Instructive History of Planned Parenthood V. Casey
Format MLA
Volume of 4 pages (1100 words)
Assignment type : Case Study
Description
The Outside Writing Assignment
Your task in this writing assignment is to craft an instructive history of a single actual court case. I want you to explain the actual steps that the case followed, much like the introductory material preceding cases in the Raskin book. What was the original dispute? (you can start off by talking about Roe V Wade) Which court heard it first and how did that court treat it? Then what court hears it next and, again, how did that court treat the case? How is it finally resolved by SCOTUS (cover all opinions at least briefly). “Instructive history” means I want you to take every opportunity you can to raise interesting policy/political questions as a result of the several steps through which your case passes. (you can incorporate questions and then answer it right after in order to understand how the law works or you can just think of questions and answer them in the paper) This is something that I’ve tried to do in class. For instance, a civil suit means that the burden of proof is different than in a criminal suit – why? Is that difference a good idea? In a civil suit there is no guarantee of counsel: again: why? Is it fair to assume that parties to a civil suit are on their own resources? If the Court is trumping some other governmental actor’s decision, what makes the issue suitable for judicial resolution—why should a judge be a better decision-maker than this other actor? What use was made of precedent and how was that disputed (if it was)? What are (have been) the implications of this decision for the future?
These questions are only examples. Other examples can be found in the exercises that Raskin includes for class discussion. The sorts of questions/answers that you choose will allow you to demonstrate that you’ve thought about the process of legal decision-making in our country. Your goal is to demonstrate that you’ve been reading and listening and thinking about the material included in this course.
The case you choose could be a Federal civil or criminal case, one that ends up in the US Supreme Court. You need to make sure that there is an accessible public record, so that you can recount the several steps comprehensively. The issue involved should not be a highly technical one, either from a scientific or legal point of view. You should be able to explain succinctly what makes your case is about and what makes it interesting as an example of the functioning of the American legal system. Spend too much time on the details and you won’t be able to adequately address the implications—the real meaning of those details for our purposes in understanding law in 2017 in the US. Think of your case as a coatrack and the specific expository bits as the coats, hats and scarves that you hang on it. You have nearly complete freedom in making the habiliment choices. Your goal should be to assemble an interesting collection that demonstrates how much you’ve learned in this course so far.
There is a trade-off to be made between a really well-known case (for which it will be easy to get material but hard to do your own work) and an obscure one for which useful information will be harder to find. Avoid the ends of that continuum—don’t choose Brown v Board of Education on one hand or Americold Realty Trust v. ConAgra Foods, Inc. on the other.
Your essay should proceed chronologically, with your observations and queries (questions) about the law and the legal system, spread throughout the narrative.
Please incorporate keys words from this study guide(I need to show that I paid attention in class)
https://quizlet.com/235002454/pls-207-midterm-sg-flash-cards/
The books that need to be referenced
We the students
https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/we-the-students/book241277
Thinking like a Lawyer
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228134271_Book_Review_Thinking_Like_a_Lawyer_A_New_Introduction_to_Legal_Reasoning_by_Frederick_Schauer
Whose Monet?
http://hufind.huji.ac.il/Record/HUJ001891136/TOC
This is a second version of the midterm study guide like the one I uploaded above,
Getting ready for the midterm October 24
The midterm exam will consist of essay questions of disparate length and weight, drawn from the following materials (my choice – not yours). Please prepare answers to all of these questions in advance, even though only some will appear on the exam itself. Work alone or together in preparing answers, but remember that the midterm exam is closed book, no notes. There may be a couple of small questions
Your goal on this exam should be to demonstrate that you’ve read and understood the material in the texts; that you’ve been attentive to and comprehended class discussions and that you’ve thought about these issues on your own. To do that you should provide as many specifics as possible in your essays. References to specific readings are good. Moreover, essays that demonstrate synthetic understanding are stronger than essays that simply recount specifics.
On the day of the exam please bring to class a large format bluebook –or two if you write large or fast. Don’t even write your name on your bluebook, because we’ll be switching. Also, please write in ink on the exam – not pencil.
Contrast the civil (Roman) law and common law traditions and explain how each deals with the need to stay the same and the need to keep up with an ever-changing world.
Civil law – a written code of law
Codified statutes (written law) rule the land; influenced by Roman Law.
Allows room for judiciary adjustments
Common law – never fixed, always evolving
Decentralized (from central to local)
Past legal precedents (judicial rulings) are used to decide cases at hand
Explain the structure of courts in the US, including the hierarchical structure within each system (trial courts, appellate courts, supreme courts) as well as the existence of two court systems in every state (Federal courts and state courts).
Federal courts:
Deals with controversies relating to the constitution & statutes passed by congress
The U.S District Courts
The U.S Circuit Courts of appeals
The U.S Supreme Court
State Courts:
Issues relating to state & federal law. Hears criminal and civil cases.
Trial Courts (evidence, facts)
Appellate
Supreme Court (no witness, multiple judges)
How (and why) is the Constitution like a cookie jar?
Set up a process of changing the constitution the constitution
Propose an amendment
Don’t put too many things in the constitution
The US has a government of delegated powers shared by three branches in a federal system. Explain.
Speak said to mention the lecture where we talked about the cows and the mules: Delegated powered shared by three branches in the federal system.
Reserved Powers (outside)
Implied Powers (cows inside the fence)
Concument powers (the taxing power)
Explain the difference between civil law and criminal law, including an explanation of the players and their parts.
Civil: disputes between individuals/organizations in which compensation is awarded to the victim.
Plaintiff (brings case to law) & defendant (gets ‘fined’ if found guilty)
Private Parties
Criminal: deals with crime and the legal punishment of criminal offenses (maintains stability by punishing offenders)
Prosecutor (argues/proof) & defendant (broke law, defends self)
Court
Every time a court is asked to make a decision they have to decide, first, whether that is a decision they can make. When should a judicial actor trump the decision of an executive or legislative actor? Use as part of your explication of this meta-choicemaking the case of W Va v Barnette, tying into the larger theme of this quarter, i.e., that legal reasoning is different; that difference means we ought to think about when and where it’s the appropriate mode of making a choice.
Write an essay that emphasizes the ways in which our real legal system isn’t what most folks imagine—that is, explain how the legal system addresses the future as much as the past. Also explain the tension that exists in playing fair to the past and also creating the future we want (this might – but might not always—be the same as the tension between seeking justice in the instant case and finding the proper rule for all cases). Use Schauer Chapter 6 as appropriate.
Laws are general; cases are specific. Use the “A steals a painting from B, sells it to C” exercise to talk about how the common law is built from cases.
Explain all of the following symbols: 539 US 558, 572 (2003); 539= volume;558= Standard;,572=pg number (2003)= Term 16 Wall. 36 (1873)16= volume; wall= wallace reporters 36: pg number;(1873)=term title 15 U.S.C. §2051 (The Consumer Product Safety Act 0f 1972); 15=title U.S.C= us code 2051= section code citation
25 L.Ed. 2d 287 (1970): 25=volume L.E.d= Lawyers edition, 2d=series 287= page (1970)= year it was decided
Explain the difference between ex post and ex ante thinking by talking about the bank robbery hostage.
The following cases from Raskin are fair game per se:
W Virginia State Bd of Ed v Barnette
Tinker v Des Moines-
Facts from the Book:
Adults and students have a meeting and decide to protest against their objection to the hostilities in Vietnam and their support for a truce. (an agreement between enemies or opponents to stop fighting or arguing for a certain time.)
-therefore in order to do this they wore black armbands during the holiday season and also fasted
-the school authorities later banned this and threaten to suspend students that wore the armbands.
-eventually Mary Beth, Christopher and john tinker were all suspended from school, they did not come back until the planned period ended.
-court ruled that this action was indeed protected by the first amendment within the free speech clause. The armbands did not casue any type of disruption (peaceful protest)…….
Facts of the Case
In December 1965, a group of students in Des Moines held a meeting in the home of 16-year-old Christopher Eckhardt to plan a public showing of their support for a truce in the Vietnam war. They decided to wear black armbands throughout the holiday season and to fast on December 16 and New Year’s Eve. The principals of the Des Moines school learned of the plan and met on December 14 to create a policy that stated that any student wearing an armband would be asked to remove it, with refusal to do so resulting in suspension. On December 16, Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt wore their armbands to school and were sent home. The following day, John Tinker did the same with the same result. The students did not return to school until after New Year’s Day, the planned end of the protest.
Through their parents, the students sued the school district for violating the students’ right of expression and sought an injunction to prevent the school district from disciplining the students. The district court dismissed the case and held that the school district’s actions were reasonable to uphold school discipline. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the decision without opinion.
Question:
Does a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the students’ freedom of speech protections guaranteed by the First Amendment?
Conclustion
Yes. Justice Abe Fortas delivered the opinion of the 7-2 majority. The Supreme Court held that the armbands represented pure speech that is entirely separate from the actions or conduct of those participating in it. The Court also held that the students did not lose their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech when they stepped onto school property. In order to justify the suppression of speech, the school officials must be able to prove that the conduct in question would “materially and substantially interfere” with the operation of the school. In this case, the school district’s actions evidently stemmed from a fear of possible disruption rather than any actual interference.
In his concurring opinion, Justice Potter Stewart wrote that children are not necessarily guaranteed the full extent of First Amendment rights. Justice Byron R. White wrote a separate concurring opinion in which he noted that the majority’s opinion relies on a distinction between communication through words and communication through action.
Justice Hugo L. Black wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the First Amendment does not provide the right to express any opinion at any time. Because the appearance of the armbands distracted students from their work, they detracted from the ability of the school officials to perform their duties, so the school district was well within its rights to discipline the students. In his separate dissent, Justice John M. Harlan argued that school officials should be afforded wide authority to maintain order unless their actions can be proven to stem from a motivation other than a legitimate school interest.
Engel v Vitale
Facts of the case
The Board of Regents for the State of New York authorized a short, voluntary prayer for recitation at the start of each school day. This was an attempt to defuse the politically potent issue by taking it out of the hands of local communities. The blandest of invocations read as follows: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and beg Thy blessings upon us, our teachers, and our country.”
Question
Does the reading of a nondenominational prayer at the start of the school day violate the “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment?
Conclusion
Yes. Neither the prayer’s nondenominational character nor its voluntary character saves it from unconstitutionality. By providing the prayer, New York officially approved religion. This was the first in a series of cases in which the Court used the establishment clause to eliminate religious activities of all sorts, which had traditionally been a part of public ceremonies. Despite the passage of time, the decision is still unpopular with a majority of Americans.
Everson v Bd of Ed of Ewing Township;
The supreme court considered reimbursements to parents that send their kids to catholic school through city transportation.
Did not violate the Establishment clause because it did not promote parochial schools
Wisconsin v Yoder
Going by the book:
Wisconsin’s required children to attend public or private school until the age of 16.
-however parents (3 of them: Yoder, Miller and Yutzy) of the Amish community declined to send their children to school after the 8th grade
-they claimed this violated the first and fourteenth amendment
-they believed that sending their children to high school put the kids in danger, parents and the religion as well. This is beucase the schools emphasized intellectual, scientific accomplishments, social life ect. Compared to the church that focued more on informal learning and learning by doing,(physical labor). Men were farmers and woman were housewives. Therefore and in other words the amish objection to formal education beyond the 8th grade is firmly grounded in these central religious concepts.
Decision: first amendment outwiehed the states interest. Court found the that the values of secondary school were in conflict with the religion. Therefore Judge sided with Yoder.
****just like the case of Barnette and Tinker Judge Douglass remided the court that “that children are persons beyond the bill of rights” therefore their voices on religious liberty and education count. The judge argued that it is up to the children if they want to follow the religion or not. The students have the right to decide their future. Therefore the state had to hear a child first in order to make a decison. Yoders daughter decided that indeed school was interfering with her religon.
Terms you should know:
Common Law/Roman (Civil)Law
-The law is the same throughout the whole empire
-written code of laws
Civil Law/Criminal Law: There are two types of cases
Civil Law: plantiff v. dendent
Criminal Law: prosecutor (interest of the state) v defendent , most are resolved on plea bargain (deal)
Prosecutor/Defendant-
Plaintiff/Defendant
Appellant/Appellee
Appellant- must demonstrate evidence for appeal. the party that is appealing against a decision of lower court to a higher court (sometimes called the petitioner) (there must be legal grounds for appeal)
Appellee- the party that responds to an appeal. This party is generally seeking affirmance of lower court
BOTH party statements are called appeal briefs. The appellants brief argues points in an attempt to convince the appeal court to reverse the decision. While the The appellee’s brief provides a detailed response to each and every argument stated by the appellant, in an attempt to convince the Appeals Court to keep the courts ruling.
Petitioner/Respondent
Petitioner: this is the party that pursues the appeal (in other word the appellate)
Respondent- party that responds for the petition in court, (aka appelle) the respondent always wishes the decision stay the same. He is the original winner however the loser is fighting for an appeal.
Trial Court/Appellate Court:
Trial Court- original jurisdiction, there is a trial jury, there is only 1 judge, deals with evidence, deals with facts and apply law to those facts
Appellate- do not have witnesses, there is 4-6 judges present, do not deal with judges, do not deal with evidence, only deals with the law
Grand Jury/Petit Jury:
Grand Jury= DECIDES WHETHER TO INDICT OR NOT. A grand jury (12 to 23 people) is a body that investigates criminal conduct. Federal, state and county prosecutors utilize grand juries to decide whether probable cause exists to support criminal charges.
Petit Jury: A regular jury (6 to 12 people) – aka a petit jury – hears only trial cases. A regular jury decides the facts. The judge presiding over the trial decides the law. A petit jury decides:
In criminal cases – whether the prosecution has proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
In civil cases – by a preponderance of evidence (which means 51%).
In criminal cases the decision must be unanimous.
Instant Case/Precedent case-
Federal Court/State Court
Preponderance of Evidence
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
Constitution/Statute/Ordinance-
Counstition- changes all the time (hard to change)
Statute- is written by the legislative
Ordinance- limited legislative body
-these are the city council and county supervisors
En banc/ Panel
Law/Equity
Affirm/Reverse/Remand
Recuse- its the judges decison not to participate…..
De Novo- a new trial, an appellete court gives this. (starting from scratch)
Inductive/Deductive
Strict scrutiny
Rational basis
Opinions:
Court’s, Concurring, Dissenting
