1

Political Science 3105/Introduction to Constitutional LawDouglas YoungFall, 2015Office: 148 Loyd Strickland/Academic II Building; 678-717-3872; douglas.young@ung.edu“GSC Politically Incorrect Club” on Facebook“GSC Chessclub” on Facebook

Office Hours: Mondays Tuesdays Wednesdays Thursdays Fridays 9-10 9-11 9-10 9-11 9-10 2:15-5 1:15-2 2:15-5 1:15-2 3:20-5 3:20-5

Course Description: This course studies U.S. constitutional law: the Constitution, judicial philosophies, U.S. Supreme Court case history, major legal issues, judicial appointments, influential justices, and many other factors contributing to our legal system.

Recommended Readings:-Otis Stephens, John Scheb, & Colin Glennon’s American Constitutional Law, Volume I: Sources of Power and Restraint, sixth edition, 2015 paperback-Otis Stephens, John Scheb, & Colin Glennon’s American Constitutional Law, Volume II: Civil Rights and Liberties, 2015 paperback ***-if you get just one text, I recommend Vol. II.

Figuring your final course grade: With three tests and a paper each counting as one-fourth of your final course grade, and using the standard 10-point grading scale, here are how many points you need to earn this semester for each grade: A = 360 points; B = 320 points; C = 280 points; D = 240 points F = under 240 points.

Tests: Please bring a pen for each test. Each test covers about a third of the course lectures. On each test you will write three essays. Each test will also have at least 10 one-point fill-in-the-blank extra credit questions covering material in the assigned readings not discussed in class.

Make-up Tests: If you miss a test, you must PROMPTLY justify your absence. Written documentation from your doctor, hospital, etc. is strongly preferred for Dr. Young to decide if you can take a make-up test. If the absence is unjustified, your test grade is O. ONLY if Dr. Young decides the absence was absolutely unavoidable can you take a make-up test as soon as possible on your FIRST day back on campus.

Research Paper: A class early this semester will detail all this project’s requirements. Here are the most important.*Write about any approved topic related to U.S. constitutional law. Have a clear thesis statement in your first paragraph and use your research and analysis to prove it. Choose a subject that excites you and about which you want to read, learn, think, and write at length. A microscopic sampling of worthy topics includes the following 21: -explain and make your case for OR against a judicial philosophy (natural law, positivism, originalism, textualism, judicial restraint, evolving standards, judicial activism, sociological,

2

legal realism, political, behavioral, critical legal studies, critical race, social justice, Marxist) -profile a particular U.S. Supreme Court’s jurisprudence, perhaps in one or more areas of law -examine the role/s played by a particular justice in one or more areas of law -profile a justice’s entire Court tenure, stressing any evolution and how he impacted the Court -explore the U.S. Supreme Court’s evolution in a particular area of law -analyze a High Court case or one judicial opinion in it (majority, concurring, or dissenting) -theorize about one or more influences on the Court’s treatment of an issue or a case -make the case for OR against how the Court has ruled in an area of law or in one ruling -make the case for how you want the Court to rule in a particular area of law -examine the factors determining the selection of one or more U.S. Supreme Court justices -analyze the factors contributing to a particular president’s selection of judicial nominees -study the confirmation process of a justice or contrast the process for two justices -study the factors influencing how one or more U.S. senators voted on a judicial confirmation -explore the impact of a president’s Supreme Court appointments – arguably some of the most influential presidents here would be FDR, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Bush II, and Obama -examine how well one or more U.S. Supreme Court rulings have been enforced or obeyed -analyze how a High Court ruling or series of rulings has influenced the nation -explore the backgrounds of justices, finding common factors and making sense of them -explain what you see as the most important influences on how justices vote in cases -show how one or more presidents influenced one or more Supreme Court rulings -research to what extent, if any, public opinion has played on the High Court’s rulings -show how much, or little, the Court has influenced public opinion on one or more issues

*The deadline to present your detailed, WRITTEN proposed topic outline to discuss with Dr. Young during his office hours is Tuesday, September 15. ***Failure to turn in an approved topic outline by the deadline earns a O for this entire project.*You canNOT write about any subject you wrote a paper on for another class of Dr. Young.*The deadline to turn in your first draft of the paper is Tuesday, October 27. *The deadline to turn in your final draft is Tuesday, November 17. Each day a paper is late will result in a reduction of one letter grade.*The paper needs a title page, a table of contents page, and at least 10 FULL, double-spaced, typed pages of your text in Times New Roman 12 font with a one-inch margin on all four sides.*Cite at least five scholarly sources (academic or highly regarded books relevant to your topic and/or academic journal articles -- print or on line), and no more than five non-academic books, magazines, newspapers, or web sites). Wikipedia is not an appropriate source. See Dr. Young if you are unsure about any sources.*Write in complete sentences in formal paragraph essay style. *At the absolute most, there should be no more than 10 lines of quoted material in the paper.*Footnote ALL specific facts and all quoted material. The more footnotes you have from a wide variety of scholarly sources, the better. This proves you have done a lot of research. The footnoting format used by most UNG political science classes is APA.*Make sure you have a good bibliography documenting all your sources in detail.***Too many grammatical, punctuation, and spelling errors will earn an F for this paper.

To avoid losing points for grammatical, punctuation, and spelling errors on tests and the paper:

3

Spell every word correctly.Write in complete sentences.Make sure you have subject-verb agreement in every sentence.Write in paragraphs, but not one-sentence ones since none of us is Ernest Hemingway.Do not turn in a full-page paragraph because none of us is William Faulkner, either.Make sure to indent five spaces to note the start of each new paragraph.Do not use abbreviations, except for “etc.”Write out “and,” “because,” “with,” and “within” -- do not use the informal symbols.Spell out a number if it is below 10, like one, two, three, etc.Use Arabic when using a double-digit number like 10, 11, 12, etc.Spell out any number that is the first word of a sentence. Write one-third, not 1/3Avoid contractions like don’t, can’t, won’t, wouldn’t, couldn’t, it’s, we’d, you’d, etc.“Alot” is not a word. Do not end sentences with prepositions: in, on, of, by, for, with, within, into, under, etc.Write 95 percent, not 95%.Always capitalize our Constitution, Congress, and Supreme Court.Do not write “I feel.” Since this is an intellectual exercise, I think, believe, contend, etc.Profanity, crude language, and their abbreviations are unacceptable in any academic prose.“Lol,” “smh,” “omg,” and other informal writing is also inappropriate in academic writing.Get right to your point. Do not waste time restating a test question. I know it since I wrote it.Do not go off on tangents that are irrelevant to the test question or your research paper’s topic.Write legibly on tests. If I cannot understand your writing, I will not read it and you will earn a 0.If you know your penmanship is poor, please ask to TYPE your test essays before the first test.WRITE PRACTICE ESSAYS AND LET ME PRACTICE GRADE THEM FOR YOU.

Class Attendance: Woody Allen: “Eighty percent of success is showing up.” A solid record of punctual regular class attendance will go a long way in determining borderline (79+, 89+) grades at the end of the semester. You alone are responsible for getting class notes for any class you miss. Barring a legitimate emergency, a student can leave class early only if he has received Dr. Young’s permission before the period began.

4

Taping of classes is not allowed without Dr. Young’s permission pursuant to receiving documented proof of a student’s relevant learning disability. The contents of Dr. Young’s lectures are solely the legal intellectual property of Dr. Young. No beepers, cell phones, or texting are allowed in Dr. Young’s class without his permission. http://ung.edu/academic-affairs/policies-and-guidelines/supplemental-syllabus.php Because an essential element in any well-rounded college education consists of students being exposed to and challenged by competing perspectives, a wide variety of controversial subject matter will be discussed openly in a free and frank manner consistent with academic freedom protected by the Free Expression Clauses of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, anyone easily offended and/or opposed to freedom of speech should NOT take this class.

Academic Honesty: Cheating on any test or project will result in a O for that grade.

Severe Weather Policy: In the event of snow, freezing rain, or the wrath of God, listen to WDUN (550 AM; 102.9 FM) or WSB (750 AM) to learn if UNG wimped out and canceled class.

Withdrawals: Withdrawing by the midterm earns a final grade of W (withdrawn, no F). After that, absent documented extraordinary personal difficulties, you get a WF (withdrawn, failing).

Questions and Difficulties: Please ask me questions about any aspect of the class at any time.

STUDY GUIDE

-The U.S. Constitution -Please read Volume I’s Chapter 1 -reasons for it -the 1787 constitutional convention -Federalists v. Anti-Federalists -The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton (1757-1804), James Madison (1751-1836) and John Jay (1745-1829) -the Constitution’s major governing principles -popular sovereignty -representative democracy -separation of powers -checks and balances -limited government -federalism -federal/national supremacy -rule of law -judicial review -dynamic, evolving interpretation of the Constitution

-The Courts -Please read Volume I’s Chapter 2 -local courts -state courts -federal district courts -federal circuit courts of appeal -the U.S. Supreme Court -how the High Court works

-The evolution of judicial review -Marbury v. Madison (1803) establishes judicial review -judicial review is generally restrained until 1937 -far more assertive judicial review since 1937 -Justice Harlan Fiske Stone (1872-1946)’s U.S. v. Carolene Products (1938) footnote suggests “more searching judicial scrutiny” of laws jeopardizing minority rights

-Competing judicial philosophies: -natural law: -Cicero (106-43 B.C.) -St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-74 A.D.)

5

-John Locke (1632-1704) -Founding Fathers -Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-68) -analytical/positivist law: -John Austin (1790-1859) -Sir William Blackstone (1723-80)’s Commentaries on the Laws of England (1769) combines natural and positivist law -the Framers of the U.S. Constitution’s original intent/originalism/strict constructionism -Judge Robert Bork (1927-2012)’s The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law (1990) -textualism: -Justice Hugo Black (1886-1971) on the U.S. Supreme Court from 1937 to 1971 -Justice Antonin Scalia (1936- ) on the High Court since 1986 -judicial restraint: -stare decisis/judicial precedent -strict necessity doctrine -saving construction doctrine -presumption of constitutionality -narrowness doctrine -severability doctrine -unconstitutional as applied doctrine -Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (1841-1935) on the Court from 1902 to 1932 -Justice Harlan Fiske Stone (1872-1946) on the Court from 1925 to 1946 -Justice Felix Frankfurter (1882-1965) on the Court from 1939 to 1962 -evolving standards: -Justice William Brennan, Jr. (1906-97) on Court from 1956 to 1990 -judicial activism: -the 1953-69 Warren Court -Chief Justice Earl Warren (1891-1974) -Justice William Douglas (1898-1980) on the Court from 1939 to 1975 -sociological jurisprudence: -Harvard Law Professor Roscoe Pound (1870-1964) -legal realism: -Justice Holmes -political jurisprudence -behavioral jurisprudence -critical legal studies/neo-Marxism: -Harvard Law Professor Duncan Kennedy (1942- ) -critical race theory: -Harvard and NYU Law Professor Derrick Bell (1930-2011) -social justice

-Constitutional jurisprudence and Congress -Please read Volume I’s Chapter 3 -McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) lets Congress charter a U.S. bank and forbids states taxing it -Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) blesses Congress’s authority to police trade between the states -U.S. v. E.C. Knight Company (1895), Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918), & Adkins v. Children’s Hospital (1923) limit congressional regulation of business -but Champion v. Ames (1903), Hipolite Egg Co. v. U.S. (1911), and Hoke v. U.S. (1913) okay congressional regulation of interstate commerce concerning perceived sins -National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. and Steward Machine Co. v. Davis (1937) condone far more congressional regulation of the economy -Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S. (1964) and Katzenbach v. McClung (1964) uphold the 1964 Civil Rights Act outlawing racial discrimination in businesses under the Commerce Clause -Perez v. U.S. (1971) lets Congress further regulate organized crime via Commerce Clause -Hutchinson v. Proxmire (1979) protects U.S. senators’ statements on the senate floor from libel lawsuits, but not their newsletters or statements to the press -S. Dakota v. Dole (1987) okays congressional funding pressure on states to up drinking age -U.S. Terms Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995) nixes states’ term limit laws for congressmen -U.S. v. Lopez (1995) and U.S. v. Morrison (2000) limit congressional regulatory authority -Gonzales v. Raich (2005) decrees that U.S. marijuana law trumps that of any state -National Federation of Independent Bus. v. Sebelius (2012) upholds U.S. “Obamacare” law due to the federal government’s authority to tax

6

-King v. Burwell (2015) upholds Obamacare’s federal tax subsidies

-Constitutional jurisprudence and the Presidency -Please read Volume I’s Chapter 4 -Okanogan Indians v. U.S. (1929) upholds pocket vetoes during congressional adjournments -very broad presidential authority is granted the president in military and foreign affairs -The Prize Cases (1863) recognize the president’s war power even in an undeclared war -Missouri v. Holland (1920) recognizes the broad treaty powers of the president -U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936) calls the president the “sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations” -U.S. v. Belmont (1937), U.S. v. Pink (1942), and Dames & Moore v. Regan (1981) say executive agreements are legally equal to treaties despite their absence in the Constitution -Hirabayashi v. U.S. (1943) and Korematsu v. U.S. (1944) okay a president’s detention of all 112,000 Japanese-Americans west of the Miss. River without trial during World War II -Massachusetts v. Laird (1970) defers to presidential authority in another undeclared war -Goldwater v. Carter (1979) lets a president nullify a treaty without formal senate consent -Haig v. Agee (1981) lets a president cancel an ex-CIA agent’s passport -Regan v. Wald (1984) lets a president unilaterally bar American travel to a foreign land -“foreign relations … are so entirely entrusted to the political branches of government as to be largely immune from judicial inquiry or interference” -but the president’s authority is far from absolute -Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) limits his power to seize private property -U.S. v. New York Times (“the Pentagon Papers,” 1971) limits national security censorship -U.S. v. Nixon (1974) recognizes executive privilege (not in the Constitution) but limits it -Clinton v. Jones (1997) lets presidents be sued civilly on personal matters while in office -Clinton v. City of New York (1998) strikes down the 1996 line-item veto law -Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006) denies presidential authority to restrict accused foreign terrorists in U.S. captivity to military courts instead of civilian federal courts -NLRB v. Noel Canning (2014) unanimously says president can only make recess appointments when Congress is in recess for at least 10 days

-Constitutional jurisprudence and the regulatory state -Please read Volume II’s Chapter 2 -Fifth and 14th Amendment economic due process protections of private property -Lochner v. New York (1905) limits state regulation of business -West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937) allows far more state regulation of property -Kelo v. City of New London (2005) majorly expands the eminent domain power -Utility Air v. EPA (2014) permits more environmental regulations on greenhouse gases -Harris v. Quinn (2014) says certain government workers do not have to pay union dues -Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency (2015) strikes a regulation since “It is not rational, never mind ‘appropriate,’ to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits. Statutory context supports this reading.”

-Federalism -Please read Volume I’s Chapter 6 -McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) lets Congress charter a U.S. bank and forbids states taxing it -Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) blesses Congress’s authority to police trade between the states

7

-Inter-state relations -the Constitution’s full faith and credit clause -privileges and immunities -same-sex marriage

-The Bill of Rights’ protection of individual rights

-The First Amendment’s Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses regarding religious freedom -Please read Volume II’s Chapter 4 -Thomas Jefferson’s “wall of separation between church and state” concept -other Founding Fathers’ views: -Madison -Franklin -Washington -Adams -much church-state overlap throughout most American history -Reynolds v. U.S. (1879) upholds the federal law banning polygamy/plural marriage -W. Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) on public schools’ Pledge of Allegiance -Everson v. Board of Education (1947) incorporates/applies the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause to state and local governments -from 1962 on, a far higher wall separates church and state, especially in PUBLIC schools -Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) enunciates the modern three-part Establishment Clause Test -public school prayer: -Engel v. Vitale (1962) strikes down a written prayer read to students -Abington School District v. Schempp (1963) bans students quoting Bible verses over the public school intercom and then all students asked to stand to recite the Lord’s Prayer -Wallace v. Jaffree (1985) bars schools pushing “voluntary prayer” for students in class -Lee v. Weisman (1992) rejects a rabbi’s prayer during a public middle school’s graduation -Santa Fe Independent Sch. District v. Doe (2000) nixes student prayers at sporting events -Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) invalidates state statutes outlawing the teaching of evolution -Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) strikes a state law mandating equal time for creation science -Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) lets Amish children drop out of school after the eighth grade -Stone v. Graham (1980) bars the Ten Commandments on a public school classroom wall -much more church-state overlap is allowed outside public schools -Walz v. Tax Commission (1970) upholds churches’ tax exemptions -but Bob Jones U. v. U.S. (1983) lets I.R.S. revoke exemption for racial discrimination -far more leeway is granted formal prayers in legislative proceedings -Marsh v. Chambers (1983) allows chaplain-led prayers in state legislatures -Town of Greece v. Galloway (2014) allows non-proselytizing prayers at city councils -religious symbols on public property -County of Allegheny v. ACLU (1989) okays religious symbols on public property provided there is a secular symbol nearby -Van Orden v. Perry (2005) lets the Ten Commandments stand among secular symbols -but McCreary Co. v. ACLU (2005) bans them standing alone in a courtroom -Salazar v. Buono (2010) allows large cross in a U.S. park (the Mojave National Preserve) -Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014) strikes Obamacare’s order that religious, family-run firms pay for all 20 types of female birth control, including “abortifacients” and sterilization -EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch (2015) forbids job discrimination against religious headscarf

-The First Amendment’s Free Expression, Association, and Right to Petition Clauses -Please read Volume II’s Chapter 3 -Gitlow v. N.Y. (1925) incorporates the free speech and press clauses to states and localities -Schenck v. U.S. (1919)’s clear and present danger test bars leaflets against the draft

8

-Abrams v. U.S. (1919), Whitney v. California (1927) and Dennis v. U.S. (1951) limit political speech seen to hurt a national war effort or undermine the government -Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) overturns them with its “imminent lawless action” test -Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) denies free speech protection to “fighting’ words” -Cohen v. California (1971) narrows Chaplinsky by allowing a “F*&% the Draft” jacket -Rankin v. McPherson (1987) gives broad protection to public employees re disruptive speech -Elonis v. U.S. (2015) rules 8-1 to protect violent lyrics about ex-wife on Facebook -Walker v. Texas SCV (2015) says a state can reject a license plate decal it does not want -symbolic speech is protected: -Tinker v. Des Moines … School District (1969) allows a peaceful public school protest -Texas v. Johnson (1989) strikes anti-flag desecration laws to permit U.S. flag-burning -hate/politically correct speech codes -R.A.V. v. St. Paul (1992) strikes a local hate speech law as “facially unconstitutional” -Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993) sanctions increased punishment for bias crimes -Virginia v. Black (2003) allows a state ban on cross-burning (overturning R.A.V.?) -sexual harassment: -Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986) declares that the 1964 Civil Rights Act bans it in the workplace -libel: -New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) and the three-part Libel Test -Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell (1988) strengthens Sullivan -juvenile press rights (or lack thereof): -Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier (1988) lets principal censor the high school newspaper -national security censorship: -U.S. v. New York Times (the Pentagon Papers case, 1971) -obscenity censorship: -Roth v. U.S. (1957) bans obscenity -Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966) and the “redeeming social value” obscenity test -Stanley v. Georgia (1969) asserts a right of citizens to keep obscene materials in the home -Miller v. California (1973)’s three-part Obscenity or Miller Test for maximum film rights -Jenkins v. Georgia (1974) says all local obscenity convictions must go to appeals courts -F.C.C. v. Pacifica Foundation (the George Carlin “Seven Dirty Words” case, 1978) lets TV and radio be censored not just for obscenity but for far less risque “indecency” -Reno v. ACLU (1997) extends maximum protection to the internet, equal to that of film -freedom of association: -Watkins v. U.S. (1957) protects private political associations -Barenblatt v. U.S. (1959) limits Watkins -NAACP v. Alabama (1958) protects groups from state harassment -Healy v. James (1972) upholds state college students’ right to form controversial clubs -Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees (1984), Rotary Int’l. v. Rotary Club of Duarte (1987), and N.Y. State Club Asso. v. City of New York (1988) sexually integrate traditional all-male clubs -Boy Scouts v. Dale (2000) allows a private group to bar homosexual scoutmasters -right to petition: -Edwards v. S.C. (1963) permits peaceful civil rights demonstrators at the state capitol -Cox v. Louisiana (1965) permits the same on a public sidewalk -but Adderley v. Florida (1966) bars protesters from blocking a driveway leading to a jail -Madsen v. Women’s Health Center (1994) forbids anti-abortion protestors blocking clinics

-The Second Amendment’s “right to keep and bear arms” -Please read Vol. II’s Pages 14-16, 31-2, 70-75

9

-U.S. v. Miller (1939) upholds U.S. law limiting the transport of some guns across state lines -D.C. v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010) endorse private gun ownership

-The Fourth Amendment’s protections against arbitrary police power -Please read Vol. II’s Pages 16-17 and Chapter 5 -Weeks v. U.S. (1914) and Mapp v. Ohio (1961) and the Exclusionary Rule -U.S. v. Leon and Massachusetts v. Sheppard (1984) and the good faith exception -Olmstead v. U.S. (1928) says new phone wiretap technology does not require warrants -landmark dissent of Justice Louis Brandeis (1856-1941) -Katz v. U.S. (1967) overturns Olmstead -Riley v. California (2014) unanimously requires a warrant to search cell phones

-The Fifth Amendment -Please read Vol. II’s Pages 17-18 and Chapter 5 -Miranda v. Arizona (1966) protects against self-incrimination -New York v. Quarks (1984) and the public safety exception -Benton v. Maryland (1969) forbids double jeopardy -U.S. v. Wheeler (1978) exception

-The Sixth Amendment’s -Please read Vol. II’s Page 18 and Chapter 5 -Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) and the right to counsel -Sheppard v. Maxwell (1966) and the impact of press coverage on a criminal trial

-The Ninth and 14th Amendments’ privacy rights -Please read Vol. II’s Pages 20-32, Ch. 6 -birth control -Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) guarantees contraception rights for marrieds -Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) extends this protection to singles -abortion: -Roe v. Wade (1973) legalizes abortion and establishes the Roe trimester rule -Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989) allows far more state regulations -Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) allows more regulations while reaffirming Roe -Gonzales v. Carhart (2007) upholds U.S. anti-“partial-birth” abortion law -McCullen v. Coakley (2014) unanimously strikes law banning abortion protesters from getting within 35 feet of abortion clinics, overturning its 1994 Madsen ruling -homosexuality: -Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) permits state anti-sodomy statutes -Lawrence v. Texas (2003) overturns Bowers -a right to die: -Cruzan v. Missouri Health Department (1990) requires clear patient consent -Washington v. Glucksberg (1997) lets state legislatures ban physician-assisted suicide

-Has the 10th Amendment’s protection of states’ rights been rendered obsolete? -Please read Vol. I’s Pages 340-1 and Vol. II’s Pages 21-22 -U.S. v. Darby (1941) weakens the 10th Amendment’s protection of states’ rights

-the 14th Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses and the Death Penalty -Please read Vol. II’s Pp. 330-336 -Furman v. Georgia (1972) halts capital punishment on three grounds -Gregg v. Georgia (1976) upholds Georgia’s new death penalty statute -McClesky v. Kemp (1987) discounts alleged statistical racial disparities in sentencing

10

-Atkins v. Virginia (2002) bans executing murderers with I.Q.s under 70 -Roper v. Simmons (2005) bans executing murderers who were under 18 when they murdered -Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008) bans executing child rapists -Glossip v. Gross (2015) okays lethal injection as an execution method

-the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and Civil Rights Please read Vol. I’s Pages 132-6, 161-3; Vol. II’s Chapters 7 and 8 -on race: -Scott v. Sandford (1857) invalidates black citizenship and 1820 Mo. Compromise -the 1883 civil rights cases condone racial segregation in the private sector -Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) condones “separate but equal” segregation in the public sector -and housing: -Shelley v. Kraemer (1948) invalidates racially discriminatory covenants -Texas Department of Housing v. Inclusive Communities Project (2015) says 1968 Fair Housing Act allows data showing “disparate impact” to be evidence of discrimination -and public schools: -Brown v. Board of Education I (1954) strikes “separate but equal” -Brown II (1955) calls for desegregating public schools “with all deliberate speed” -Alexander v. Holmes County (1969) orders public schools to integrate “at once” -Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Ed. (1971) okays court-mandated busing -Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle (2007) dramatically relaxes busing -and public accommodations: -Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S. (1964) and Katzenbach v. McClung (1964) enforce the 1964 Civil Rights Act on local businesses -and anti-interracial marriage laws: -Loving v. Virginia (1967) invalidates them -and affirmative action: -Bakke v. Regents of the U. of California (1978) bans affirmative action (A.A.) quotas -Fullilove v. Klutznick (1980) upholds federal minority set-aside contracts -City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Company (1989) overturns Fullilove -Gratz v. Bollinger & Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) narrow A.A. in state college admissions -Schuette v. BAMN (2014) upholds Michigan election ban on A.A. in state college adms. -on sex: -Goesaert v. Cleary (1948) bans lady bartenders unless related to owner of bar -Hoyt v. Florida (1961) okays law letting just ladies get out of jury duty because “woman is still regarded as the center of home and family life.” -Reed v. Reed (1971) bars a law preferring men be chosen as executors of estates -Orr v. Orr (1979) bars state law automatically forcing more alimony requirements on men -Rostker v. Goldberg (1981) upholds male-only mandatory draft registration -U.S. v. Virginia (the Virginia Military Institute case, 1996) bars male-only admission -on homosexual rights: -Romer v. Evans (1996) bans state limits on homosexual rights -Windsor v. U.S. (2013) strikes down part of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act -Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) declares same-sex marriage a constitutional right -on illegal aliens: -Arizona v. U.S. (2012) limits state enforcement of U.S. immigration laws

-Amendments 15, 19, 24, and 26 on voting rights -Please read Vol. II’s Pp. 28, 32-4, Chapter 8 -Guinn v. U.S. (1915) invalidates state grandfather clause laws -Smith v. Allwright (1944) strikes down state white primary laws -Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966) bans poll taxes in state elections -Elections -Please read Vol. II’s Chapter 8 -and the 1965 Voting Rights Act

11

-Katzenbach v. Morgan (1966) upholds 1965 Voting Rights Act and protects non-English- fluent Americans’ right to vote -Shelby County v. Holder (2013) strikes down part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act -and legislative redistricting -Baker v. Carr (1962), Wesberry v. Sanders (1964), and Reynolds v. Sims (1964) mandate one man, one vote representation for all election districts -Shaw v. Hunt and Bush v. Vera (1996) limit racial gerrymandering -and election campaign spending -Buckley v. Valeo (1976) okays limits on personal donations but not campaigns’ spending -also okays taxes for campaigns and spending limits on campaigns accepting tax dollars -Citizens United v. F.E.C. (2010) protects independent corporate and union expenditures -Bush v. Gore (2000) settles the 11/2000 disputed presidential election -Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2008) upholds a state voter picture I.D. law -McCutcheon v. F.E.C. (2014) bans limits on the total number of dollars you can donate to a variety of candidates and parties in any election cycle

-Profiles of the arguably most influential U.S. Supreme Court Justices -Chief Justice John Marshall (1755-1835) and the Marshall Court (1801-35) -Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (1841-1935) who served on the Court from 1902 to 1932 -Louis Brandeis (1856-1941) who served on the Court from 1916 to 1939 -Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, Jr. (1862-1948) and the Hughes Court (1930-41) -Benjamin Cardozo (1870-1938) who served on the Court from 1932 to 1938 -Chief Justice Earl Warren (1891-1974) and the Warren Court (1953-69) -Justice Hugo Black (1886-1971) who served on the Court from 1937 to 1971 -Justice William Douglas (1898-1980) who served on the Court from 1939 to 1975 -William Brennan, Jr. (1906-97) who served on the Court from 1956 to 1990 -Lewis Powell, Jr. (1907-98) who served on the Court from 1972 to 1987 -Sandra Day O’Connor (1930- ) who served on the Court from 1981 to 2005 -Anthony Kennedy (1936- ) who has served on the Court since 1988

-Recent U.S. Supreme Courts -Warren Court (1953-69): -the most liberal activist Court in history -Burger Court (1969-86): -moderate-liberal and much less activist -Rehnquist Court (1986-2005): -an often 5-4 Court moves right with liberal surprises -Roberts Court (2005- ): -a 5-4 Court moves further right overall, despite many liberal rulings

***If you would like the syllabus in a different format, you are welcome to e-mail the Political Science Department’s administrative assistant, Andrew Eade, at Andrew.eade@ung.edu or call him at 706-864-1628.