amcondev2\/?page_id=12"},"modified":"2026-02-24T00:55:37","modified_gmt":"2026-02-24T00:55:37","slug":"assignments","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"http:\/\/sites.la.utexas.edu\/amcondev2\/assignments\/","title":{"rendered":"Assignments"},"content":{"rendered":"\r\n\r\n\r\n

American Constitutional Development: Rights and Liberties<\/span><\/h1>\r\n

\r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Spring 2026<\/span><\/h1>\r\n

 <\/p>\r\n

 <\/p>\r\n

\r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n

\r\n

\r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n

List of Daily Assignments<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/h1>\r\n

\r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Please Read These Instructions Carefully First<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\r\n

\r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Note: Cases for this class are assigned from 4 sources: the main textbook, the cases on the website, electronic supplement\u00a0 for the textbook, and a few cases that are not in the textbook or the supplement. Cases that should be briefed <\/span>before class are so noted<\/strong> (click here for instructions how to brief<\/a>)<\/span><\/p>\r\n

A. Case Info <\/span><\/span><\/p>\r\n

    \r\n
  1. \r\n

    Each day there will be from 1\u20135 main cases to brief. There will be additional cases assigned which will be handled in one of two ways. Dr. Sager will discuss these cases in the context of the assigned cases or he will expect the class to discuss them as hypothetical fact situations in light of the theory, rules, doctrines etc. of the assigned cases. Those cases that Dr. Sager will discuss in detail are noted as “Dr. Sager to discuss.” Cases listed with no notation to “brief” or Dr. Sager will be covered as the hypotheticals and you will be told which ones you need to know something about for the exams.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<\/li>\r\n

  2. \r\n

    Cases listed by name with the word “Brief” after them, e.g. Hurtado v. California<\/em> assigned in class 2, means to write a brief for that case and bring it to class.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<\/li>\r\n

  3. \r\n

    Cases listed by name with “S” and a number can be found in that chapter of the supplementary cases. Access to them comes with the purchase of the book or can be purchased separately. You should have information in your book as to how to get on the website. Again, if you buy a used book, you can purchase the supplement separately. The cases in the textbook and on the supplement website are edited versions of cases, usually without footnotes. You can always find the full text of the case on the web if it raises your interest or you don’t have access to that assigned case. Supplement cases are usually edited down to a couple of pages.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<\/li>\r\n

  4. \r\n

    Cases listed by name that are not in the textbook or supplement are denoted by NIB. I did link a short excerpt from the first NIB case, Calder v. Bull.<\/em> Except for Calder,<\/em> you do not need to brief or peruse them before class. However, the full opinion versions can be found on the Findlaw website which is linked on the Resource Page. Also, you can just search the web by case name and find the full text or summaries on other websites.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<\/li>\r\n

  5. \r\n

    If the case is noted to be discussed by Dr. Sager, you do not need to brief the case before class. Normally these are cases that have issues similar to those cases briefed for the day. Sometimes they are discussed for their historical significance. Other times they have a slightly different fact situation or a slightly different interpretation of the Constitution than the main cases assigned for that day. For Dr. Sager, a few of these cases are no longer in the canon of civil liberties cases for reasons that are hard to fathom.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<\/li>\r\n

  6. \r\n

    Cases are assigned for various reasons. Most are assigned because they are considered part of the Civil Liberties canon, an agreed-upon case list created by “experts” for civil liberties courses. Some are assigned mainly because there is just a memorable phrase or idea in them you should know. Others are assigned to illustrate different points of view among the justices. Still others are assigned because they form a foundation for future cases which may not show up for 40 years or more. Still others are assigned because they are eventually overruled or they overrule previous cases we have covered. Cases are covered almost exclusively in historical order so you can see the ebb and flow, the expansion and contraction, the creation and destruction of various constitutional doctrines and interpretations.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<\/li>\r\n

  7. \r\n

    You will be provided a list of the cases for which you are responsible prior to each exam. For most of the exams, this list will mainly be the cases you were assigned to brief.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<\/li>\r\n

  8. \r\n

    While it may seem like there are a lot of cases to know, you will see there are a small set of recurring issues with slightly different fact patterns. Since the Court is often split on most of these issues you should know which justices generally take which side.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<\/li>\r\n

  9. \r\n

    In a civil liberties or civil rights case almost every case has the same basic form: the case starts in one of two ways. (1) An individual claims that some law or activity of federal, state, or local government violates a claimed civil right or liberty or privilege and immunity under the Bill of Rights or the 13th, 14th, or 15th Amendments. (2) The government claims it can do something and the individual answers that it can’t because what the government wants to do infringes on that individual’s civil right or liberty under the Bill of Rights or the 13th, 14th, or 15th Amendments.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<\/li>\r\n

  10. \r\n

    Almost every case then involves an individual versus the federal government or state government or an entity created by the state or federal government. It is usually named that way, e.g., Hurtado v. California<\/em> or Barron v. Baltimore.<\/em> There are a few cases where another entity of government is the surrogate for an individual, e.g., the very first case, Calder v. Bull,<\/em> seems to be two individuals suing each other. In fact, one side really represents the position of the state. For instance, Calder v. Bull<\/em> really is Calder v. Connecticut.<\/em> The Slaughterhouse Cases<\/em> are really suits against the state of Louisiana. All of this will be pointed out as it occurs.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<\/li>\r\n

  11. \r\n

    Cases colored purple are assigned to the class for briefing. Those colored black Dr. Sager will discuss and present the brief. For some cases Dr. Sager is covering there is a supplemental assignment such as reading a brief on the case or reading a part of the case and so on. On the assignment page there are links to materials prepared by Dr. Sager to help summarize some sets of cases\u2014cases that have something similar about them and end up at the Supreme Court in a fairly compact time period. These will help you answer some of the questions below.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n

    \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

    B. When reading the cases, you should think about the cases in several ways.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

      \r\n
    1. \r\n

      What are the facts and holding of the case? What are the various answers to fill in the brief.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<\/li>\r\n

    2. \r\n

      How does this case relate to the other cases, issues, theories, and constitutional doctrines we have covered so far?<\/span><\/p>\r\n<\/li>\r\n

    3. \r\n

      What are the views of the various justices on these issues?<\/span><\/p>\r\n<\/li>\r\n

    4. \r\n

      What are the larger political issues, political theories, constitutional and democratic values, and interpretive issues raised and answered by this case?<\/span><\/p>\r\n<\/li>\r\n

    5. \r\n

      What generalizations can you make, if any, about how a historical Court, such as the Warren Court, decides cases in terms of some of the dimensions of analysis, for example, liberal\/conservative, activist\/restraintist, originalist\/nonoriginalist, expanding rights\/limiting rights, pro-government\/anti-government, and so on.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<\/li>\r\n

    6. \r\n

      What does this case or set of cases tell us about how the Court or individual justices might resolve some of the larger civil rights and civil liberties issues we will be facing in the future? We know, among others, some of the privacy issues, due process issues, and equal protection issues now, and perhaps we can hypothesize about those that will be coming in the future. For instance, the courts are now beginning to have to deal with privacy issues with regard to others finding out what is on your mobile phone. Courts will soon be dealing with facial recognition issues and gene modification issues. European courts are beginning to deal with your right to remove your history, a history you may or may not have provided to places on the internet. How about an equal right to get on a shuttle to some distant planet to save your family DNA against some scourge on Earth. As we go through the course, feel free to contribute the future issues you see.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n



      Check the website regularly for changes.\u00a0 Normally the changes will be a couple of weeks in advance.
      <\/span><\/strong><\/span>

      \r\n\r\n<\/span>

      As we get later into the semester, mostly after the 2nd exam,\u00a0 I will be assigning students to read briefs rather than edited cases.\u00a0 These briefs were
      prepared by students usually because the the case had not yet made it to the latest revision of the textbook.\u00a0 <\/strong><\/span>

      By then you should be able to get all you need from the brief to understand the case, the test used by the Court,\u00a0 the arguments for each side
      based on all of our past case analysis, and have a good idea about ow most of the current justices voted in the case. In many cases we will be
      looking for what moved a “swing justice.”\u00a0 We will be watching justices like these throughout the semester.\u00a0 <\/strong><\/span>


      <\/h2>\r\n\r\n

       <\/p>\r\n\r\n

       <\/p>\r\n\r\n

       <\/p>\r\n\r\n

      Class 1 Monday Januuary 12<\/span><\/p>\r\n

      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n

      Course Overview
      <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n

      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n

      If you have never studied much about the Court, read\u00a0 Epstein and Walker pp 1-40 to reacquaint yourself with the Supreme Court as an institution and with terms relevant to its operation.\u00a0 Read this over the next two weeks or so if you are not familiar with the Supreme Court and how it functions and fits into the large scheme of our governmental institutions.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n

      The Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment In 18th and 19th Century America.\u00a0 Begin reading Arnn book.
      <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n

      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n

      Read or reread The Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\r\n

      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n

      The Pre Marshall Courts<\/span><\/p>\r\n

      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n

      Calder v. Bull <\/span>Linked<\/span>  (click here<\/a>)<\/span><\/strong><\/span>Dr<\/span>. Sager to discuss. <\/span>(In this case,\u00a0 The Court 
      was trying to decide if Connecticut legislature violated the Constitution. Court held for state of
      Connecticut). <\/span><\/span> For Class <\/span><\/strong>Read a couple of paragraphs from two of the opinions linked
      below<\/strong>. <\/span>What are they arguing about. Both agree that the 
      Connecticut legislature acted constitutionally.\u00a0 <\/span><\/span>(      click here<\/a>)<\/span><\/strong><\/span>
      Some questions to consider<\/strong>. (We will spend much of the semester answering some of 
      these questions)<\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      What is a “right”? Who has “rights”? What are inalienable “rights”?\u00a0\u00a0 What is the source of the “rights” of all Americans? What is the first line of protection for your rights?<\/strong><\/span>
       What is “liberty?”\u00a0 What are “civil liberties?” What are the the rights to “life, liberty and happiness” as well as “life, liberty and property?”<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Marshall Court<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Barron v. Baltimore Brief<\/span> Facts are simple: Barron says city of Baltimore caused his wharf to become worthless because of various public works projects.\u00a0 He claims this is a taking of p<\/span>roperty without compensation contrary to 5th amendment \u00a0 For the 3 page text of the case (click here) \u00a0<\/a> If you have a problem doing the brief from my facts and the short opinion,\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/strong> sample briefs for cases assigned today and\u00a0 Wednesday appear at the bottom of the syllabus page.\u00a0 Try to do these without the samples first.\u00a0 These briefs can assist you if you have any questions about how to brief.\u00a0 Links appear on Syllabus page.\u00a0\u00a0 Also there is a discussion of the briefing form for this course on the\u00a0 Syllabus\u00a0 page.\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Did The Bill of Rights Apply To the States?
      Some other questions to consider in relation to this and perhaps several other cases.
      Does Barron<\/span> mean that citizen’s property as of 1833 do not have any protections against actions of their\u00a0 state and local governments?
      Can you think of a situation where Marshall might have said a citizen’s property is protected?
      Can you think of an interpretation of the 5th amendment that would support Plaintiff’s claim?
      Where did the state and local governments get the power to affect a citizen’s property?
      What does this case tell us about Marshall’s view of federalism?
      What are the rights\u00a0 which are the one such that\u00a0 “they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights?”
      No matter what these rights are, do they or should they affect the meaning of the later adopted Constitution?<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Some advice for Students from some well known professors\u00a0 with diverse points of view from\u00a0 a variety of universities: (click here<\/a>)<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      George Orwell v. Robert Reich(click here)<\/a><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Begin reading The Founder’s Key by Larry Arnn.\u00a0 what is relationship between Declaration of Independence and Constitution.\u00a0 When was the United States founded according to him. Is the Constitution “a relic.”<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Taney Court<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Ex Part McCardle Brief<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      ____________________________________________________________________________________________<\/p>\r\n
      Class 2\u00a0 \u00a0Wednesday\u00a0 January 14th<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Chase Court<\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      Orwell quotes not gotten to at first class.\u00a0 (Click here)<\/a><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      The Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment In 19th Century America<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      What Did the Post Civil War Amendments Do and what were they meant to do?\u00a0 Movie Lincoln<\/span> is important to understanding these.
      Dr. Sager will include a few comments on the movie.
      <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      The Slaughterhouse Cases -Brief<\/span> <\/span>(Click here\u00a0 from\u00a0 sample brief )<\/a><\/strong><\/span>
      Bradwell v Illinois Dr. Sager<\/span> to Discuss \u00a0<\/span>\u00a0\u00a0 Read\u00a0 Bradley quote from case       (click here<\/a>) Dr. Sager attennded Bradwell
      Elementary School\u00a0 out Chicago’s southside and he will mention one interesting aspect of that.experience<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      What is required to file a suit under the 14th or legislation enacted under it.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
       <\/p>\r\n
      The Waite Court<\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      The Civil Rights Cases <\/span>Dr Sager <\/span>to discuss<\/span>(click here for quotes and framework<\/a><\/strong>)<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      What was the meaning of “due process” and did 14th Amendment\u00a0 incorporate Bill of Rights<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Walker v. Sauvinet\u00a0 study from brief<\/span>(click here)<\/span><\/a>
      <\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Hurtado v. California\u00a0 Brief\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      What is or was the meaning of “equal protection”?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Yick Wo v. Hopkins Brief\u00a0<\/span> (Click here for 4\u00a0 page version of case\u00a0 <\/a>) \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Strauder v. West Virginia(1880)Dr. Sager to Discuss\u00a0<\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      \u00a0<\/pre>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Questions to consider:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Did Yick Wo win because he was Chinese or because he was a businessman?<\/strong><\/span>
      What standard did the Supreme Court apply in Plessy for judging whether an unconstitutional discrimination had taken place?<\/strong><\/span>
      Was that the same or a different standard than in Yick Wo?<\/strong><\/span>
      What was the social science argument used by the majority in Plessy?<\/strong><\/span>
      Should social science or even physical science be a basis for a Supreme Court opinions?<\/strong><\/span>
      Which of the cases assigned today for briefing are based on “originalist” arguments?<\/strong><\/span>
      What does “due process” really mean? How do you know that? Read<\/span><\/strong> Professor Graglia’s short\u00a0 op. ed.\u00a0 from the Wall Street Journal \u00a0in 2005 entitled “The Death of Due Process.”\u00a0 This op. ed. could be found\u00a0 now in the Congressional Record       (click here)<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Also below Professor Graglia’s piece\u00a0 in the Congressional Record is a Charles Krauthammer column analyzing\u00a0 the medical marijuana case, Gonzales v. Reich<\/span>.\u00a0 In this case Scalia and Thomas were on opposite sides. Krauthammer shows why they differed\u00a0 in terms of how they interpret the Constitution and also shows how inadequate and shallow press coverage is\u00a0 of Supreme Court cases using this case as the example.\u00a0 Note the\u00a0 general point of the article, the shallowness of much of our dialogue today and the need to get outside of how you see the world.\u00a0 <\/strong>Dr. Sager\u00a0 Daily Texan controversy in 2001\u00a0 (click here)<\/a>\u00a0 
      <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n
      Class 3 Wednesday January 21st<\/span><\/h3>\r\n
      The Fuller Court<\/span>

      Plessy v. Ferguson Brief<\/span>
      Williams v. Miss(1898)Dr. Sager to discuss<\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      The Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment In Late 19th Century America:
      The Religion Clauses – be sure you know these short phrases in 1st Amendment
      <\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Reynolds v. U.S.<\/strong><\/span> Dr. Sager to Discuss Supp(Waite Court case)
      <\/span><\/span>Bradfield v. Roberts<\/span> Dr. Sager to discuss Supp<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Roots of “Substantive” Due Process<\/p>\r\n
      Lochner v. New York\u00a0 Brief Supp.<\/span>(click here for copy if you don't yet have 
      supplemen<\/a>t<\/span>)<\/span><\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Questions to consider for class. <\/strong>What is the purpose of the religion clauses in the 1st amendment?<\/strong><\/span>
      What are the definitions of the terms in these clauses?<\/strong><\/span>
      Have these clauses fulfilled whatever purpose they seem to have had?\u00a0 This is a question we will consider throughout the semester.
      <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      The Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment In Early 20th Century America<\/span><\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Free Speech: The Search for Standards<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      White Court<\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Schenk v U.S Brief<\/span>
      Abrams v. U.S. Dr.   Sager to discuss<\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      Twining v. New Jersey\u00a0 Dr. Sager to discuss<\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      Taft Court<\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      Meyer v Nebraska Dr. Sager to discuss Supp.<\/span>
      Pierce v Society of Sisters Dr. Sager to discuss Supp\u00a0 
      For relevant quotes       (click here)<\/a><\/span>

      Gitlow v. New York Brief<\/span><\/span>

      <\/pre>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Questions to consider for briefs<\/strong> <\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Is there such a thing called “substantive due process” or is it the proverbial “oxymoron?”<\/strong><\/span>
      What is the difference between laws about “freedom of speech” and laws about “speech”?<\/strong><\/span>
      Is there a difference with regard the 1st Amendment?<\/strong><\/span>
      Why protect either in the first place?<\/strong><\/span>
      What is the difference between the tests used in Schenk, Abrams and Gitlow?<\/strong><\/span><\/div>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \u00a0<\/div>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Study Basic Van Geel table (click here<\/a>)<\/span><\/div>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Begin reading the Ramaswamy book.\u00a0 Are all the persons who allege their rights\u00a0 being violated victims?\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Are we really the Nacirema?<\/span><\/div>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      _____________________________<\/span><\/h1>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n

      <\/span>Class 4\u00a0 Monday January 26th<\/span>
      <\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Civil Rights and Civil Liberties in the early and mid 20th Century<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Whitney v. California\u00a0 Dr. Sager to discuss  <\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      Weeks v. U.S. Dr. Sager to Discuss\u00a0  <\/span>
      Olmstead v. U.S. Dr. Sager to discuss  

      Buck v. Bell  Dr. Sager to discuss<\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Stromberg v. California Dr. Sager to discuss<\/span>   <\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      Hughes Court
      Free Press and Freedom of Association<\/strong>
      <\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Near v. Minnesota Brief<\/span>
      DeJonge v. Oregon Dr. Sager to discuss\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Rights of the Accused and Convicted <\/span>(<\/span>Dr. Sager to discuss all of these except\u00a0Powell v. Ala. \u00a0which is in text and \u00a0needs to be briefed<\/span>)<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      (Click here for brief chart comparing these cases<\/a>)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Stromberg v. California Dr. Sager to discuss\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>

       Powell v. Alabama Brief<\/span>
      Brown v. Missisippi Dr. Sager to discuss\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>

      <\/p>\r\n
      (Van Geel analysis of Weeks as precedent<\/span>
      for Wolf –       click here)<\/a><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      The Incorporation Arguments Revisited<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Palko v. Connecticut Brief<\/span><\/p>\r\n

      Rochin v. California<\/span>\u00a0 Dr. Sager to discuss<\/span><\/span>
      For various formulations of the meaning of due process,       click here.<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \u00a0<\/pre>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Some questions to consider for this class<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      What is the meaning of the words in the various formulations of “due process?” What are the arguments for and against incorporation and how do they relate to Justice Miller’s interpretation of the 14th in Slaughterhouse? If you apply part of the Bill of Rights to the states through the due process clause, is the meaning of say the 5th amendment stricture against self-incrimination the same for both the federal and state governments? Does freedom of the press have different meanings at different times in our history? Alternately, how does technology affect the way freedom of the press is interpreted?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      We will discuss the movie\u00a0 \"Lincoln\"  While the movie is about 
      the passage of the 13th Amendment, much of the
      interplay was also true in relation to 14th which was passed 
      after Lincoln was asassinated.  <\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      Class 5\u00a0 Wednesday January 28th<\/span><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Civil Rights and Civil Liberties in the early and mid 20th Century

      <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      The Second Amendment<\/span>
      U.S. v. Miller Dr. Sager to discuss<\/span>

       Speech\/Religion\/4th Amendment<\/span><\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      Thornhill v. Alabama Dr. Sager to discuss<\/span>
      Cantwell v. Connecticut Brief<\/span>

      <\/span><\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      Preferred Freedoms and Carolene Products: Footnote 4 in 
      Carolene<\/strong><\/span>

      U.S. v. Carolene Products Dr. Sager to Discuss Case\u00a0 in Supp.
      Read and know\u00a0 famous footnote 4(       click here)<\/a><\/span>

      The Stone Court<\/span>
      West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnett Brief<\/span>

      6th Amendment 
      Betts v. Brady Dr. Sager to discuss<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span>

      <\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Preferred Freedoms and Carolene Products: Footnote 4 in Carolene<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      U.S. v. Carolene Products<\/span> Dr. Sager to Discuss<\/span> Case<\/span>\u00a0 in Supp.\u00a0 Read and know\u00a0 famous footnote 4( click here)<\/a><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      The Stone Court<\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      Voting Discrimination and Voting Rights<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Smith v. Allwright\u00a0<\/span> See chart below\u00a0<\/span><\/span>
      (      Click here for Dr. Sager’s summary of White Primary<\/a><\/strong><\/span>
       Cases<\/a>)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n
       <\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Some questions to consider for today’s cases.<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      What is a fundamental right?<\/span>
      How does it differ from a right or a civil right?<\/span>
      Is there a hierarchy of rights protected in the Constitutition and if so what is it?<\/span>
      While Buck v. Bell is not good law today, might it come back as good law when the government runs the health care system?<\/span>
      What questions about the 2nd Amendment are not answered in U.S. v. Miller? Can you think of at least 4.<\/span>
      What is the “political thicket” and why should or should not a court be involved in the “political thicket” according to Frankfurter. Are there any cases not in a “political thicket?<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      View widely acclaimed film “Lincoln” directed by Steven Spielberg 2 hours 28 minutes. Can be found on Amazon Prime<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      What did you learn from it that you did not know?\u00a0 Based on the movie what was the Civil War about?<\/span>
      Was Lincoln a racist?\u00a0 While this is about the passage of the 13th Amendment, the issues and congressional players involved\u00a0 the passage of the 14th were very similar.\u00a0\u00a0 More details about the arguments about the meaning and passage will be found in Kull book, The\u00a0 Colorblind\u00a0 Constitution .<\/span>
      How does the movie fit with chapters 2 and 3 in the Ramaswamy book<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
       <\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
       <\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n

      Class 6 Monday February 2nd
      <\/span><\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      Fundamental Rights Analysis<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Skinner v. Oklahoma Dr. Sager to discuss\u00a0<\/span>
      <\/span><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Read Bartlette’s 2007 piece from the Wall Street Journal entitled “Whitewash”\u00a0\u00a0 What relevance, if any, does this article and these\u00a0 white primary cases have today?\u00a0 (Click here<\/a>)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 What does this article say about the current cancel culture.\u00a0 Recall that in Vivek’s book he talks about the great moral philosopher David Hume being cancelled for a footnote in one of his many brilliant books on philosophy. This appears at the end of the\u00a0 chapter on the Civil War.<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \u00a0<\/pre>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire Brief<\/span>

      <\/span><\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      What is “speech” for the purposes of these cases and what is the practice of “religion” for these cases?<\/span>
      What can we now say about the meaning of the 1st Amendment with some\u00a0 certainty.<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Civil Liberties in War Time and Equal Protection<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Korematsu v. U.S.<\/span> Brief(click here for court opinion)<\/a><\/span>Read only 
      Majority,<\/span>  Murphy and Jackson opinions, (skip Frankfurter concurrence
      and Roberts\u00a0 dissent)<\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Some preliminary and early models and charts<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Tests\u00a0\u00a0 (click here<\/a>)<\/span>
      Interpretation       (click here)<\/a><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      We will discuss first 3 chapters of Ramaswamy book focusing on Chapter 3. The Constitutional War<\/em><\/strong><\/span>
      In connection with chapters 2 and 3 we will discuss Spielberg’s movie “Lincoln” What did you learn. Was Lincoln a racist. What were differences in points of view if any in Spielberg’s movie vs. Ramaswamy chapters?<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      The Vinson Court Dr. Sager to discuss
      Moose Lodge v. Irvis Dr. Sager to discuss

      Colegrove v. Green\u00a0 Dr. Sager to discuss<\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Civil Rights and Civil Liberties in the early and mid 20th Century<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Speech<\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      Dennis v. United States Brief from summary here(c<\/span>lick here)<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      What is “speech” for the purposes of these cases and what is the practice of “religion” for these cases?<\/span>
      What can we now say about the meaning of the 1st Amendment with some\u00a0 certainty.<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Class 7 Wednesday\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      The Development of Equal Protection: Attacking Equal In “Separate But Equal”<\/span>
      <\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      McLaurin v. Oklahoma Dr. Sager to discuss<\/span>. \u00a0<\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      This case and related cases are fully discussed in the movie <\/strong><\/span><\/span>
      “Simple Justice.”\u00a0 We will discuss all in class\u00a0<\/span><\/strong><\/span>
      Sweatt v. Painter Brief<\/span><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Establishment of Religion<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Everson v. Board of Education Brief<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Read and study Justice Douglas’s statement in a related case<\/span>(click here)<\/a><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      The Warren Court Legal Revolution 1954-1969<\/span><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      The Beginnings of the idea of Privacy<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Poe v. Ullman Read and Summarize Harlan dissent<\/span>(click here<\/a>) S\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Questions for today’s cases<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      What is the rule and test for Justice Black as to whether an activity is an “establishment of religion.”<\/span>
      What is “religion” for Black.<\/span>
      Can you explain the difference in approach to civil liberties Justice Jackson takes in Dennis<\/span> vs. his approach in Korematsu<\/span> and Barnette.<\/span>

      <\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Equal Protection<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      Brown v. Board of Education I and II<\/span>(Brief)<\/span>
      Bolling v. Sharp<\/span><\/span><\/span> Dr. Sager to discu<\/span>ss<\/span> 
      <\/span><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      View film \"Simple Justice\" before this class. We will discuss in class as we 
      discuss Brown<\/span>.\u00a0 This movie is on the first exam. 
      It can be found on Youtube and is 2 hours and 12 minute long<\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Paper #1 will be a brief of a recent Supreme Court case using my briefing form that can be found on Syllabus pages. For directions and your assigned case, click here.<\/a><\/span><\/p>\r\n
       <\/p>\r\n
      Assignment will be due Monday, February 16th in class.<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      We will discuss first 3 chapters of Ramaswamy book focusing on Chapter 3. 
      The Constitutional War
      <\/span>In connection with chapters 2 and 3 we will discuss Spielberg's movie \"Lincoln\" 
      What did you learn. Was Lincoln a racist. What were differences in points of
      view if any in Spielberg's movie vs. Ramaswamy chapters?

      <\/span>Class 8 Monday February 9th<\/span>

      <\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Procedural Due Process:Rights of the Accused and Convicted
      <\/strong><\/span>
      <\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Mapp v. Ohio <\/span><\/span>Brief
      <\/strong> Gideon v. Wainwright Brief<\/span>
      Escobedo v. Illinois Brief<\/span>
       Miranda v. Arizona Brief<\/span>
      Katz v. U.S. Dr. Sager to discuss<\/span>
       Terry v. Ohio\u00a0 Brief <\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
       <\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Class 9 Wednesday February 11th\u00a0<\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      What Exam 1 will cover.(might be changed slighly after class 8 Monday)<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Structure in general:<\/p>\r\n
      A. Objective<\/p>\r\n
      10 Van Geel comparisons, 5-6 questions on two movies,\u00a0 matching word or quotes to cases,\u00a0<\/p>\r\n
      B Essays\u00a0 \u00a0<\/p>\r\n
      Two essays usually worth 30 points each. Hypotheticals requiring 3 to 4 short arguments on both sides of\u00a0 the 2 or more issues raised by\u00a0 the hypothetical.\u00a0 You can use any of the cases we have covered in this class so far to support your arguments on the issues. That includes cases that were assigned for briefing\u00a0 and cases Dr. Sager discussed or other authorities assigned for reading.\u00a0<\/p>\r\n
      C. Parts of the Constitution we have covered in cases so far.<\/p>\r\n
      D. Graglia and\u00a0<\/p>\r\n
      Calder v. Bull, Ex Parte McCardle, Barron v. Baltimore,\u00a0\u00a0 Slaughterhouse Ca<\/u><\/strong>ses<\/strong>,\u00a0 Hurtado v. California<\/u><\/strong>, <\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0,Yick Wo v. Hopkins<\/u> , \u00a0Civil Rights Cases.<\/u> \u00a0\u00a0Plessy v. Ferguson,<\/u><\/strong> \u00a0Lochner v. New York<\/strong><\/u>\u00a0,<\/strong> \u00a0Schenck v. U.S. Gitlow v. New<\/u> York<\/strong>\u00a0 Near v. Minnesota,<\/u><\/strong> Dejonge v Oregon<\/u>, Powell v. Alabama<\/u>. Palko v. Connecticut<\/u>, Carolene Products<\/u>, U.S. v Miller,\u00a0\u00a0 Smith v Allwright<\/u><\/strong>, Cantwell v. Connecticut<\/strong><\/u> , Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire,<\/u><\/strong> West Virginia Board of Ed v. Barnette,<\/u><\/strong> Dennis v. United States, <\/u><\/strong>Korematsu v. United States<\/u> Everson v. Board of Education<\/u>, Poe v Ullman<\/u> Sweatt v. Painter<\/u>, Brown I and Brown II<\/u>,\u00a0 Mapp v. Ohio<\/u>, Gideon Wainwright<\/u>, Miranda v. Arizona,<\/u>\u00a0 Katz v. U.S, Escobedo v Ill, Mirand v. Arizona<\/u>\u00a0Terry v. Ohio<\/u>, <\/strong>Reynolds v. U.S<\/u><\/strong>., <\/strong>\u00a0Bradfield v. Roberts<\/u><\/strong>,<\/strong>,<\/u> Rochin v. California<\/u>, Walker<\/u><\/strong> v. Sauvinet<\/strong><\/u>, Thornhill v. Alabama<\/u>, Poe v. Ullman<\/u><\/strong>\u00a0<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\r\n
      Cases Discussed or Presented by Dr. Sager<\/p>\r\n
      Katz v United \u00a0State<\/u><\/strong>s,\u00a0 Bolling v. Sharp<\/u>, Twining v. New Jersey<\/u> \u00a0\u00a0<\/u>\u00a0Wolf v Colorado<\/u>, Colegrove v. Green<\/u><\/strong>, Abrams v. U.S., Adamson v California, Rochin v. California, <\/u><\/strong>Weeks v United States<\/u>, Olmstead v United States, Pierce v. Society of\u00a0 Sisters, Meyers v. Nebraska,<\/u> Abrams v. U.S.<\/u> Bradwell v. \u00a0Illinois<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\r\n
      \u00a0Readings<\/strong><\/p>\r\n
      Relevant parts of Graglia reading on due process and Bruce Bartlette piece in Wall Street Journal<\/p>\r\n
      Charts of Tests and Interpretation<\/p>\r\n
       <\/p>\r\n
      Movies: Lincoln,<\/span>\u00a0 Simple Justice<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n

      Supplementary Books<\/span>:
      The Founder’s Key\u00a0 Part I pp 1-127<\/span>
      Nation of Victims\u00a0 chapters 1-3<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      ______________________________________________________
      <\/span><\/h3>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Class 10 Monday February 16th<\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      Religion<\/span><\/span><\/h3>\r\n
      Sherbet v. Verner Brief<\/span>
      Schemp v. Abington Township Brief<\/span>
      Engel v. Vitale Dr. Sager to discuss\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Speech, Association, Libel, Obscenity, Conduct<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      NAACP v. Alabama Supp Dr. Sager to discuss<\/span>
      Roth v. U.S. Brief<\/span>
      Jacobellis v. Ohio Supp Dr. Sager to discuss the 8 most famous\u00a0 words in the opinion<\/span>
      NYT v. Sullivan Brief<\/span>
      U.S. v. O’Brien Brief<\/span>
      Brandenburg v. Ohio Brief<\/span>
      Tinker v. Des Moines Brief<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Madison Federalist 51\u00a0 Angels quote in full (click here<\/a>)<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Where are we now with regard to the Declaration of Independence as it relates to the Constitution.<\/strong><\/span>
      We will spend a few minutes discussing the Arnn book which will be on Exam 1.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      __________________<\/span><\/h3>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Class\u00a0 11 Wednesday February 18th<\/span>
      Wednesday\u00a0 Wednesday September 27<\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      The Warren Court Legal Revolution 1954-1969<\/span><\/h3>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \u00a0Freedom of the Press
      <\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Red Lion Broadcasting<\/span> v. FCC\u00a0 \u00a0 Dr. Sager to discuss<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Fundamental Rights Analysis and Equal Protection<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Loving v. Virginia<\/span> Brief<\/span>
      Griswold v. Connecticut<\/span> Brief<\/span>
      Stanley v. Georgia<\/span> Dr. Sager to discuss<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \u00a0 Incorporation and protecting African Americans in South<\/span><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Duncan v. Louisiana<\/span> Brief<\/span><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Dr. Sager will discuss what are called The \u00a0Sit-In cases arising from protests that began 
      before the Freedom Riders and continued after them, Also look at the following
      article on Emmett Till's lynching which\u00a0 occurred when Dr. Sager was in high school in the 
      Chicago area.\u00a0 (      click here<\/a>)<\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      ( The film Freedom Riders, now available on Youtube,\u00a0<\/strong> should be viewed by Class 12.\u00a0\u00a0 Best version for this class\u00a0 \u00a0here<\/a>.)<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      The End of the Warren Court<\/span>
      <\/strong>Baker\u00a0 v. Carr Dr. Sager to discuss<\/span>
      Reynolds v. Simms Brief\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\r\n
       <\/p>\r\n
       <\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \u00a0<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n

      <\/span>Class 12 Monday February 23rd<\/span><\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Thomas, Clarence. My Grandfather’s Son: A Memoir<\/em>. Harper, 2007<\/a><\/h2>\r\n
      Read chapters 1-5 of Clarence Thomas’ My Grandfather’s Son<\/em>.\u00a0 If you take my Judicial Processes class, we read the last chapters.<\/h4>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      The Burger Court: Was There A Counter Revolution?<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Due Process Tests<\/span>
      Cleburne v. Cleburne Living\u00a0 Brief<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      8th Amendment and Death Penalty<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Gregg v. Georgia Brief<\/span>

      Establishment of Religion<\/strong><\/span>

      Lemon v Kurzman Brief<\/span>
      Wallace v. Jaffree \u00a0 Dr. Sager to discuss  <\/span>

      Free Exercise of Religion<\/span><\/strong><\/span>

      Wisconsin v. Yoder Brief 
      Edwards v. Aguillar Brief<\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      What are the tests used in these\u00a0 cases to determine\u00a0 if there is a violation of the 8th Amendment(Gregg<\/span>), Establishment Clause Monday(Lemon<\/span>), Free Exercise Clause(Yoder<\/span>) Also do Yoder <\/span>and Lemon<\/span><\/span> follow their historical precedents, Everson<\/span>,\u00a0 Reynolds v. U.S<\/span>., and Bradfield v. Roberts<\/span>.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Class 13\u00a0 Wednesday February 25th<\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \u00a0Freedom\u00a0 of Speech<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Cohen v. California Brief
      Hustler Mag v Falwell\u00a0 Brief<\/span>
      Miller v. California Brief<\/span>
      Gertz v. Welch\u00a0  Dr. Sager to discuss<\/span>
      Buckley v. Valeo Dr. Sager to discuss<\/span>
      New York v. Ferber <\/span>Brief<\/span>
      <\/span><\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Notes and Questions for Class<\/strong><\/span>
      What is the new distinction created in Buckley<\/strong>?<\/span><\/span>
      Cohen should take 10 minutes to brief.\u00a0 With Roth<\/span><\/strong> as the precedent, which Van geel \u00a0box does Mille<\/strong>r<\/span> fit into and what\u00a0 was narrowed or expanded?<\/span>
      What are the various tests\u00a0 used in each of the above cases if the Court approaches the issue with a test.<\/span>
      What do these and other\u00a0 cases we have covered have to do with, if at all, Bourgeoisie values?<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      The movie\u00a0 \"Denial\" will also be discussed.\u00a0 The heroine,<\/span>
      Deborah Lipstadt, is a very liberal professor at Emory. Biden<\/span>
      \u00a0appointed her to position of Special Envoy for Monitoring and Combatting 
      Anti-Semitism.\u00a0\u00a0 She replaces <\/span>a friend and fraternity brother\u00a0\u00a0 who held position 
      during Trump <\/span>administration. Position was created during George W Bush 
      administration. There has been some <\/span>discussion over the years for the\u00a0 need for 
      the position within the State Department.<\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      ________________________________________________________________________<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Class 14\u00a0 Monday March 2nd<\/span>
      For the beginning of this class read the following article from a conservative blog called 
      The Federalist. \u00a0Be prepared to argue both sides of the Mr. Davidson\u2019s premise.
      (      click here<\/a>)<\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Where in his article does he discuss the Declaration of Independence and how does his argument fit with Larry Arnn\u2019s.<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Commercial Speech<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Va. Bd. of Pharmacy v. Va. Citizen's Council Council  
      Dr. Sager to discuss<\/span><\/span>
      Bates v. Arizona Bar Dr. Sager to discuss
      Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia Brief <\/span>
      Central Hudson v PSC Brief<\/span> 

      <\/span>Equal Protection and Education<\/span><\/span>
      Swann v. Charlotte Mecklenburg<\/span> Brief<\/span>
      Milliken v. Bradley Dr. Sager to discuss <\/span>
      Regents of University of California v Bakke\u00a0 <\/span>Brief<\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Here is the statute being interpreted in Swann:<\/span>
      <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Civil Rights Act Statute in <\/strong>Swann<\/strong><\/span>
      <\/span><\/i><\/span>Section 2000c(b) defines “desegregation” as it is used in Title IV:\u00a0<\/span><\/em><\/span>
      “Desegregation” means the assignment of students to public schools and within such schools without regard to their race, color, religion, or
      national origin, but “desegregation” shall not mean the assignment of students to public schools in order to overcome racial imbalance.
      Section 2000c-6, authorizing the Attorney General to institute federal suits, contains the following proviso: nothing herein shall empower any
      official or court of the United States to issue any order seeking to achieve a racial balance in any school by requiring the transportation of pupils or 
      students from one school to another or one school district to another in order to achieve such racial balance, or otherwise enlarge the existing
      power of the court to insure compliance with constitutional standard.<\/span><\/em>
      Is the decision consistent or inconsistent with the statute?
      What are the various positions in Bakke and what is the rule going forward in affirmative action cases.<\/span>
      <\/span><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \u00a0<\/pre>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      What is the statute being subjected to constitutional scrutiny.\u00a0 What test is Brennan using?\u00a0 What is O’Connor’s<\/span>\u00a0 disagreement with Brennan’s test?\u00a0 Why isn’t case in textbook any more?\u00a0 Why didn’t Brennan who assigned <\/span>\u00a0 the opinion since he<\/strong> was senior Justice in the majority, assign it to a woman who agreed on the outcome? (He was the senior Justice in the majority since Burger and Blackmun recused themselves, Why do you think
      they did this?)<\/span><\/span><\/h4>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n

      <\/span>Class 15\u00a0 <\/span>Wednesday March 4<\/span><\/span>
      Begin reading\u00a0 The Color Blind Constitution\u00a0 and we will discuss at the beginning of class in light of Bakke<\/span><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Privacy and Fundamental Rights<\/span>

      Roe v. Wade Brief<\/span>
      Bowers v. Hardwick\u00a0 Dr. Sager to discuss<\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Gender Discrimination<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Reed v. Reed Brief<\/span>
      Frontiero v. Richardson Dr. Sager to discuss\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>
      Craig v.Boren Brief<\/span>
      Rostiker v. Goldberg Dr. Sager to discuss\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>
      Michael M. v. Superior Court\u00a0 Dr. Sager\u00a0 to discuss\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>
      Miss Univ for Women v. Hogan Dr. Sager to discuss\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \u00a0Other Equal Protections Issues<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      San Antonio ISD v. Rodriguez Brief<\/span>
      \u00a0Plyler v. Doe Brief (      Student Brief1<\/a>)(Student Brief 2<\/a>)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Notes and questions for class:<\/span>
      What are the various tests used in there gender discrimination cases so far?\u00a0 What assumptions are being made about<\/span>
      gender in these gender discrimination cases?<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Privacy and Fundamental Rights<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Roe v. Wade Brief<\/span>
      Bowers v. Hardwick\u00a0 Dr. Sager to discuss<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Where do particular parts of the Roe opinion come from? e.g. trimester system, state interest, mother’s interest, precedents, etc.<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      We will discuss the Ben Stein Movie Expelled<\/span><\/pre>\r\n
       <\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n

      <\/span>Class 16 Monday March 9th<\/span><\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      The Rehnquist Court: How Conservative?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Fundamental Rights<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Cruzan v. Mo. Dept of Health Brief<\/span>
      Planned Parenthood v. Casey Brief<\/span>
      Stenberg v. Carhart\u00a0 Dr. Sager to discuss\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>
      Lawrence v. Texas Brief<\/span>
      Washington v. Glucksberg Dr. Sager to discuss\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      8th Amendment and Death Penalty<\/span><\/h3>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      McCleskey v. Kemp\u00a0 Dr. Sager to discuss\u00a0<\/span>
      Atkins v. Virginia Brief <\/span>      (student brief1<\/a>)(student brief 2<\/a>)<\/span>
      Ewing v. California Dr. Sager to discuss\u00a0  <\/span>
      Roper v. Simmons<\/span> Brief <\/span> <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n

      <\/span><\/strong>Notes and questions:\u00a0 Based on the cases we have read in class, how does the Burger Court differ from the Warren Court?\u00a0 What is the equal protection test in San Antonio ISD and Plyler?\u00a0 What are the evolving 8th amendment standards used in the Rehnquist Court death penalty jurisprudence?\u00a0What is their source?\u00a0 Do you agree or disagree?\u00a0\u00a0 While I have given you some student briefs in Atkins for reference purpose it is important to understand the structure of the opinion and the arguments made in the majority and dissent to fully comprehend current 8th Amendment jurisprudence.<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      It is always advisable when you brief a case to compare it to earlier cases in the area. Begin with a Van geel comparison. \u00a0I will expect you did that when I call upon you in class.<\/strong><\/span>
      At this point in the semester, we are looking at each case to see where it fits with previous cases and what potential issues it will give rise to in the future.\u00a0 
      <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      You may want to compare the underlying assumptions of various justices in Roe<\/span> and Casey<\/span> to the point of view of Ashleen Menchaca Bagnulo, an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Texas State, \u00a0 as she recounts her miscarriage. Some of her other writings include, Conservatives Should Care About Institutional Racism,\u00a0 The Problem of Character: Why Conservatives Must Reject Trump, and The Paradox of Title IX: Fighting Sexual Assault on Campus.\u00a0 https:\/\/www.thepublicdiscourse.com\/2021\/10\/78274\/<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Class\u00a0 17\u00a0 \u00a0Wednesday March 11<\/span><\/h2>\r\n
      Equal Protection<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Affirmative Action<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span> <\/strong><\/span>
      City of Richmond v. Croson Brief\u00a0   For case (      click here<\/a><\/span>)<\/span>
      Adarand Contractors v. Pena\u00a0 Dr. Sager to discuss<\/span>
      Grutter v. Bollinger Brief using this edited opinion (      click here<\/a>)<\/span>
      <\/strong><\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      What is the relationship between a claim that the 14th Amendment\u00a0 now makes the Constitution\u00a0 color blind and affirmative action.<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Education\/Race<\/span>
      <\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      U.S. v. Fordice\u00a0 \u00a0Dr. Sager to discuss\u00a0 \u00a0<\/span>
      Freeman v. Pitts\u00a0 Dr. Sager to discuss\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>
      Missouri v. Jenkins (Brief Thomas\u00a0excerpts \u00a0only)<\/span>       (click here for excerpts)<\/a><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Holder v. Hall\u00a0 <\/span>(read only a paragraph of Thomas dissen<\/span>t\u00a0 click here)<\/a><\/span><\/span>
      <\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Freedom of Association<\/span>
      <\/strong>Roberts v\u00a0 Jaycees Dr. Sager to discuss<\/span><\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 For an interesting view of Clarence Thomas see Created Equal: 12 Quotes from Clarence Thomas (click here)\u00a0<\/a> This is practically a biographical summary with 12 of his quotes embedded. \u00a0 These are not from judicial opinions.<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0What is the criteria to determine if affirmative actions violated the 14th Amendment?\u00a0 Has that changed since Bakke?\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Should we treat the areas<\/span>
      of education and commerce different?\u00a0 Does the Court?\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0How does Thomas’s concurrence in Jenkins<\/span><\/strong> fit with Burger’s opinion in Swann<\/strong><\/span>?\u00a0 Jenkins<\/span><\/strong> is actually part of a long series<\/span>
      of cases\u00a0involving many issues including de jure segregation in Kansas City school district. Here one issue is about \u00a0 federal judges ordering a state to tax its citizens for the building and financing of\u00a0 a magnet school to entice white students and family who do not live in the Kansas City school districts to attend or send their children to these schools<\/span>
      It starts\u00a0 out with one of the rules\u00a0 federal courts developed after Brown<\/strong><\/span> and we see in Swann<\/strong><\/span>, and later limited somewhat in Milliken<\/span><\/strong> and Freeman. <\/span><\/strong>It is the notion that scope of the violation determines the scope of the remedy.<\/span>
      Thomas’s opinion is mainly about his view of how the Court should approach school desegregation issues. He is someone who grew up in the segregated South and holds a minority(not meant to be a pun)\u00a0 view on how the Court should approach this issue.\u00a0 What organized groups might oppose Thomas’s view and why?\u00a0 Be on the watch for a case or two we will cover in the future which may surprise you about Thomas’s view of\u00a0 an\u00a0 issue we have been discussing since early in the semester.<\/span>
      Should Justice Thomas be the most authoritative member of the Court on school segregation and desegregation since he\u00a0 is the only member of the Court who attended segregated schools?<\/span>
      How would argue for a against Thomas’s views<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Have the book <\/span>The Colorblind Constitution <\/span><\/span>completed by\u00a0 Class 18,\u00a0 Will discuss during that class. <\/span><\/span><\/h4>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Class\u00a0 18\u00a0 Monday March 23rd<\/span><\/h3>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Voting behavior in Burger Court (click here)<\/a><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      The Rehnquist Court: How Conservative?<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Rights of the Accused and Convicted<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      National Treasury Union v. Von Raab Dr.Sager to discuss<\/span><\/span>
      Dickerson v. U.S. Supp\u00a0 Dr. Sager to discuss<\/span><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Establishment of Religion<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      County of Allegheny v. ACLU\u00a0 S 4. Dr. Sager to discuss<\/span><\/span>
      Lee v. Weisman Dr. Sager to Discuss<\/span><\/span>
      Santa Fe Independent School district v. Doe Dr, Sager to discuss<\/span>
      Zelman v Simmons-Harris Brief      (student brief1<\/span><\/a>)(student brief2<\/a><\/span>)<\/span>
      Van Orden v. Perry\u00a0 Brief<\/span>
      Board of Ed v. Village of Kiryas Joel Dr. Sager to discuss<\/span><\/span>
      Agostini v. Felton\u00a0 Dr. Sager to discuss<\/span><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Free Exercise of Religion<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Employment Divison v. Smith Brief<\/span>
      Church of the Lukami Babalu v. City of Hialeah\u00a0 Brief <\/span>
      City of Boerne v. Flores\u00a0 Brief<\/span>
      Cutter v. Wilkinson\u00a0 Dr. Sager to Discuss<\/span> <\/span>
      Locke v. Davey Brief (      Student brief)<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      What if anything, do the following statements from the time of our founding have to do with the above cases:<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Jefferson to Danbury Baptist Association <\/b><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.<\/i>] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Washington Farewell Address<\/b><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Northwest Ordinance Section XIV
      <\/b><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Art. 3.<\/b> Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards the Indians; their lands and property shall never be taken from them without their consent; and, in their property, rights, and liberty, they shall never be invaded or disturbed, unless in just and lawful wars authorized by Congress; but laws founded in justice and humanity, shall from time to time be made for preventing wrongs being done to them, and for preserving peace and friendship with them.<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Art. 6.<\/strong> There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted: Provided, always, That any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid.<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      DeTocqueville<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Religion perceives that civil liberty affords a noble exercise to the faculties of man and that the political world is a field prepared by the Creator for the efforts of mind. Free and powerful in its own sphere, satisfied with the place reserved for it, religion never more surely establishes its empire than when it reigns in the hearts of men unsupported by aught beside its native strength. Liberty regards religion as its companion in all its battles and its triumphs, as the cradle of its infancy and the divine source of its claims. It considers religion as the safeguard of morality, and morality as the best security of law and the surest pledge of the duration of freedom.<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Class 19 Wednesday March 25th <\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      Exam #2\u00a0 In Class<\/strong><\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \u00a0The Color Blind Constitution will be covered on the exam as will the movies Freedom Riders and Denial.\u00a0 \u00a0 The following cases will covered on the exam.<\/span><\/h4>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Also be sure to know the Jefferson, Washington, NW Ordinance\u00a0 and Detocqueville quotes about religion along with the Douglas quote about religion \\linked with\u00a0 the 1947 Everson case assigned for the first test.\u00a0 This quote was assigned for Class 7.\u00a0 We will touch on it in Class 19 as we go\u00a0 through the religion cases.<\/span><\/h5>\r\n
      Number is class number\u00a0 in which case was assigned. This list may be reduced a bit after class 19.\u00a0\u00a0 Obviously for cases not assigned briefing\u00a0 which were discussed by Dr. Sager all you need to know are the facts, issue and who wins or loses and whether state policy was upheld or struck down.<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      You need to know all opinions in Griswold, Smith v Employment Commission, Van Orden v Perry, Greg v. Georgia, Zelman v Harris Simmons<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      If the case has a dissent you should know the dissents main argument or arguments. Case List posted by Class 16<\/span><\/p>\r\n
       <\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
       <\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
       <\/p>\r\n
       <\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Class 20\u00a0 \u00a0Monday March 30th<\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Read, digest\u00a0 and analyze the following article entitled:<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Poll: 71% of Americans Say Political Correctness Has Silenced Discussions Society Needs to Have, 58% Have Political Views They\u2019re Afraid to Share\u00a0 (click here)<\/a><\/span><\/h5>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Note: Cato Institute which did this survey several years ago\u00a0 is a very libertarian organization<\/span>
      Fear is probably up considerably now.<\/span>
      A recent survey showed 22% ofAmerican\u00a0 Jews afraid to show their identity.\u00a0 Are the the results of two surveys related?<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      The Rehnquist Court: How Conservative?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Freedom of the Pres<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Hazelwood v Kuhlmeier\u00a0\u00a0<\/span> Brief<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Gender<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      U.S. v. Virginia(VMI case)Brief<\/span>
      Romer v. Evans Brief<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Freedom of Association<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Freedom of Association
      <\/strong>Roberts v\u00a0 Jaycees Dr. Sager to discuss<\/span>Hurley v. Irish American Gay Lesbians\u00a0 S 5<\/span><\/span>
      Boy Scouts of America v. Dale Brief<\/span>      (student brief)<\/a><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Miscellaneous Speech issues<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      McIntyre v. Ohio-anonymous political statements\u00a0 Dr. Sager to discuss<\/span>
      Regents v. Southworth students fees\u00a0\u00a0 Dr. Sager to discuss<\/span>
      McConnell v. FEC\u00a0 political contributions\u00a0 Dr. Sager to discuss<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      The movie\u00a0 “Denial” will also be discussed.\u00a0<\/span> The heroine,<\/span>
      Deborah Lipstadt, is a very liberal professor at Emory. Biden<\/span>
      \u00a0appointed her to position of Special Envoy for Monitoring and Combatting Anti-Semitism.\u00a0\u00a0 She replaces <\/span>
      a friend and fraternity brother\u00a0\u00a0 who held position during Trump<\/span>
      administration.\u00a0 Position was created during George W Bush administration. There has been some discussion over the years for the\u00a0 need for the position within the State Department.<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      _____________________________________________________________________________________________________
      Class 21\u00a0Wednesday April 1<\/span><\/h3>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \u00a0<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Freedom of Speech<\/span> 
      <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Texas v. Johnson Brief<\/span>
      44 Liquormart v. Rhode Island\u00a0 Dr. Sager to discuss<\/span>
      Regents v. Southworth Dr. Sager to discus<\/span>


      Hate Speech<\/span>
      <\/strong>R.A. V. v. City of St. Paul Dr. Sager to discuss\u00a0<\/span><\/span>
      Wisconsin v.Mitchell Dr. Sager to discuss<\/span>
      Virginia v. Black Supp Brief<\/span>(      click here for case to brief<\/a>)<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
       <\/p>\r\n
      Other Speech Issues<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Reno v. ACLU\u00a0 Brief<\/span>
      Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition Dr. Sager to discuss<\/span>
      Hill v. Colorado Dr. Sager to discuss<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Read carefully the statutes in R.A.V. and Black cases.\u00a0\u00a0 What is the difference?\u00a0 Should the Constitution treat them differently?<\/span><\/h3>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      City of St. Paul Ordinance*<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      “Whoever places on public or private property a symbol, object, appellation, characterization or graffiti, including, but not limited to, a burning cross or Nazi swastika, which one knows or has reasonable grounds to know arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender commits disorderly conduct and shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Virginia Law<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0“It shall be unlawful for any person or persons, with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons, to burn, or cause to be burned, a cross on the property of another, a highway or other public place. Any person who shall violate any provision of this section shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0“Any such burning of a cross shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to intimidate a person or group of persons.”<\/span><\/p>\r\n
       <\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
       <\/p>\r\n
       <\/p>\r\n
       <\/p>\r\n
       <\/p>\r\n
       <\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Class 22 Monday April 6th<\/span>
      The Roberts Court: Fidelity to Law?<\/strong><\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Equal Protection\u00a0\u00a0 Racial Discrimination<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Parents Involved in Schools v. Seattle Brief<\/span>
      Ricci v. De Stefano Dr. Sager to discuss.<\/span> View Amicus\u00a0 brief for Kedar Bhatia a former<\/span>
      student who is now in large N.Y. firm\u00a0 with Dr. Sager as counsel      (click here)<\/a><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Fisher v U.T\u00a0 Brief(2016 case)<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      What is diversity in Fisher? How does it add to a college education.\u00a0\u00a0 Compare with Yale Professor Kronman’s view(click here<\/a>)<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Other Equal Protection Issues<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Gonzales v. Carhart (Planned Parenthood)\u00a0 Brief\u00a0 <\/span>(<\/a>student brief)<\/a><\/span>
      Obergefel v. Hodges<\/span> Brief<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
       <\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      2nd Amendment<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      District of Columbia v. Heller\u00a0 Brief<\/span> (be able to discuss the various opinions)<\/span>
       McDonald v. City of Chicago\u00a0 Brief from Supp<\/span>\u00a0       (Student brief)<\/a><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \u00a0<\/h3>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Class 23 Wednesday April 8th
      F<\/span><\/span>ree Speech<\/span>
      <\/span>Walker III v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederacy  \u00a0 Brief <\/span> <\/span><\/span>
      Morse v. Frederick Brief<\/span>
      U.S. v. Alvarez\u00a0 Dr. Sager to discuss<\/span>
      <\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \u00a0 Obscenity, Pornography and other offensive speech\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/h4>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      United States v. Stevens Supp<\/span> (student brief<\/a>)
      Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assoc \u00a0\u00a0 Brief
      United States v. Williams\u00a0 Dr. Sager to discuss<\/span><\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \u00a0 Finish viewing Mel Brooks Movie, Blazing Saddles<\/span>
      and we will discuss in class.\u00a0 One obvious question is what is this movie really about?\u00a0 Another is could this movie
      be made today and should something like it be made? Trigger Warning: Quite likely parodies words and scenes
      could be offensive would lead to some cancellation today. Also would have never thought when first assigned
      movie years ago I might be saying this.<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      1 page outline of oral argument in case you briefed earlier in semester is due. \u00a0 Again it\u00a0 is oral argument\u00a0 for the case you briefed earlier in semester.\u00a0 Oral argument mp3 and transcript can be found on the Oyez, Oyez website. Outline should contain at most a 2 sentence statement of the facts of your case. Since you have already done a full brief, this should be quite easy to do.<\/span>
      Put your name at bottom and your row and seat number at top.<\/span>
      This is the only time we will be taking the outline and reviewing it.\u00a0 It will be returned with comments\u00a0 Wednesday, November 17th.\u00a0 If it is not returned, it means your are right on track.<\/span><\/h3>\r\n
      ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________<\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Class 24\u00a0 Monday April 13th<\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      Free Speech <\/span> 
      McCullen v. Coakley Dr. Sager to discuss<\/span><\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      Religion and Speech<\/span><\/h2>\r\n
      Christian Legal Soc.v. Martinez Supp (student brief)<\/a><\/span>
      Snyder v. Phelps Brief<\/span>
      Hosanna-Tabor\u00a0 Evangelical Lutheran Church Brief<\/span>
      Gonzales v. O Spirita\u00a0  \u00a0 Dr. Sager to discuss <\/span> <\/span>
      Town of Greece v. Galloway\u00a0 Brief\u00a0<\/span>
      Reed v. Town of Gilbert\u00a0 Dr. Sager to discuss
      Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer\u00a0 Dr. Sager to discuss<\/span>
      Espinoza v Montana Dept.of Rev\u00a0\u00a0 Dr. Sager to discuss<\/span>
      American Legion v American Humanist Association Brief<\/span><\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Criminal Procedure<\/span>
      Florida v. Jardines Brief\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>
      Maryland v. King\u00a0 Dr. Sager to discuss<\/span>(Is Thomas now a swing vote?)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \u00a0 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________<\/span><\/h4>\r\n
      Class 25 Wednesday April 13th<\/span>
      Old issues and some new issues related to issues we have<\/span>
      studied throughout the semester.<\/span>

      For these last 2 classes we are using briefs prepared by students\u00a0 for studying most of the cases.<\/span>
      The reason is I expect by now, you can look at a set of facts and issues\u00a0 and then figure out what similar similar cases and issues we have already covered this semester.
      In addition, many of the cases are so recent they are not even in supplement<\/span>

      \r\n\r\n<\/span>

      \u00a0 Student Speech and Behavior<\/span>
      <\/strong>Majanoy Area School District v. B.L<\/span>(      student brief with some quotes from case<\/a>)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Speech – copywrite and trademarks<\/span>
      \u00a0<\/span>Matal v Tam Brief<\/span> (use case to review viewpoint and content discrimination as outlined in this case)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \u00a0 Discrimination\u00a0\u00a0<\/span> <\/span>
      Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Dr. Sager to discuss <\/span>
      Fulton v Philadelphia<\/span> (read this\u00a0 outstanding brief carefully(      click here<\/a>)<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Trump v. Hawaii Dr. Sager to discuss briefly<\/span> <\/span>
      <\/strong><\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \u00a0<\/span>Constitutional Criminal Procedure<\/span>
      <\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
       8th Amendment<\/span><\/h4>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Kennedy v. Louisiana\u00a0 Dr. Sager to discuss<\/span>
      Glossip\u00a0 v. Gross\u00a0 Use this brief<\/span> (      student brief)<\/a><\/span>
      Miller v. Alabama Use this Brief\u00a0<\/span>       (Student brief)<\/a><\/span>
      Jones v. Mississippi<\/span> (      use\u00a0 brief<\/a>)<\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Abortion<\/span>
      June v. Whole Woman's Health<\/span>(      student brief<\/a>)<\/span><\/span><\/pre>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Finish viewing Blazing Saddles and we will have\u00a0 a brief discussion of movie. Trigger warning on Blazing Saddles.\u00a0 It uses words that cannot be used today. It is a Mel Brooks parody of a number of other movies and plots.\u00a0 However, its ultimate message is important<\/span>
      <\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \u00a0 <\/strong>\u201cThe whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.\u201d<\/span><\/h4>\r\n
       <\/p>\r\n
      Paper #2 Due\u00a0 in class.\u00a0\u00a0 Up to 3 pages or 900 words, comparing the arguments in oral argument\u00a0 in your case with the arguments used by justices in any of the opinions,
      majority, concurrence or dissent.\u00a0\u00a0 Put you row, seat number and name on the back of the last page of the paper if it is blank or the bottom of the last page if there is
      writing on it. Papers will be returned at Class 26. Must have at least 3 arguments from oral argument to compare to whatever opinion you use. 
      <\/span>


      Class 26 Monday April 20th<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Recent Roberts Court cases<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Abortion<\/span>
      Dobbs v Jackson Women;s Center\u00a0 (<\/span>brief) For edited version of case 35 pages instead of 100 plus originally
      (      click here<\/a>)<\/span>

      Discrimination<\/span>

      Students for Fair Admissions<\/span> (brief) For edited version of case 35 instead of 100 plus originally (      click here)<\/a><\/span>
      Finish last part of Ramaswamy book, Chapter 5 till end<\/span>
      What, if anything, does this part of book have to do with this course<\/span>

       Finish viewing Blazing Saddles and we will have\u00a0 a discussion of movie.<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________<\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Class 27 Wednesday 22nd<\/span><\/h3>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      EXAM 3 in Class<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\r\n
      Movies:<\/strong> Expelled, Blazing Saddles<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      Supplementary books<\/strong> : Nation of Victims Xhapter 5 – End<\/span><\/p>\r\n
       <\/p>\r\n
      Cases for Exam Case list provided by Class 25<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n<\/span><\/p>\r\n
       <\/p>\r\n
      Class 28 Monday April 27th<\/span>
      End of Year Awards Dinner and Speaker at <\/span>
      Dr. Sager’s home<\/span><\/h2>\r\n
       <\/p>\r\n
       <\/p>\r\n
       <\/p>\r\n\r\n
       <\/p>\r\n\r\n
       <\/p>\r\n\r\n
       <\/p>\r\n\r\n
       <\/p>\r\n\r\n
       <\/p>\r\n\r\n
       <\/p>\r\n\r\n
      “<\/h3>\r\n\r\n
       <\/p>\r\n
      \r\n
       <\/p>\r\n\r\n
      \u00a0<\/span><\/h2>\r\n\r\n
       <\/p>\r\n
      \r\n
       <\/p>\r\n\r\n
       <\/p>\r\n\r\n
       <\/p>\r\n\r\n
      \u00a0<\/h1>\r\n\r\n
       <\/p>\r\n
      \r\n\r\n\r\n
      \u00a0<\/h3>\r\n\r\n
       <\/p>\r\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
      American Constitutional Development: Rights and Liberties Spring 2026     List of Daily Assignments Please Read These Instructions Carefully First Note: Cases for this class are assigned from 4 sources: the main textbook, the cases on the website, electronic supplement\u00a0 for the textbook, and a few cases that are not in the textbook or the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":443,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":3,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-12","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/sites.la.utexas.edu\/amcondev2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/12","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/sites.la.utexas.edu\/amcondev2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/sites.la.utexas.edu\/amcondev2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/sites.la.utexas.edu\/amcondev2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/443"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/sites.la.utexas.edu\/amcondev2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12"}],"version-history":[{"count":649,"href":"http:\/\/sites.la.utexas.edu\/amcondev2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/12\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1299,"href":"http:\/\/sites.la.utexas.edu\/amcondev2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/12\/revisions\/1299"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/sites.la.utexas.edu\/amcondev2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}