Download Constitutional Law II: Individual Rights and Jurisprudence at Syracuse University - Prof. and more Exams Business and Labour Law in PDF only on Docsity!
Constitutional Law II Law 699 College of Law Syracuse University
Prof. Keith Bybee Room 175 Tuesday, Thursday 4:00-5:
Office Office Hours 321 Eggers Hall Tues. 10:30 – 11: tel. 443-9743 Thurs. 2:00 – 3: [email protected]
Course Description
Law 699 is the sequel to Constitutional I and examines the jurisprudence of individual rights developed by the Supreme Court since the Civil War. The topics covered include substantive due process; desegregation; race and gender discrimination; affirmative action; free expression; religious freedom; the right to privacy; and the constitutional significance of the welfare state.
This course has three general objectives: (1) To place the development of legal doctrines in historical context; (2) To expose students to the competing political conceptions at stake in constitutional argument; and (3) To provide students with a general command of the Supreme Court’s treatment of individual rights.
Course Readings
▪ Brest, Levinson, Balkin & Amar Processes of Constitutional Decisionmaking, 4th ed.
▪ Brest, Levinson, Balkin & Amar 2005 Supplement.
▪ Source book.
All of the above are required readings and are available for purchase at the University bookstore.
Course Requirements, Policies, and Procedures
If you have a disability that may affect your performance in this class, please see Dean Sealing, Room 444, as soon as possible, to discuss necessary accommodations.
Although I do not object to the use of tape recorders to record class discussion, I expect all cell phones, pagers, and similar devices to be turned off during class time. Wireless internet access is available in our classroom, but I believe that class time is best spent attending to lecture and to the comments of fellow students. I therefore ask that you refrain from emailing, surfing the web, instant messaging, gaming, and other computer diversions during class.
I assume students will come to class prepared. I expect all students to participate in class discussion, but I also recognize that productive discussion requires discussion leaders. As a result, I have assigned each student to a “discussion group” and, in turn, have assigned each group to different class sessions over the course of the semester (group numbers are designated in boldface on the syllabus). Each student should note the class sessions to which his or her group has been assigned and be prepared to lead discussion on those days. Excellence in class participation will be rewarded with extra credit of up to 5 points (to be added to the final exam grade).
Professor Leslie Bender will be the guest lecturer on Tuesday, October 18th^. Also, please note that in lieu of lecture on Tuesday, October 25th^ , I will hand out a “sample midterm” which we will discuss in class. This exercise is designed to give students a sense of the kind of questions that will be on the final exam as well as a sense of the kind of answers I expect.
There will be an in-class, three and one-half hour final exam on Monday, December 19th^. The exam will be open-book (i.e., students may consult any of the required readings during the final) and open-note (i.e., students may consult their notes of class discussions during the final). The exam will consist entirely of essay questions.
Finally, please note that final grades will be determined according to the mandatory Upperclass Grading Curve.
Assignments:
▪ “BLBA” refers to the casebook ▪ Source book selections are marked “*” ▪ Readings from the 2005 Supplement are marked “Supp.”
9/27 BLBA, 783-800 [3]
Milliken v. Bradley (1974) Missouri v. Jenkins (1995) United States v. Fordice (1992)
Suspect classifications and discriminatory intent 9/29 BLBA, 801-41 [4] Loving v. Virginia (1967) Korematsu v. United States (1944) Hernandez v. Texas (1954)
10/4 BLBA, 846-84 [5] Washington v. Davis (1976) Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development District (1977) Baston v. Kentucky (1986) Miller-El v. Dretke (2005) Supp., 220- Johnson v. California (2005) Supp., 221-
10/6 BLBA, 884-98; 1119-29 [1] McClesky v. Kemp (1987) Hunter v. Erikson (1969) City of Cleburne, Texas v. Cleburne Living Center (1985)
10/11 BLBA, 1543-69 [2] San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973) Plyler v. Doe (1982)
10/13 Yom Kippur. No class.
10/18 BLBA, 985-1044. Professor Bender, guest lecturer [no discussion group assigned] Frontiero v. Richardson (1973) J.E.B. v. Alabama Ex Rel. T. B. (1994) United States v. Virginia (1996)
10/20 BLBA, 1053-60; 1065-78; 1088-1113 [3] Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney (1979) Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County (1981)
10/25 Sample Midterm [no discussion group assigned] No reading assigned.
The Constitutionality of Affirmative Action 10/27 BLBA, 898-953 [4] Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. (1989)
11/1 BLBA, 967-73; 978-82 [5] Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) Supp., 226- Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) Supp., 265- Johnson V. California (2005) Supp., 217-20.
Religion and Speech 11/3 BLBA, 309-14; 401-13 [1] Reynolds v. United States (1878) Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)* Employment Division v. Smith (1990)*
11/8 Wallace v. Jaffree (1985)* [2] BLBA, 1571- Committee for Public Education & Liberty v. Nyquist (1973) Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District (1993) Agostini v. Felton (1997)
11/10 Mitchell v. Helms (2000) Supp., 425-34 [3] Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002) Supp., 434- Locke v. Davey (2004) Supp., 416-
11/15 BLBA, 60-7 [4] Alien and Sedition Acts Rationales for Free Speech* Schenck v. United States (1919)* Abrams v. United States (1919)* Dennis v. United States (1951)*
11/17 Cohen v. California (1971)* [5] Miller v. California (1973)* Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (1973)* Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000) Supp., 380-
Right to privacy 11/22 BLBA, 1131-55; 1172-1202 [1] Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) Roe v. Wade (1973)
11/24 Thanksgiving break. No class.
