| The
Online Manual for Writing Across the Curriculum |
|||||
Excerpts from Syllabi for Writing Intensive Courses — Page 1 POL 324 Constitutional Law WI Jerry O’Callaghan Writing This course is all about cases. We will examine a large number of constitutional cases dealing with important powers of government, e.g., the power of the federal judiciary over state courts, the powers of the president in foreign affairs, the powers of Congress in the areas of civil rights legislation. Active participation in class discussion is essential to getting a good grade. For each class day, you should brief three cases from the case list. A sample of these briefs will count toward your course grade. The sample will be collected on a random basis during the course of the semester. Approximately 10 briefs will be collected in all. Some cases that are on the list are not in the text. Some of these will be available through the reserve desk in the library. Others will be presented by the professor in class. Briefs These are abstracts (no more than one page) of the cases; they contain the basic information necessary to understand what happened in a case. Your briefs are to be based on the case presented to you in the text alone. Participation This grade is based on two considerations – your ability to present a coherent and ample brief to the class, and your contribution to class discussions. Please note if you do not have the appropriate briefs prepared for class, you should not attend class. Exams There are two exams, a mid-term and a final. Each will present you with one or more fact situation(s) similar to the disputes you have read about. You will be asked to write a Supreme Court opinion, based on precedent, that decides the case. You will have access to your case briefs during the exams. Old exams from this course will be available from the reserve desk in the library. Paper One paper (10 – 15 pages) is required. The paper will be an analysis and critique of a constitutional topic based on a number of articles placed on reserve. Students will be graded on three drafts of the paper (see details, below). Writing Intensive Credit Paper Grade The paper will be submitted in 3 drafts, the first will be due at the 29th of October, the 2nd must be handed in by the 15th of November, and the final draft is due on the 1st of December. Each draft will be graded. The 2nd and 3rd drafts, when handed in, must be accompanied by the previous version. The paper grade will be based on this formula: 20% Draft 1; 30% Draft 2; 50% Draft 3. Guidelines for Case Briefs The case brief is an abstract/summary of the case; it contains all the essential elements necessary for an understanding of the case. These elements should follow the outline below (Also see appendix D of Chase and Ducat). Case Name … year … citation (xxUSyy) … page number in text Facts: • The essential events that caused the case. Who, what, when, where, and why • A brief history of lower court decisions in this case Issues: • Written in question form • Tell us why the case is being heard • Emphasis on the constitutional problem Holding: • The answer to the question(s) raised above … should make clear who won Rationale: • Majority or otherwise, who wrote the opinion • Explains why the court decided as it did • Includes tests/standards used by the court Concur: • If any, who • Identify how this differs from rationale Dissent: • If any, who • Why he/she/they disagree Comment: • Your personal reference to the significance of this case Sample Brief S. Dakota v Dole 1987 483 US 203 p.461 Facts: Cg passed a law to encourage the states to have a 21 yr. old minimum drinking age. The law required the loss of some federal highway money if a state did not comply. S. Dakota allows 19 yr. olds to drink 3.2% beer. It does not comply with the new federal law. It will lose $4m. It sues the fed. Gov’t alleging a violation by Cg of the 21A (states regulate the sale of alcohol) and 10A (reserved powers). Fed DC dismissed the suit. CA agreed. Issue: Does the law exceed the power of Cg by violating the 10A and/or 21A? Holding: No. The law is valid. Rationale: (Rehnq) We do not have to decide here the boundaries of the 21A – Cg has acted under the spending power Art 1 §8. Cg may add conditions to the receipt of federal money. Spending power is limited: 1) it must be in pursuit of the general welfare, 2) it must not be ambiguous, 3) it must be related to the federal interest in the program, and 4) it must not conflict with other Const.al provisions. The Q here is #4. Our cases tell us that the meaning of #4 (“ind. const. bar”) is that the feds may not use the power to get the states to do something that is itself unconstitutional. The law passes the #4 test. The loss to the state is small. This is not coercion. Concur: Dissent: (Brennan and O’Connor) This is not a condition on spending, it’s an attempt to regulate the sale of liquor. That power is given to the states under 21A. For Cg to exercise power like that is a violation of state’s rights. O’Connor alone: There is a problem with #3. The minimum drinking age is not sufficiently related to highway construction. If its goal is to make the roads safer, it’s both under-inclusive and over-inclusive. It stops teenagers from drinking when no car is involved and teenagers aren’t the main problem. Cg can spend for the general welfare, but can legislate only “for delegated purposes.” Comment: No discussion of 10A issue.
|
