Nov.

29, 2014
Dear Students,
1) Here are this semesters homework assignments.
2) Ive also attached the PowerPoint on the 1st Amendment.
The introductory PowerPoint on the U.S. legal system is missing. Ill search for it this coming week on the
law schools computers. If I dont find it, Ill create another one to send to you.
3) If this email is too big, I will send some of the homework attachments in a separate email.
Anne

Week 1
Oct. 11
We began to discuss the Constitution and Articles I, II and III last week. This week we will look at a current
issue in the U.S. that is related to the ongoing tension between the power of the federal government and the
power of local governments.
As homework please TRY to read as much of the attached U.S. Supreme Court case, U.S. v. Lopez, as you
can. For some of you, this will be too long to read easily. For others, it will not be as much of a
challenge. Dont worry: your homework will not usually be so unfamiliar or so long. Once you have tried to
read a U.S. case, we can discuss any questions in class.
1. First, read the short introduction, Article I.
2. Try to read the case.
3. When you reach the part of the case that refers to the section of Art. I that is being discussed, find the
Constitution online and find this part of Art. I.
A good place to find the Constitution (and many other helpful materials) is the Cornell University Legal
Information Institute website at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/
Week 2
Oct. 17
Please read the following information about an earlier case that deals with the Commerce Clause. If you
want to read the entire case, you have the citation. However, you are only required to read the Wikipedia
article and the Heritage Foundation summary. Please be prepared to discuss this in class. (I dont usually
recommend Wikipedia, but in this case the summary here is a good one.)
1. Katzenbach v. McClung

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katzenbach_v._McClung

Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court
held that Congress acted within its power under the Commerce Clause of theUnited States Constitution in
forbidding racial discrimination in restaurants as this was a burden to interstate commerce. The ruling was a
90 decision in favor of the plaintiffthe United States government.
Ollie's Barbecue was a family-owned restaurant that operated in Birmingham, Alabama, that seated 220
customers. It was located on a state highway and was 11 blocks from an interstate highway. In a typical
year, approximately half of the food it purchased from a local supplier originated out-of-state. It catered to
local families and white collar workers and provided take-out service to African American customers.
Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964[1] outlawing segregation in American schools and public
places. One section of the act, Title II, was specifically intended to grant African-Americans full access to
1

public facilities such as hotels, restaurants, and public recreation areas. On the same day, the Supreme Court
heard challenges to Title II from a motel owner and from Ollie McClung. Both claimed that the federal
government had no right to impose any regulations on small, private businesses. Both ultimately lost. Ollie
McClung had won an initial round in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama when he received an injunction preventing the Government from enforcing Title II against his
restaurant. But then Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach appealed this decision to the U.S. Supreme
Court.
Opinion of the Court[
McClung argued that the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional, at least as applied to a small, private
business such as his. McClung further argued that the amount of food purchased by Ollie's that actually
crossed state lines (about half of the food at Ollie's) was so minuscule that Ollie's effectively had no effect
on interstate commerce (although McClung admitted that a significant amount of Ollie's business was to
interstate travelers). Consequently, McClung argued that Congress had no power to regulate Ollie's
Barbecue under the Commerce Clause.
The court ruled unanimously that the Civil Rights Act is constitutional and that it was properly applied
against Ollie's Barbecue.
Justice Clark wrote the majority opinion, with concurrences by Justices Black, Douglas, andGoldberg. In
section 2 of the opinion, the Court agreed with McClung that Ollie's itself had virtually no effect on
interstate commerce. In section 4 of the opinion, the Court held that racial discrimination in restaurants had a
significant impact on interstate commerce, and therefore Congress has the power to regulate this conduct
under the Commerce Clause. The Court's conclusion was based on extensive Congressional hearings on the
issue. The Court cited testimony that African Americans spent significantly less time in areas with racially
segregated restaurants, and that segregation imposed an artificial restriction on the flow of merchandise by
discouraging African Americans from making purchases in segregated establishments. The Court gave the
greatest weight to evidence that segregation in restaurants had a "direct and highly restrictive effect upon
interstate travel by Negroes."
In Section 5 of the decision, the Court affirmed previous decisions that Congress has the authority to
regulate local intrastate activities if the activities significantly affect interstate commerce in the aggregate,
citing United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co., Wickard v. Filburn,Gibbons v. Ogden, and United States v.
Darby.
The appellees objected to Congress' approach in determining what affects commerce, the court held, Where
we find that the legislators, in light of the facts and testimony before them, have a rational basis for finding a
chosen regulatory scheme necessary to the protection of commerce, our investigation is at an end.
2. The conservative view: Please read this analysis of Katzenbach v. McClung. This is the view of the
Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.
http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/rule-of-law/judicial-activism/cases/katzenbach-v-mcclung
3. Based on the opinion in U.S. v. Lopez, and on the knowledge that the current U.S. Supreme Court is
generally more conservative than the McClung court, do you think the court would decide the same way in
the 2014-2015 session

Week 3
Oct. 25
Please do the following:
1) Watch the video A Conversation on the Origin, Nature and Importance of the Supreme Court found at:
the Origin, Nature http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/a-conversation-on-the-origin-nature-andimportance-of-the-supreme-court

Watch at least through 00:09:53. Pay close attention to the discussion that begins at 00:06:20 regarding
when the U.S. Supreme Court might hear a case that originates in a state court. Also watch the discussion of
how the court deals with contemporary issues at 00:28:24-00:31:37.
Justice Roberts discusses the case Gideon v. Wainright, a 6th Amendment case that is clearly familiar to the
students in the audience. We will discuss this case in detail later. Note that the 6th Amendment guarantees a
criminal defendants right to have an attorney.
Roberts also discusses the 4th Amendment, which requires that any search and seizure by police be
reasonable. We will discuss this amendment in detail, too.
Optional: watch the video through:
- the discussion of how justices write opinions at 00:21:11
- the discussion of C.J. John Marshall at 25:31
- the end of the video
My computer would not allow me to get the subtitles, so Im not sure whether your computers will allow
you to get them.
2) Read the attached article on U.S. v. Lopez, which tells you what eventually happened to Alfonso Lopez,
Jr., the respondent in U.S. v. Lopez.
3) Read The Legal Profession. Ive attached a copy for those who didnt get one in class.
4) Optional: Read the attached case, Florida Bar v. Went for It.
5) Note that I will send a copy of the PowerPoint on the structure of the U.S. court system later.

Week 4
Oct. 30
Homework for the coming week:
A. Freedom of Speech:
1) Read pp.129-134 from An Introduction to American Law (attached).
2) Read and be prepared to discuss the following topics for discussion: Ashcroft case: #1, U.S v.
Progressive: #1+2, U.S. v. Eichman, #1+2.
3) Note that U.S. v. Progressive is not a a U.S. Supreme Court case. See whether you can determine which
court heard the case by looking online.
4) Optional: Read pp. 135-middle of p. 138.
B. Freedom of Religion:
1) Read from bottom of p. 116-126.
2) Read and be prepared to discuss the following topics for discussion:
Lamb's Chapel #1, Employment Division, #1-3, Santa Fe #1+2
3) Optional: Read top of p. 127- middle of p. 129. Read topics for discussion #1+2.

Week 5
Nov. 7
This weeks homework is:

1) If you havent read it already, please read Santa Fe Indep. School Dist. v. Doe, which was assigned
last week. Look online to determine what Doe means.
2) Read Supreme Court Gay Marriage Showdown (attached)
3) Watch the lawyer ads listed on LawyerAdsYouTube (attached). Dont worry if some arent
available here or if you dont watch all of them; youll get the idea by watching several.
4) Online search for americanbar.org Holt v. Hobbs. Youll get a Preview of U.S. Supreme Court Cases
featuring Holt v. Hobbs, Docket No. 13-6827. Look for Merit Briefs and read the following
portions of Brief for Petitioner (the first brief listed): cover page, pp. i and ii, Introduction
beginning on p. 3 middle of p. 15.
5) Read Justices Say Case of Inmates Beard (attached).
Optional: Read OR ERA (attached).
Week 6
Nov. 12
The homework for the coming week is:
1) Please read the attached information on Case Analysis and Case Briefs. Be sure to read State v.
Jones on pp. 19-20 and State v. Klein on p. 22. Then read Toad v. Ulrich on pp. 31-32. Brief Toad v.
Ulrich and be prepared to discuss your brief in class.
2)
I recommend reading the entire chapter (pp. 18-33. However, if you cant do this, please read pp. 1825 and Exercise 3-A on pp. 31-32.
3) Watch
A
Conversation
on
the
Constitution:
Judicial
Interpretation
at
ttp://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/a-conversation-on-the-constitution-judicial-interpretation
The English captions dont work on my computer. I think the video is understandable without them.
The video is 00:36:36. I recommend watching the entire video. If you cant do this, please watch
00:00:00 to 14:06. Then watch 00:30:48 to the end.
The video features Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer. Whose judicial philosophy do you
agree with? Do you agree with some things that both justices say? What?
4) Please use some of your time this week to read materials assigned during past weeks that you have
not read.

Week 7
Nov. 19
The homework for next week (Nov. 24-27) is:
1) Read pp. 323-the bottom of p. 328 of the attached material on Business Law. CHANGE: Read pp.
323- the middle of p. 327.
OPTIONAL: Read through bottom of p. 328.

2) Watch the first two cases on this YouTube video of small claims court: The Peoples Court S18E28 2014
10 15. Answer the following questions:
Case 1:
a. What does Jack of all trades, master of none mean? Used to refer to Shakespeare first
mention of Shakespeare Bun la toate i la nimic ("Good at everything and at nothing")
b. What English grammar mistake does the defendant make? We discussed about
Case 2:
a. What does $5000 is the state max mean?
b. What does 5 grand mean?
c. What is a statutory maximum?
d. What is repoing?
e. What is a title in this context?
f. What is a dealership?
g. What is a lien?
h.What is a repo man?
i. Why did the judge correct the defendant by saying woman when he said
girl?

3) Work on your list of legal English vocabulary.

Week 8
Nov. 29 See separate email.