Constitutional Law & Judicial Decision Making

Constitutional Law - POL 3323 Syllabus

Professor: Richard Gambitta, Ph.D.

Summer Law School Preparation Academy 2005

Offices: UTSA Downtown Campus - BV 4.356, Institute for Law & Public Affairs, & at the 1604 Campus - MS 4.03.02

Class:MTWR10:00 - 11:50 a.m. 6/6-7/9 Room:Buena Vista (BV) Building - 2.304 Fax: 458-5430

Office Hours:MW 8-9 & 4-5 pm & by appointment Phones:X 2990 & 5883

e-mail: - please email professor through this email rather than through WebCT

Websites: Dr. Gambitta

Institute for Law and Public Affairs:

WebCT:

Professor Gambitta designed this course in constitutional law for students in the UTSA Summer Law School Preparation Academy who want a rigorous examination of constitutional law and interpretation. The course requires voluminous, careful, and critical reading by all students. Attendance in class is mandatory. Failure to attend class will result in a lower final grade. The course provides the opportunity for students to hone analytical, critical reading, and communication skills. Doing well in this course demands extraordinary motivation, heavy concentration, sustained dedication, and active participation. Students must be prepared to discuss cases and present analyses in each class. Lack of preparation is unacceptable. The course has a unique electronic syllabus. The professor calls on students whether or not they volunteer to answer. Other students should benefit from your comments and questions in class. This is a collective enterprise, so contribute—otherwise you pulling your load. The professor will use different modes of teaching. Students must present assignments on time.

In this course, students will examine the U.S. Constitution through detailed analyses of constitutional case-law, the history and politics of litigation, and the policy impact of judicial decisions. We shall examine federal and state statutory law and the Texas Constitution as they pertain to selected cases. We shall focus on several U.S. Supreme Court Justices, their decisions, judicial and political philosophies, and behavior, also. The objectives of this course include having students: (a) gain a sophisticated understanding of the modes of constitutional interpretation in the U.S. system of government; (b) learn the constitutional powers and limitations associated with the three branches of government; (c) understand the respective powers of the states and the national government; (d) assess the nature, extent, and importance of those rights possessed by individuals which governments are not to abridge; (e) study the important political and social context of judicial decision making and impact of court decisions in the ongoing policy processes of the U.S.; and (f) analyze arguments, criticize arguments, create arguments, draw reasoned conclusions, and communicate diverse positions effectively.

Students are to conduct themselves professionally at all times. The successful teaching of this class requires extensive classroom interaction. Students are to treat others respectfully if criticizing others’ viewpoints. Students must adhere to the highest standards of honor in all matters related to scholarship. The professor condemns and prohibits any form of plagiarism, cheating, or other unfair, unethical conduct and will prosecute occurrences according to UTSA rules (see Information bulletin).

Students are to refer to the WebCT site and the professor’s site (both linked above) to secure information pertinent to class. Students are expected to e-correspond with the professor and other students, and seek assistance when needed.

Students should prepare to discuss all cases listed on the syllabus, but the focus in class will be on those cases with one or two asterisks (* or **). The professor will conduct extensive Socratic interactions on cases with two asterisks (**), discuss cases with one asterisk (*), and may refer at times to cases without asterisks. Students are responsible for every case with one or two asterisks and every case discussed or mentioned in class. The professor has given students multiple citations to cases in the electronic syllabus. Students will find abridgements of the cases in the casebook. Cases have citations to the U.S. Reports or equivalents and to findlaw.com or If you are reading this syllabus from a computer that is linked to the Internet, you can move directly from the e-syllabus citation to the sites containing the full opinions, oral arguments, syllabi, or abstracts, by clicking the active hot-linked citations. This enables students to access the full opinions, summaries, abstracts, and oral arguments of the cases at the click of a finger. Many Supreme Court Reporters and U.S. Reports are housed in our library’s reference room. Note that findlaw.com and interactive. The professor will make numerous assignments from Websites as the course progresses. The professor will bring oral arguments to class and assign "thinking assignments." Cases from the 2003-4 and 2004-5 term will be added without notice throughout the course, though the syllabus contains some of them already. Read your emails everyday.

The professor may cut cases where time demands it, entirely for the benefit of student sanity. He will add cases when necessary, entirely for student edification or as a result of class interactions and current Supreme Court decisions. The schedule of case discussions is not set in concrete, but, in general, students must be prepared ahead of the instructor by ten cases.

Value___

Course Requirements:Quizzes, briefs, and short essays (in class or take-home)20%

Final Examination70%

Class Participation (Grades A to F)10%

Attendancepriceless

Course Texts & Required Readings:

Ducat, CraigConstitutional Interpretation (7th or 8th edition)

Findlaw Projectfindlaw.com This gives the full opinion of court decisions, plus you can track statutes, etc.

The Oyez Project: U.S. Supreme Court MultimediaDatabase,

All readings placed on or linked through Website or WebCT or placed on reserve for this class.

Individual readings to particular students assigned by the professor

Federalist Papers

Anti-Federalist Paper,

Federalism Link,

U.S. Supreme Court Opinions, U.S. Code, Appellate Court Decision,

The Oyez Project: U.S. Supreme Court MultimediaDatabase

Legal Information Institute, Cornell University

Avalon Project of Yale Law School, historical

Legal Information Institute’s Current U.S. Supreme Court Awareness

LLI Eye on Courts

Jamail Center for Legal Research, Tarlton Law Library, UT School of Law

Texas Legal Materials or

State Constitutions

Understanding the Federal Courts

Justice Ginsberg on Supreme Court Procedures

Congressional Statutes passed since 1973

Center for the Study of Federalism

Tarlton Library (Texas) Constitutions

Texas Handbook Online

Voting Rights

My Capitol.com provides links to Texas & U.S. Legislatures, etc.

The Civil Rights Project, Harvard University

Center for Individual Rights

American Civil Liberties Union

Federalist Society

Continued: Research and background assignments through the following websites

Federalist Society Conservative Libertarian Pre-Law Reading List

International Humanitarian Law (Law Of War)

The Supreme Court Historical Society

Touro Law Education Library

The Center for Information Law and Policy

The Federal Web Locator (FWL)

FWL Quick Links Locator:

Jurist Legal Intelligence for an Educated Society (Univ. of Pittsburgh School of Law)

Jurist L.I. Paper Chase (Contemporary News on Law)

Jurist L.I. Links to Law Reviews

Jurist L.I. Links to Legal Video

Peoples Republic of China’s Constitution, Comparative

The Constitution & Judicial Review, Powers, and Limits

The U.S. Constitution (Read it in one sitting!)

**Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) p 4

Response by Thomas Jefferson through correspondence to Marshall’s arguments in Marbury:

*Eakin v. Raub, 12 S & Rawle (Penns) p 13

Sanford v. Scott, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857) p 26, 96

*Schenck v. U.S., 249 U.S. 47 (1919) p 781

**Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 87 (1810) p 415

*Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. (__ Wheat.) 304 (1816) p 19

*Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (__ Wheat.) 264 (1821) p 18, 96

*Cooper v. Aaron 358 U.S. 1 (1958) p 1138

* Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925) (Review of state legislation & the incorporation doctrine) p 788

*U.S. v. Carolene Products, 304 U.S. 144 (1938) (focus on footnote)p 91

*Ex Parte McCardle, 74 U.S. 506 (1869) (appellate jurisdiction)p 24

Justice Ginsberg on Supreme Court Procedures,

Modes of Constitutional Interpretation addressed preliminarily.

**Read Handout on Judicial Self Restraints.

*Muscrat v. U.S., 219 U.S. 346 (1911) (case & controversy, advisory opinions & necessary adverseness) p 40

*De Funis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312 (1974) (mootness)p 39,43,44

Ashwander v. T.V.A., 297 U.S. 288 (1935) (assess Brandeis’ summary)p 58

National Treasury Employees Union v. U.S. 101 F. 3d 1423, U.S. Ct. of Appeals, DC, (1996) (ripeness) p 45

Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984) (standing)p 47

City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 453 U.S. 1308 (1981) p 54

*Doe v. Bush U.S. Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit, 323 F. 3d 133 2003 (Ripeness)

**Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923) (taxpayer standing)p 56

**Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968) (master the double nexus test)p 56

Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975) (standing)

Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972) (standing)

Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1 (1972)(standing and ripeness)p 12

Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208 (1974) p 57, 77

*U.S. v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166 (1974) p 57

**Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939) (political questions & amendment process)

*Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) (political questions)p 60

**Powell v. McCormack 395 U.S. 486 (1969) p 58

*U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995)p 105

*Walter Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993)

Federalism & Congressional Powers & Limitations

Introduction of Congressional Powers

Overall Readings for Section -- Ducat p 79-158, 270-277, and assigned cases:

**McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819) p 107

South Carolina v. Katzenbach 383 U.S. 301 (1966)p 113

*Religious Freedom Restoration Act:

*City of Boerne v. Flores, 117 U.S. 2517 (1997)p 119

**Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824) p 278

Stafford v. Wallace, 258 U.S. 495 (1922) p 284

*Champion v. Ames, 188 U.S. 321 (1903) p 288

Brooks v. U.S., 267 U.S. 432 (1927) p 292

*Houston, East West TX Rail. Co. v. U.S., 234 U.S. 342 (1914) p 286

**Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 (1918) p 304

*Schechter Poultry Corp. v. U.S., 295 U.S. 495 (1935)p 133

Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388 (1935)p 132

Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 (1936)

NLRB v. Laughlin Steel 301 U.S. 1 (1937)

**U.S. v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 (1941)p 323

**Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) p 324

*Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S., 379 U.S. 241 (1964)p 294

*Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964) p 297

**National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S. 833 (1976) p 328

**Garcia v. SAMTA, 469 U.S. 528 (1985) p 328

Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 (1937) p 353

*South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987) p 358

Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991)

New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992)p 376

**U.S. v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 115 S.Ct. 1624 (1995)p 328

*Printz v. United States, 117 S.Ct. 2365 (1997)p 382

*U.S. v. Morrison 529 U.S. 598 (2000)p 332

Mistretta v. U.S, 488 U. S. 361 (1989)p 146

Sabri v. U.S. Decided May 17, 2004

**Bush v Gore 531 U.S. 531 U.S. 98 (2000)p 1220/1

(Dershowitz Webpage, Supreme Injustice)

Executive Branch Powers and Limits

Executive Branch

**The Prize Cases, 67 U.S. 635, 17 L. Ed. 459 (1863)p 193

** In re Neagle, 135 U.S. 1 (1890) p 200

**Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (Wall.) 2 (1866)p 194

*Myers v. U.S., 272 U.S. 52 (1926) p 178

*Humphrey's Executor v. U. S., 295 U.S. 602 (1935)p 183

*Wiener v. U.S., 357 U.S. 349 (1958)p 184

*Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976)p 906

*Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988)p 185

**Korematsu v. U.S., 323 U.S. 214 (1944) p 201

(Timeline with detailed research on Japanese Internment and history of relevant WWII events.)

(Tape shown outside of class on Japanese Relocation Centers and the impact of the episode.)

Fred Korematsu given Medal of Freedom.

** Youngstown Sheet and Tube v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)p 209

**U.S. v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974)p 222

Clinton v. Jones, 117 S.Ct. 1636 (1997)p 241

Cheney, V.P. v U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

*N.Y. Times v. U.S., 403 U.S. 713 (1971)p 940

**I.N.S. v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983)p 137

*Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714 (1986)p 144

Dellums v. Bush, 752 F. Supp. 1141 (D.D.C. 1990)p 264

Raines v. Byrd, 117 S.Ct. 2312 (1997)

*Clinton v. New York, 118 S.Ct. 2091 (1998)p 147

U.S. Patriot Act (The Act and materials pertaining to it...)

*Rumsfeld v. Padilla, No. 03-334. Argued April 20, 2004--Decided June 28, 2004

*Rasul v. Bush, et al., No. 03-334. Argued April 20, 2004--Decided June 28, 2004

oral argument available through:

and at rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/spec/spec042004_sc.rm

*Hamdi v. Padilla, No. 03-6696. Argued April 28, 2004--Decided June 28, 2004

*Tenet et al. v. Doe et ux. No. 03-1395.Argued January 11, 2005--Decided March 2, 2005

Penumbra, the Right to Contract, Privacy & Autonomous Choices

Right to Privacy, Right To Be Left Alone, Right of Autonomous Choice

*Jacobson v. Massachusetts 197 U.S.11 (1905) p 365

** Lochner v. N.Y., 198 U.S. 45 (1905)p 441

** Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412 (1908)p 445

** Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1817 (1967)p 706

* Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969)p 982

Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977)p 756

Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978)

** Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200, 47 S.Ct. 584 (1927)p 705

**Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 62 S.Ct. 1110 (1942)p 705

**Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)p 707

**Eisenstadt v. Baird 405 U.S. 438 (1972)

Carey v. Population Services International 431 U.S. 678 (1977)

*Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969)p 982

**Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S 113, 93 S.Ct. 705 (1973)p 713

** Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980)p 744

Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. 416, 13 S.Ct. 2481 (1983) p 721

Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians, 476 U.S. 747, 106 S.Ct. 2169 (1986) p 720

*Webster v. Reproductive Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989)p 720

**Planned Parenthood of Southeastern PA v. Casey, 505 U.S. 822, 112 S.Ct. 2791 (1992) p 723

Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173, 111 S.Ct. 1759 (1991)p 747

Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 117 S.Ct. 1865 (1997)

Kansas v. Hendricks, 117 S.Ct. 2072 (1997)p 592

Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York, 117 S.Ct. 885 (1997) p 831

** Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986)p 749

**Lawrence v. Texas, No. 02-102 (2003)

Oral Arg. Transcripts:

Legal Information Institute Links:

* Cruzan by Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Public Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990) p 764

**Washington v. Glucksberg, 117 S.Ct. 2258 (1997)p 765

*Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980)

Final Exam

Constitutional Law & Judicial Decision Making

Suggested Readings and Listening and Research Tools

Federalist Papers