CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (GOVT 307)
St. Lawrence University
Spring 2014
Professor Darby Morrisroe
Phone: 229-5974
E-Mail: dmorrisroe@stlawu.edu
C
OURSE
D
ESCRIPTION AND
O
BJECTIVES
Office: Hepburn 212
Hours: T/TH 10-12 or by appt
http://blogs.stlawu.edu/conlaw
The study of law is at its best a lively and engaging endeavor. Few major legal controversies have been decided with any sense of finality. In fact, the most important questions of American constitutional law have occupied judges, scholars and students for centuries. In taking this course, you will be asked to weigh in on these timeless legal debates. We will examine the major opinions of the United States Supreme Court that have shaped the contours of the relationship among political institutions and between the individual and the state. These opinions are interpretations of the United States Constitution. While the page volume of reading for this course is not large, it is both dense and complex, and understanding the material will require considerable intellectual effort.
While working toward a fuller understanding of Supreme Court jurisprudence we will be pursuing the equally important goals of developing logical and legal reasoning and communication skills.
The course components are all designed to help you accomplish these knowledge and skill objectives. However, in order to achieve these goals there are certain things you must bring to the class. You must possess a desire to be engaged fully in the enterprise of learning. You must come to class fully prepared to discuss the cases, having already given serious thought to their content and analysis. You must be prepared to take the risk of sharing your ideas and analysis with the rest of the class. You must come to class with an open mind and a readiness to genuinely consider the thoughts of others. You must be willing to demand the highest standards from yourself.
Finally, you must be ready to seek out assistance from the professor or fellow students when necessary. In return, I will do everything reasonably in my power to help you succeed. If you are up for the challenge, I am thrilled to have you in the class!
C OURSE R EQUIREMENTS
In-Class Analysis
Constitutional law is a field filled with nuanced and highly contestable theories, legal gray areas and controversial subject matter. In exploring not only the substance of the court decisions but also their merits, you will be expected to have read the cases and analyzed the rulings prior to each seminar. This class is run using the
Socratic method and demands total engagement during each class session. You should be prepared for the instructor to regularly directly ask you to present your analysis of the material and your interpretation of specific cases. Your participation should demonstrate a firm grasp of the opinions as well as independent critical analysis. Each student is expected to weigh in on each of the cases discussed. A passive approach to this course is simply not an option. On two occasions during the course you will be provided with a mid-point grade for this course component as well as suggested areas for improvement. The significance of in-class analysis to the learning enterprise is reflected in the fact that it accounts for twenty percent of your overall grade.
Case Briefs
In the study of law, case briefs are a common and effective method of summarizing and analyzing court decisions. While the final product can be a useful study tool, it is the very process of identifying the essential facts, legal questions and reasoning for a case that makes the enterprise worthwhile. For this reason, it is suggested, though not required, that you prepare briefs for all assigned cases before each class. Each week you will be assigned a major case to brief and will be distributed to the class. Students will be expected to take the lead the discussion of the cases they brief. We will discuss the process for briefing cases on the first day of class.

You should consult the “How to Brief a Case” section at the end of the syllabus. Begin to brief a case only after you have read it through in its entirety at least once. Your briefs should be 1-2 pages in length (not to exceed two pages), single-spaced, 10-12 point font, with margins of at least .75 inches. E-mail your brief no later than 8 p.m. on the day before we consider the case in class, I will make copies for distribution. Briefs will not be accepted after this deadline. Important: Although it is relatively easy to find briefs for most cases on the Internet, you are not allowed to consult the briefs of others. It is the very process of grappling with these elements unassisted that makes doing them worthwhile.
Moot Supreme Court Oral Argument
Midway through the semester, the class will hold a simulated Supreme Court oral argument. We will be considering a case currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. For this simulation, students will be assigned a role either as a lawyer or a current Supreme Court justice. Students serving as lawyers will be evaluated based on a legal brief of their arguments and their performance during oral argument. Students acting as justices will be assessed based on their oral argument questioning, a written evaluation of their justice’s jurisprudential philosophy, and a written opinion in the case. Additional information on the moot oral argument is available on the class webpage.
Examinations
There will be two examinations designed to provide an opportunity to demonstrate your understanding and critical analysis of Supreme Court jurisprudence. The exams will include: (1) a longer analytical essay on a particular areas of jurisprudence; (2) shorter answer questions; (3) a legal hypothetical; and (4) a brief multiplechoice question section. A study guide will be provided prior to each exam and a review session will be held the evening before each exam.
Attendance
Attendance at all classes is mandatory. Any absence will affect your overall course grade. If you must miss a class, it is your responsibility to inform me of your absence in advance of class and make arrangements consult with fellow students or the instructor about the material covered.
Evaluation and Grading
This course presents numerous opportunities to demonstrate your understanding of and engagement with the material. While a specific discussion of expectations will be given for each component, in all cases students are being evaluated primarily on their ability to demonstrate a sophisticated critical analysis of the material and to effectively communicate their arguments.
Course Component
Midterm Examination
Moot Oral Argument
Percent of Grade
20%
20%
94-100
92-<94
4.0
3.75
77-<79
74-<77
2.25
2.0
Final Examination 20%
89-<92 3.5 72-<74 1.75
Case Briefs 20%
87-<89 3.25 69-<72 1.5
Participation & In-Class Analysis 20%
84-<87 3.0 65-<69 1.25
82-<84 2.75 60-65 1.0
79-<82 2.5 <60 0.0

S
CHEDULE OF
C
OURSE
T
OPICS AND
R
EADINGS
: The class topics and reading assignments (which are to be completed prior to class) are listed below. Note that the length of reading assignments for each lecture is necessarily uneven. Students should plan their reading schedules accordingly. It is quite possible that as the term progresses we will not keep this schedule to the day. I will keep you informed about changes; in return, I ask you to be reasonably flexible.

Lee Epstein and Thomas Walker, Constitutional Law for a Changing America: A Short Course (EW)

Cases not in the textbook can be located on the class website and are indicated on the syllabus with an SC

You will listen to Supreme Court oral arguments for all cases listed in bold on this syllabus. The recordings are available on the class website.
P ART 1: I NSTITUTIONAL P OWERS
J ANUARY 22
J
ANUARY
29
C
T
ONSTITUTIONAL
HE
L
EGISLATURE
I
Ex Parte McCardle
NTERPRETATION AND THE
EW: 13-20, 41-51, 59-85
Marbury v. Madison
J UDICIARY
EW: 87-125
U.S Term Limits v. Thornton
McCulloch v. Maryland
INS v. Chadha
U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp
Mistretta v. U.S.
F EBRUARY 5 T HE E XECUTIVE
EW: 127-177
Clinton v. City of New York
U.S. v. Nixon
Clinton v. Jones
Korematsu v. U.S.
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
F EBRUARY 12, 19 N ATION -S TATE R ELATIONS
F EBRUARY 12 EW: 181-235
McCulloch v. Maryland
Hammer v. Dagenhart
U.S. v. Darby
Garcia v. San Antonio MTA
Printz v. U.S.
Gibbons v. Ogden
Schechter Poultry Corp. v. U.S.
NLRB v. Jones
F EBRUARY 19 EW: 235-266, 270-274
U.S. v. Lopez
Gonzales v. Raich
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S.
Cooley v. Board of Wardens
Pollack v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust
South Dakota v. Dole

A
PRIL
23
A PRIL 30
M AY 8
E
QUAL
P
ROTECTION
EW: 593-647
Plessy v. Ferguson
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka
Reed v. Reed
Craig v. Boren
San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez
Romer v. Evans
U.S. v. Windsor - SC
Grutter v. Bollinger
V OTING AND R EPRESENTATION
EW: 649-686
South Carolina v. Katzenbach
Crawford v. Marion County Election Board
Citizens United v. FEC
Reynolds v. Sims
Miller v. Johnson
Bush v. Gore
F INAL E XAMINATION (1:30-4:30 PM )

H
OW TO
B
RIEF A
C
ASE
E
LEMENTS OF A
B
RIEF
Title and Citation: The title refers to the case name, which includes the parties in the case. The citation is the reference to the legal reporter where the case is located and the year the case was decided. For example, Atkins v. Virginia , 536 U.S. 304 (2002). This element should be placed at the top of the brief like a title. You need not write “Title and Citation” in front of the information.
Facts of the Case: This section provides a brief summary of the circumstances that brought about the case, the legal challenge involved and a statement of lower court actions. You should mention only those facts that are directly relevant to the legal question being considered by the Court. For most cases, this section can be accomplished in 5-6 sentences.
Legal Question(s): Here you will identify the central constitutional question(s) being considered by the Court.
Some cases will consider multiple questions, but the issue in most cases can be expressed in a single legal question. The legal question typically will reference the relevant constitutional provision involved. It is usually helpful to phrase the question in a way that it can be answered by a yes or a no. For example, “Does the execution of a mentally retarded person violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment?”
Holding: This is the Court’s answer to the legal question. If the legal question is presented clearly, the holding may be a simple yes or no. If the decision is more complex, it may require a one-sentence statement. The holding should also include the vote. For example, “Yes, by a vote of 6-3.”
Reasoning: In this section you present the rationale presented by the majority in support of their holding. Put differently, these are the arguments used by the justices to explain why they ruled the way they did. These arguments should be presented in a numbered list. In some cases the Court’s reasoning is clearly presented, in others you will need to do some work to uncover the Court’s arguments. This is NOT a summary of the opinion.
Rather, it is the identification of key arguments offered by the Court in support of their holding presented in a manner that makes clear the opinion’s rationale. In most cases, this section alone will constitute about half of the brief
Separate Opinions: In this section, you present the reasoning found in concurring and dissenting opinions. You will want to focus on the key points of agreement and disagreement with the majority opinion. For each separate opinion, indicate the author(s), the type of opinion, and the primary arguments. For example, “Justices Scalia and Thomas, dissenting:” followed by the reasoning.
Critique and Analysis: Here you will offer your own independent analysis of the ruling. What is the legal, historical and political significance of the case? How does this case fit in with/relate to other cases? Did the
Court come to the right conclusion? Offer a critique of the legal reasoning used by the justices.
A DDITIONAL F ORMATTING R EQUIREMENTS

Briefs should be 1-2 pages in length. Briefs will not exceed two pages.

Briefs should be single spaced, 10-12 point font, with margins of at least .75 inches.

For briefs of more than one page, please print/copy double sided rather than stapling two pages.

Begin to brief a case only after you have read it through in its entirety at least once.

Important: Although it is relatively easy to find briefs for most cases on the Internet, you are not allowed to consult the briefs of others. It is the very process of grappling with these elements unassisted that makes doing the briefs worthwhile.

S
AMPLE
B
RIEF
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
Facts of Case: After the election of 1800 President Adams and the Federalists controlled Congress created numerous new courts and tried to staff these courts with Federalist supporters during the last six months of Adams’s term. As part of the Organic Act of 1801 Adams was also allowed to appoint forty-two justices of the peace in the District of Columbia. Several of the commissions were undelivered by Secretary of State John Marshall, including the commission for William Marbury.
When Jefferson came into office he directed James Madison (the new Secretary of State) not to deliver these commissions. As a result Marbury appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices for a writ of mandamus ordering Madison to deliver the commissions. The lawsuit was based on Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which gave the Court the power to issue such writs. The case was heard under the Court’s original jurisdiction.
Legal Questions:
Does Marbury have a right to the commission?
Can the Supreme Court issue the remedy of a writ of mandamus?
Does the Supreme Court have the power to refuse to enforce laws it deems unconstitutional?
Holding: Yes, No and Yes. Held (4-0) that Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional and unenforceable by the Supreme Court.
Reasoning (Chief Justice Marshall):
1.
Once the commission was signed by the President and sealed by the Secretary of State Marbury was entitled to the commission, even if it was undelivered.
2.
There is a remedy in law. Section 13 of Judiciary Act of 1789 empowers the Court to issue a writ of mandamus under its original jurisdiction.
3.
The Court’s original jurisdiction is set by Article III of the Constitution and does not include writs of mandamus. If such a listing of cases of original jurisdiction wasn’t meant to be a negative in other cases it would be meaningless. This grant of jurisdiction must be given an exclusive meaning.
If the Court is to issue such a writ it must be under its appellate jurisdiction.
4.
An act of the legislature contrary to the Constitution is void. a.
This position rests on the nature of a written constitution and the fact that the U.S.
Constitution establishes a government of limited powers. b.
When the Constitution comes into conflict with an ordinary law, the Constitution is supreme law. If a written Constitution is not paramount to ordinary law it would be meaningless.
5.
The Court has the power to decide whether a law is unconstitutional and is under no obligation to enforce a law it deems in conflict with the Constitution. a.
“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what is the law.” b.
Specific provisions of the Constitution support this authority for the Court. For example,
“The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the
Constitution.” Also, Supreme Court justices take an oath to “support the Constitution.”
Separate Opinions: None

Critique/Analysis:
1.
This was the first case in which the Court used judicial review to strike a federal law. In Hylton v.
US (1796) , the Court implicitly exercised review to uphold a law. It would be more than fifty years until the Court again struck a federal law.
2.
In arguing that it is the special responsibility of the Court to interpret the Constitution, Marshall points the fact that Justices take an oath to support the Constitution. However, Presidents and members of Congress take the same oath.
3.
Marbury never addresses the absence of judicial review in the Constitution. If this power is so essential to the judicial function and envisioned by the framers, it likely would have been mentioned in the Constitution.
4.
As the Secretary of State who failed to deliver Marbury’s commission, Marshall probably should have recused himself sitting in the case.
5.
Had the Court ruled that Marbury was entitled to his commission, Jefferson probably would have refused to deliver the commission. To what extent did concern over the Court’s prestige influence the ruling?