DOCSLIB.ORG

The American Constitution

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The American Constitution CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Government Organization and Powers Political Science 410G Fall Semester, 2020 Constitutions should consist only of general provisions; the reason is that they must necessarily be permanent, and that they cannot calculate for the possible change of things. --Alexander Hamilton The Constitution of the United States was made not merely for the generation that then existed, but for posterity--unlimited, undefined, endless, perpetual posterity. --Henry Clay Course Professor Dr. Richard J. (Rick) Hardy—Professor of Political Science Class Hours: 11:00 - 11:50 a.m., MWF, 308 Morgan Hall Office Hours: 2:00 - 3:30 p.m., MW, 8:00 – 8:50 F, or by Appointment* Professor's Office: 445 Morgan Hall Email: [email protected] Office Phone: 309-298-1534 *We live in difficult times. Because I am in the “high risk” category regarding Covid-19, my physician strongly recommends that, if at all possible, we avoid one-on-one meetings in my office. I will still hold office hours and be available for phone calls during those times. And, of course I will return emails in a prompt manner. RJH Course Description The United States Constitution is the solid foundation upon which all American government is built. The document is now 231 years old; it is the oldest, written, nation- state constitution in the world. And it is amazingly quite short. It contains a preamble, seven articles, twenty-seven formal amendments, and just over 7,000 words (about the length of the average daily newspaper's sport section). Unfortunately, it takes more than just a few minutes reading to understand the workings of this glorious document. The United States Constitution is largely the determined by the Supreme Court, the final arbiter, whose opinions constantly define and redefine the meaning of its words. Thus, in order to grasp the full meaning of this great charter, one must not only study the original 1 document but also rigorously and systematically scrutinize the full range of case law that accompanies it. The purpose of this course is to do just that. Thematic Questions Any detailed study of the United States Constitution can be quite overwhelming. To simplify this onerous task, the course has been divided into units under the rubric of four fundamental questions. The first question (Units I and II in the syllabus) is "What Powers Belong to the Judicial Processes and What Powers Belong to the Political Processes?" The lectures and cases in this unit will examine the nature, structure, functions and limits of the Supreme Court. Special emphasis will be given to the expanding jurisdiction of the Court regarding federal and constitutional matters. The second basic question (Units III - IV) is "What Powers Belong to Congress and What Powers Belong to the President?" This obviously concerns the paramount principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. It will be apparent that the Supreme Court is often called upon to be the “umpire” between the Congress and the President. The third question (Units V - IX) asks "What Powers Belong to the Nation and What Powers Belong to the States?" This, of course, deals with the efficacy and limits of our federal system. Here we will examine the concept of federalism (both vertical and horizontal) and the growing powers exercised by the national government with respect to the regulation of commerce, taxing and spending. The final question (Unit IX) asks “What Power Belong to the Government and What Powers Belong to Individuals?” The last topics involve the efficacy and limits of contracts and property rights. Please note that this last question is significantly expanded next semester in POLS 411—The Constitution: Civil Rights and Liberties. Readings The required readings will be drawn primarily from the following casebook: Ralph A. Rossum, G. Alan Tarr and Vincent P. Munoz. American Constitutional Law: The Structure of Government, Volume I. 11th Edition. Routledge-Taylor & Francis Group, 2020. Paperbound edition. ISBN 9780367233334. This textbook may be purchased from the University Book Store or online. Additionally, student will find most of the cases online, and some readings and cases will be handed out in class. Case Approach This course, as in law school, will primarily employ the case or Socratic method of study. Given the obvious restrictions of any text, many of the cases will be presented in class by your professor. All embolded cases may be found in the text. The embolded cases are your responsibility to prepare in advance of class (see "Briefing Cases" below). During 2 each class period, the professor will call upon students to recite, analyze, and discuss the emboldened cases assigned for that day. Unless a specific assignment is made on a particular day, the standing assignment for the course is to prepare five cases (i.e., emboldened cases) ahead of the outline beyond the point at which the previous class period ended. Hence, the goal is to spend roughly 10 to 15 minutes per case each class period. Do not be surprised, however, if we periodically get bogged down on a few critical cases and then brush quickly over others. That should be expected. Finally, each student will be expected to present a case in class. These cases are found in italics in the course outline. Briefing Cases Briefing is an essential tool for understanding constitutional law. As its name implies, a brief is a one- or two-page synopsis of each case studied. While there are many ways to brief a case, here is a suggested outline: 1) Case. Write the case name, year, and citation at the top of the page. While it is not necessary to memorize the dates, such information can help put each case in historical perspective. The citations are useful if you desire to scrutinise the entire opinion online. 2) Background. Whenever possible it is important to record the events leading up to the case. An historical setting will often add clarity to the decision. 3) Facts. Write a short paragraph or two about the events and how they unfolded. Who are the litigants? What relief is sought? It will have more meaning if you put it in your own words. 4) Questions. Identify the central question or questions of law raised in the case. Most often the questions are raised in the cases itself; sometimes you must phrase the question yourself. Also be aware that many cases involve multiple issues, so it is therefore advisable to remember where the case fits the course outline. 5) Ruling. How did the Court decide the above questions? Was the vote (e.g., unanimous, 8 to 1, 5 to 4, etc.)? While it is not necessary to memorize the divisions, such splits can often portend future cases. For example, a badly split court may signal that this controversy will likely appear again. Conversely, a unanimous decision will send a strong message about future litigation. 6) Majority opinion. Specify who wrote the majority opinion and succinctly note the reasoning of the decision. Sometimes this is difficult to do, especially with the early decisions that rely upon a different style of writing. 3 7) Other opinions. Are there any concurring or dissenting opinions? If so, identify who wrote them and summarize their arguments. It is not uncommon for a persuasive minority opinion in one decision to become the basis for a majority opinion at a later time. 8) Importance. Why is the case important? What doctrines or principles of law does the case establish? How does the decision fit into the outline of the course? 9) Comments. Your professor and fellow students will often inject relevant information. Therefore, be sure to leave some room for additional comments. 10) Review. Cramming will do you little good in this course; there is simply too much material to absorb and synthesize. It is vitally important that you review or even rewrite your briefs on a regular basis, say every week to ten days. Some people use 5X7 note cards. Some students compile their cases in three-ring binders. And still others rely upon personal computers to study their cases. Perhaps you can get together with a classmate or two and form a study group. Remember that anything is easy if you break it down into manageable parts. In sum, a brief is merely a tool to help you learn the cases, and the better the tool, the easier your task will be. Class Participation Class participation is important and will count for 100 total points or 20 percent of the course grade. More specifically, the class participation grade consists of four components: 1) Class Discussion, 2) Case Presentation, 3) Case Briefing, and 4) Class Attendance. Class Discussion. "College is not a sanctuary from responsibility!" Every student is encouraged and expected to contribute to class discussion. As noted earlier, oral examinations occur daily and continuously. Hence, when called upon in class for input to the discussion, you are in fact being examined. Discussion grades, of course, are relative. A person who is always prepared and takes an active part in class discussion will obviously earn higher marks than a student who is ill prepared and rarely interacts with the class. Class discussion will count for 25 points. Case Presentation. As noted above, each student will be assigned to present a Supreme Court case that is not found in the textbook. These are the italicized cases in the course outline. Virtually every assigned case can be downloaded from the web. It is up to the student to read the entire case, present it to the class on the assigned day, and field questions concerning the assigned case. Case presentation is worth 25 points.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Debs Case: Labor, Capital, and the Federal Courts of the 1890S By
    The Debs Case: Labor, Capital, and the Federal Courts of the 1890s by David Ray Papke, Professor of Law Marquette University Law School Revised by the Federal Judicial Center for inclusion in the project Federal Trials and Great Debates in United States History Federal Judicial Center Federal Judicial History Offi ce 2008 This Federal Judicial Center publication was undertaken in furtherance of the Centerʼs statutory mission to “conduct, coordinate, and encourage programs relating to the history of the judicial branch of the United States government.” The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Federal Judicial Center. The Debs Case: Labor, Capital, and the Federal Courts of the 1890s Contents The Debs Case: A Short Narrative, 1 The town of Pullman, 1 A strike and boycott, 2 Management organizes, 3 Federal response, 4 A petition to the Supreme Court of the United States, 6 The Federal Courts and Their Jurisdiction, 9 U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 9 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 9 Supreme Court of the United States, 10 The Judicial Process: A Chronology, 11 Legal Questions Before the Courts, 13 Did the U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illinois have authority to issue an injunction against Eugene V. Debs and the offi cers of the American Railway Union? 13 Did the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890 apply to labor unions as well as trusts and monopolies? 14 Did Eugene V. Debs and the other offi cers of the American Railway Union violate the injunction? 14 Did the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    U.S. Court Cases Editor:Thomas Tandy Lewis, St. Cloud State Univ. August 2010 · 3 volumes · 1,346 pages · 6"x 9" ISBN: 978-1-58765-672-9 List Price: $225 e-ISBN: 978-1-58765-676-7 eBook Single User Price: $225 Table of Contents Volume 1 Contents Publisher’s Note Contributors U.S. Supreme Court Citation Numbers Law and the Courts Anglo-American Legal Systems Law Jurisprudence The U.S. Constitution The Bill of Rights Constitutional Law The U.S. Judicial System State and Local Courts The U.S. Supreme Court Judicial Review Due Process of Law Court Cases Abington School District v. Schempp Ableman v. Booth Abrams v. United States Adair v. United States Adamson v. California Adarand Constructors v. Peña Adderley v. Florida Adkins v. Children’s Hospital Afroyim v. Rusk Agostini v. Felton Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody Albertson v. Subversive Activities Control Board Alcoa v. Federal Trade Commission Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education Allegheny County v. American Civil Liberties Union Greater Pittsburgh Chapter Allgeyer v. Louisiana Alsager v. District Court American Booksellers Association, Inc. v. Hudnut American Communications Association v. Douds Antelope, The Aptheker v. Secretary of State Argersinger v. Hamlin Arizona v. Fulminante Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority Atkins v. Virginia Atwater v. City of Lago Vista Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. Baker v. Carr Baker v. Vermont Ballard v. United States Ballew v. Georgia Bank of Augusta v.
    [Show full text]
  • Abington School District V. Schempp 1 Ableman V. Booth 1 Abortion 2
    TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 Bill of Rights 66 Birth Control and Contraception 71 Abington School District v. Schempp 1 Hugo L. Black 73 Ableman v. Booth 1 Harry A. Blackmun 75 Abortion 2 John Blair, Jr. 77 Adamson v. California 8 Samuel Blatchford 78 Adarand Constructors v. Peña 8 Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell 79 Adkins v. Children’s Hospital 10 Bob Jones University v. United States 80 Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl 13 Boerne v. Flores 81 Advisory Opinions 15 Bolling v. Sharpe 81 Affirmative Action 15 Bond v. United States 82 Afroyim v. Rusk 21 Boumediene v. Bush 83 Age Discrimination 22 Bowers v. Hardwick 84 Samuel A. Alito, Jr. 24 Boyd v. United States 86 Allgeyer v. Louisiana 26 Boy Scouts of America v. Dale 86 Americans with Disabilities Act 27 Joseph P. Bradley 87 Antitrust Law 29 Bradwell v. Illinois 89 Appellate Jurisdiction 33 Louis D. Brandeis 90 Argersinger v. Hamlin 36 Brandenburg v. Ohio 92 Arizona v. United States 36 William J. Brennan, Jr. 92 Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing David J. Brewer 96 Development Corporation 37 Stephen G. Breyer 97 Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition 38 Briefs 99 Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority 38 Bronson v. Kinzie 101 Assembly and Association, Freedom of 39 Henry B. Brown 101 Arizona v. Gant 42 Brown v. Board of Education 102 Atkins v. Virginia 43 Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association 104 Automobile Searches 45 Brown v. Maryland 106 Brown v. Mississippi 106 Bad Tendency Test 46 Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company 107 Bail 47 Buchanan v.
    [Show full text]
  • Structural Uncertainty Over Habeas Corpus the Jurisdiction of Military
    v5n4.book Page 397 Friday, June 28, 2002 9:19 PM Structural Uncertainty Over Habeas Corpus the Jurisdiction of Military Tribunals George Rutherglen ost lawyers are familiar with the the military and susceptible to prosecution writ of habeas corpus as the vehicle before military tribunals. My purpose in this Mfor a form of more or less limited brief comment is not to address the constitu- appellate review of criminal convictions. In tionality of such tribunals, which others have time of war, however, habeas corpus returns to already considered at length.1 It is, on the its traditional role, dating back to Magna contrary, to suggest that this question will not Carta, as a judicial remedy for unlawful be resolved in any clear-cut way. At least, this detention by the executive branch. And so, is the lesson of the cases from the Civil War today, we see a renewed debate over access to and World War II, the two principal sources the writ by suspected terrorists detained by of law on this subject.2 George Rutherglen is the O.M. Vicars Professor of Law and Earle K. Shawe Professor of Employment Law at the University of Virginia. He would like to thank Curt Bradley, Barry Cushman, Earl Dudley, Dave Martin, Ted White, and Ann Woolhandler for comments on previous drafts of this article. 1 For arguments supporting the constitutionality of the tribunals, see Curtis A. Bradley Jack L. Goldsmith, The Constitutional Validity of Military Commissions, 5 Green Bag 2d 249 (2002). For arguments against, see Neal K. Katyal Laurence H.
    [Show full text]
  • Standing Outside of Article Iii
    UNIVERSITY of PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW Founded 1852 Formerly AMERICAN LAW REGISTER © 2014 by the University of Pennsylvania Law Review VOL. 162 MAY 2014 NO. 6 ARTICLE STANDING OUTSIDE OF ARTICLE III TARA LEIGH GROVE† The U.S. Supreme Court has insisted that standing doctrine is a “bedrock” re- quirement only of Article III. Accordingly, both jurists and scholars have assumed † Associate Professor, William and Mary Law School. I am grateful to Randy Barnett, Amy Barrett, A.J. Bellia, Neal Devins, Dave Douglas, Richard Fallon, Josh Fischman, David Fontana, Barry Friedman, Amanda Frost, Mark Graber, Chris Griffin, Aziz Huq, Vicki Jackson, Alli Larsen, Kurt Lash, Gary Lawson, Daryl Levinson, John Manning, Alan Meese, Gillian Metzger, Henry Monaghan, Nate Oman, Jim Pfander, Marty Redish, Judith Resnik, Mark Seidenfeld, David Shapiro, Suzanna Sherry, Larry Solum, Kevin Stack, Carlos Vazquez, Steve Vladeck, Tobias Wolff, Ann Woolhandler, Ingrid Wuerth,Ernie Young, and Tim Zick for discussions of this project or comments on earlier drafts. I am also grateful to Dara Gibson, Amanda Hamm, Alexis Patillo, and Alex Reidell for helpful research assistance. This Article was selected for presentation at the 2014 New Voices in Civil Justice Workshop at Vanderbilt Law School, the Sixth Annual Junior Faculty Federal Courts Workshop at Brooklyn Law School, and the Fourth Annual Constitutional Law Colloquium at Loyola University Chicago School of Law. The Article was also presented at the Georgetown University Law Center Constitutional Law Colloquium, Florida State University College of Law, William and Mary Law School, and American Universi- ty Washington College of Law. I am grateful for comments and suggestions offered at those events.
    [Show full text]
  • The Constitution in the Supreme Court: the Protection of Economic Interests, 1889-1910
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 1985 The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The Protection of Economic Interests, 1889-1910 David P. Currie Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation David P. Currie, "The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The Protection of Economic Interests, 1889-1910," 52 University of Chicago Law Review 324 (1985). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The Protection of Economic Interests, 1889-1910 David P. Curriet The Supreme Court's first hundred years virtually ended with the death of Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite in March 1888. Five of Waite's brethren-Stanley Matthews, Samuel F. Miller, Joseph P. Bradley, Samuel Blatchford, and Lucius Q.C. Lamar-left the Court within the next five years, and a sixth-Stephen J. Field-hung on after his powers had faded.1 By 1894, Melville W. Fuller2 presided over an essentially new Court consisting of David J. Brewer, Henry B. Brown, George Shiras, Howell E. Jackson, and Edward Douglass White3 in addition to the three holdovers, John M. Harlan, Horace Gray, and Field. Jackson and Field soon gave way to Rufus W. Peckham and Joseph McKenna; Gray and Shiras, after the turn of the century, were replaced by Oliver Wendell Holmes and William R.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Cases
    TABLE OF CASES 2575 TABLE OF CASES Page 324 Liquor Corp. v. Duffy, 479 U.S. 335 (1987)........................................................ 2247, 2550 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517 U.S. 484 (1996)....... 1255, 1257–58, 2252, 2481, 2572 A A. & G. Stevedores v. Ellerman Lines, 369 U.S. 355 (1962).............................................. 1677 A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147 (1950).................. 330, 332–34 A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935)...... 77–78, 83–84, 91–92, 94, 204–05, 576 A.L. Mechling Barge Lines v. United States, 368 U.S. 324 (1961)................................. 758–59 A. T. & T. Co. v. United States, 299 U.S. 232 (1936)......................................................... 1547 Aaron v. McKinley, 173 F.Supp. 944 (E.D. Ark. 1959)......................................................... 509 Abate v. Mundt, 403 U.S. 182 (1971).......................................................................... 2155–56 Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187 (1959)............................................................. 1459–60 Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967).................................................. 746, 755 Abdul-Kabir v. Quarterman, 550 U.S. 233 (2007).................................................... 1702, 2490 Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217 (1960)............................................................... 315, 1376 Abie State Bank v. Bryan, 282 U.S. 765 (1931)....................................................... 1810, 1848 Abington School Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)...... 730, 1052, 1063, 1069–70, 1090–91, 1093, 1097, 1107, 2420 Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. (21 How.) 506 (1859).......................................... 784, 876, 880, 969 Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651 (1977).................................................................... 1462 Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Educ., 431 U.S. 209 (1977).......................... 1132, 1181–82, 1209, 1232 A Book Named “John Cleland’s Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure” v.
    [Show full text]
  • The Constitution in the Supreme Court: the Protection of Economic Interests, 1889-1910 David P
    The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The Protection of Economic Interests, 1889-1910 David P. Curriet The Supreme Court's first hundred years virtually ended with the death of Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite in March 1888. Five of Waite's brethren-Stanley Matthews, Samuel F. Miller, Joseph P. Bradley, Samuel Blatchford, and Lucius Q.C. Lamar-left the Court within the next five years, and a sixth-Stephen J. Field-hung on after his powers had faded.1 By 1894, Melville W. Fuller2 presided over an essentially new Court consisting of David J. Brewer, Henry B. Brown, George Shiras, Howell E. Jackson, and Edward Douglass White3 in addition to the three holdovers, John M. Harlan, Horace Gray, and Field. Jackson and Field soon gave way to Rufus W. Peckham and Joseph McKenna; Gray and Shiras, after the turn of the century, were replaced by Oliver Wendell Holmes and William R. Day. William H. Moody and Horace R. Lurton served briefly at the end of Fuller's term, and another mas- sive turnover accompanied Fuller's death in 1910. Thus the per- sonnel of Fuller's twenty-one-year tenure is well separated from that of the preceding and following periods. Moreover, although twenty Justices sat during this time, eleven did the lion's share of the work: Harlan, Gray, Fuller, Brewer, Brown, Shiras, White, t Harry N. Wyatt Professor of Law, University of Chicago. I thank Karla Kraus and Richard Levy for valuable research assistance, Mitchell Daffner for taming the computer, Richard Helmholz, Richard Posner, and Cass R. Sunstein for helpful comments, and the Jerome S.
    [Show full text]
  • Principles of Federal Appropriations
    United States General Accounting Office GAO Office of the General Counsel January 2004 Principles of Federal Appropriations Law Third Edition Volume I As of September 14, 2017, chapters 1, 2, and 3 of the Fourth Edition of Principles of Federal Appropriations Law supersede chapters 1 through 4 of the Third Edition of Principles of Federal Appropriations Law. Chapters 5 through 15 of the Third Edition of Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, in conjunction with GAO, Principles of Federal Appropriations Law: Annual Update to the Third Edition, remain the most currently available material on the topics discussed therein. All current chapters and the Annual Update to the Third Edition are available at www.gao.gov/legal/red-book/overview. This volume supersedes the Volume I, Second Edition of the Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, 1991. The Security of this file is set to prevent a situation where linked references are appended to the PDF. If this change prevents an Acrobat function you need (e.g., to extract pages), use the the password “redbook” to revise the document security aand enable the additional functions. GAO-04-261SP Abbreviations APA Administrative Procedure Act BLM Bureau of Land Management CDA Contract Disputes Act of 1978 CCC Commodity Credit Corporation C.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations EAJA Equal Access to Justice Act EEOC Equal Employment Opportunity Commission FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation FY Fiscal Year GAO Government Accountability Office GSA General Services Administration HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development IRS Internal Revenue Service NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission OMB Office of Management and Budget SBA Small Business Administration TFM Treasury Financial Manual U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • The History and Principles of American Copyright Protection for Fashion Design: a Strange Centennial
    \\jciprod01\productn\H\HLS\6-2\HLS201.txt unknown Seq: 1 6-NOV-15 7:40 The History and Principles of American Copyright Protection for Fashion Design: A Strange Centennial Charles E. Colman* Series Preface Between 1914 and 1916, the United States Congress saw the first seri- ous round of lobbying by advocates seeking more robust legal protection of original industrial design and applied art, including fashion design. In the subsequent hundred years, the fashion industry has become a powerful (if fractured) force on the American legislative scene—yet fashion designers and their allies have continually failed to persuade Congress to amend federal statutes to provide greater rights in the appearance of their creations. At the same time, these stakeholders have pressed their cause in the courts, with varying results. This series of articles examines the U.S. federal courts’ adju- dication of the resulting disputes. In the process, the articles to come will highlight tacit assumptions, unacknowledged inconsistencies, and irrecon- cilable tensions in the case law. At the same time, this series will seek to shed light on largely unrecognized consistencies, coherent but under-theo- rized quasi-doctrines, and systematic principles that characterize—and, in many instances, are arguably unique to—U.S. “copyright-for-fashion” jurisprudence. Before embarking on this journey, it is necessary as an initial matter to dispose of the commonly recited myth that there is “no copyright for fash- ion” under U.S. law. In fact, certain components of fashion design receive * Acting Assistant Professor, NYU School of Law. © 2015 Charles E. Colman. I would like to thank Francis Galasi, Rachael Griffith-Pierce, Yin Huang, Guillermo Jimenez, Barbara Kolsun, Angela Lelo, Ariana Lo Giudice, Hannah Mrakovich, Sam Van Eichner, and the editors and staff of the Harvard Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law (especially Jeff Huberman, Marissa Lambert, and Sam Stuckey.) \\jciprod01\productn\H\HLS\6-2\HLS201.txt unknown Seq: 2 6-NOV-15 7:40 226 Harvard Journal of Sports & Entertainment Law / Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • Brief in Opposition of Respondent ————
    No. 03-1027 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ———— DONALD RUMSFELD, Petitioner, v. JOSE PADILLA AND DONNA R. NEWMAN, AS NEXT FRIEND OF JOSE PADILLA, Respondent. ———— On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ———— BRIEF IN OPPOSITION OF RESPONDENT ———— DAVID W. DEBRUIN DONNA R. NEWMAN JENNER & BLOCK LLP Counsel of Record 601 Thirteenth Street, NW 121 West 27th Street Suite 1200 Suite 1103 Washington, DC 20005 New York, New York 10001 (202) 639-6000 (212) 229-1516 JENNY S. MARTINEZ ANDREW G. PATEL 559 Nathan Abbott Way 111 Broadway, 13th Floor Stanford, California 94305 New York, New York 10006 (650) 725-2749 (212) 349-0230 WILSON-EPES PRINTING CO., INC. – (202) 789-0096 – WASHINGTON, D. C. 20001 QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the President has the authority to imprison as an “enemy combatant” an American citizen seized on American soil outside a zone of combat. 2. Whether, if the President has such authority, (a) there are limitations on the circumstances in which such authority may be exercised and the length of time an individual may be imprisoned, and (b) the individual detained may challenge the President’s assertion of that authority at a meaningful hearing with the assistance of counsel. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTIONS PRESENTED ........................ i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................... iv STATEMENT ....................................1 REASONS TO DENY THE PETITION ..............10 A. Review By This Court Is Not Warranted Because The Court Of Appeals’ Holding On The Scope Of The President’s Authority Was Both Correct And Narrow. .............. 11 1. The Court of Appeals Correctly Held that Both the Constitution and Section 4001(a) Require that the Military Detention of American Citizens on American Soil Must Be Supported by Clear and Unmistakable Congressional Authorization.
    [Show full text]
  • The Constitution in the Supreme Court: the Second World War, 1941-1946
    Catholic University Law Review Volume 37 Issue 1 Fall 1987 Article 3 1987 The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The Second World War, 1941-1946 David P. Currie Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview Recommended Citation David P. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The Second World War, 1941-1946, 37 Cath. U. L. Rev. 1 (1988). Available at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview/vol37/iss1/3 This Address is brought to you for free and open access by CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Catholic University Law Review by an authorized editor of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LECTURES THE CONSTITUTION IN THE SUPREME COURT: THE SECOND WORLD WAR, 1941-1946 David P, Currie* When Harlan F. Stone was named to succeed Charles Evans Hughes as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 1941, the ballgame was new and so were the players. Dead and buried were the once burning controversies over economic liberties and the scope of enumerated federal powers. While de- voting much of their attention to a number of troublesome issues brought about by the Second World War, the Justices were to focus increasingly on the new agenda of civil rights and liberties that Stone had laid out for them in United States v. Carolene Products Co.' in 1938.2 It was altogether fitting that Justice Stone, the prophet of the new order, was elevated to Chief Justice after fifteen distinguished years of intellectual leadership on the Court.3 The only other familiar face was that of Owen Roberts, who, more than any other single Justice, had helped to precipitate the change by abandoning his restrictive view of regulatory authority when he held the balance of power.4 All the other Justices owed their initial ap- pointments to President Franklin D.
    [Show full text]