Writing to you all from a very snowy Spring Break in upstate New York, I am back with a brief summary of the posts from last week. As always, my discussion of the posts is the super short version of far more substantial posts. I encourage you to check out the originals to find out more and to support these engaged student bloggers. Now, on to the posts so I can get back to shoveling snow. Spring Break, wooooo!
Ryan and Brad both wrote about recent immigration developments in California. Ryan explains recent events in North California where ICE conducted raids, and where the mayor of Oakland tweeted out a message in advance that ICE would be conducted operations in the area, linking these back to questions of federalism and immigration. Brad also writes about the recent ICE raids in Northern California, focusing on the federalism issues that arise in situations like this where state and local authorities do not support federal policies.
Tyena, Dan, and Annelis also touch on questions of immigration and governmental power. Tyena describes immigration law in the U.S., and takes a look at the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 as well as the Supreme Court case INS v. Chadha to discuss the challenges associated with making immigration decisions in the U.S. Dan’s post takes a look at the current status of DACA, a critical approach to the border wall, and the dispute between California and the federal administration over immigration policy. Annelis writes about how Congress is currently facing gridlock over steel tariffs, immigration, and guns, effectively not addressing any one of these pressing issues as they allow partisan politics to determine what they focus on—and how deeply they focus—at any given time.
Kei discusses how American Indians lost more and more land across the 18th and 19th centuries, largely through treaties that on paper looked good, but where not enforced, culminating with the House of Representatives in 1871 ending the process of treaty making with any of the domestic tribes.
Tim presents a great overview of the War on Drugs, talking about its introduction and goals, as well as looking at whether it is achieving these goals, and reasons people continue to support and criticize the War on Drugs.
Troy, in his post, looks at capital punishment as it relates to the Constitution, current debates, and questions of federal and state law where states and the federal government differ on the question of the death penalty.
Kelly S. discusses the system of checks and balances and separation of powers that exists in the U.S., and how we saw this in action with regards to former President Obama’s efforts to address terrorism in Iraq and Syria.
Chelsea addresses the place of judicial review in our constitutional system of checks and balances, and how it is odd that this power is not explicitly stated in the Constitution.
Hermina explores corporate personhood, how it is involved in recent and current Supreme Court cases, and what this means for the daily lives of countless Americans.
When we get back from break next week the student will be reflecting on their blogging experience so far this semester, and then back to more constitutional-law-rich posts.
As you may have heard, it’s been a bit of a trying time around UC recently. From a foot and a half of snow on Friday last week, to further disruptions on Monday, it has been a challenging few weeks. Despite all of this, the students produced great blog posts last week, which I’ll cover here. Eventually, I’ll catch up to the work they somehow managed to produce this week, much to their credit. Last week’s posts feature a variety of both historic and contemporary legal issues. On with the review!
Kei continues to inform us all about early U.S. policies pertaining to Indian Removal and “Elimination,” including covering efforts to not only kill Native Americans, but also to do destroy entire cultures.
Kelly F. and Troy both use past Supreme Court cases to explore presidential power, while Chelsea continues to explain important cases that helped solidify the Court’s power of judicial review. Kelly F. writes about the powers the Constitution grants to the president, and talks about how these are limited by design but have grown through application. Troy discusses the Obama-era immigration and federalism case, Arizona v. U.S., and the likelihood of states returning to stricter immigration laws similar to what Arizona had tried to enforce. Chelsea, in her post, focuses on Cohen v. Virginia and the question of the Supreme Court’s exercise of judicial review over state criminal cases.
Ryan and Annelis both write about the current status of DACA in light of the March 5th deadline initially set by the President and subsequent developments. Ryan’s post for the week explains what DACA is, the president’s plans for changing immigration, and the current status of DACA in light of the March 5th deadline and recent action by the Supreme Court. Annelis, in her post, discusses the Supreme Court’s denial of the Trump administration’s request to weigh in on his rescinding of DACA, which effectively delays action past the initially set March 5, 2018 deadline for the program to expire.
Tyena and Brad both explore the various legal challenges faced by multiple local actors whenever migrants, documented or otherwise, find themselves in the U.S. legal system. Tyena addresses the complexities that arise whenever immigrants who are non-citizens find themselves in U.S. courts as they need to navigate both criminal (or civil) law, as well as immigration law, which requires effective counsel knowledgeable about all relevant areas of law. Brad writes about the role of local law enforcement in enforcing (or not) federal immigration laws, getting into the contrasting approaches taken by California and Texas.
Tim, in his post, explains the federal agencies and authorities responsible for enforcing federal drug laws.
Kelly S. discusses the issue of what crimes should be punished by the death penalty, and looks at one specific instance of the Supreme Court overriding a state’s decision to impose capital punishment.
Sung and Hermina close us out for this last week with two posts addressing currently contentious political issues: guns and gerrymandering. Sung writes about the 2nd Amendment, and Supreme Court cases pertaining to the right to bear arms, in light of the recent shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL. Hermina, in her post, discusses gerrymandering and the increased number of cases that we have seen recently on these topics, including the Supreme Court’s decision to not review the state court decisions regarding election districts in Pennsylvania.
UC is off to a much deserved Spring Break next week (even if no one bothered to tell the weather). I’ll be back soon with a round-up of the posts the students made for this week, and we will all collectively be back the week after that with time for reflection on recent events and on their posts (it will be blog audit week when we get come back).
Hello, and welcome back to the wonderful world of Constitutional law! With the speed at which the news cycle moves anymore it feels like ages go by in between these weekly posts. But, none of this stops these student bloggers from coming up with wonderful posts week after week. While we have a variety of topics, we also have a lot of immigration-based posts for this week.
Dan, Troy, Annelis, Tyena, Ryan, and Brad all write about different aspects of immigration, Constitutional law, and current political developments. Dan, Troy, and Annelis dig a bit deeper into currently proposed, or possible, changes to immigration. Dan’s blog post addresses some of the President’s proposed changes to our current immigration system, while also looking at the origins of the systems currently in place. Troy also writes about immigration, looking at the President’s proposals put forth in his State of the Union address, and what this means for immigration moving forward. Annelis, in her post, writes about the current state of the status of DACA, Dreamers, and potential legislation to address this group with the President’s created March 5th deadline.
Tyena takes us a bit broader, as she writes about the role of authority in implementing immigration policy, in particular as it is linked to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Ryan presents various crime statistics pertaining to crimes committed by those who have entered the country through unlawful means. Rounding off the immigration posts, Brad offers a balanced discussion of so-called Sanctuary Cities, explaining many of the core issues and the various positions different sides take on these issues.
Sung, in his post, discusses Article II, and the practice of presidents’ placing their businesses into blind trusts to avoid conflicts of interest, something the current president has not done and that, potentially, could be politically costly for him.
Kei outlines many of the key provisions from the U.S. colonial period to the 1880s that were meant to govern U.S. and tribal relations, although as she indicates, these arrangements were not always followed.
Tim discusses the process by which illegal drugs are categorized into different schedules, and explains how marijuana came to be a schedule one drug in the U.S. while questioning if this is appropriate now.
Rounding out the blogs for this week Chelsea, Kelly S., and Hermina provide a series posts that look at various Supreme Court cases, covering different issues at different times. Chelsea examinesMartin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816), and the importance of this case for confirming the power of the Supreme Court to exercise judicial review over state court decisions. Kelly S. discusses the Supreme Court case Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, which deals with issues of states’ ability to limit the sale of violent video games to children, and what counts as art for First Amendment purposes. Finally, Hermina’s post focuses on an upcoming Supreme Court case, Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, involving challenges to state law that ban voters from displaying various political messages on clothing or buttons when casting their ballots.
*”Live feed” courtesy of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
We are back with another round of student blogs addressing the powers and various issues related to our federal government and our constitution. The students have chosen a variety of rich topics for this week, some of which can offer a moment of respite from current events.
Annelis offers us a good starting point as she takes a different approach in her blog post this week, highlighting a variety of recent political developments, many involving Congress and the White House, that are interrelated in interesting ways.
Hermina, Sung, and Tyena, like Annelis, wrote posts about current events. Hermina writes about the recent, and very brief, government shut down, the political fights over the budget resolution, and the constitutional implications of the ongoing immigration debate. Sung discusses the stock market, what drives its success, and the extent to which Trump (or any president) can claim success for the strength (or lack thereof) of the stock market, linking this to questions of presidential power. Tyena investigates U.S. immigration policies—including so-called chain migration and DACA—affect families.
Following with the topic of immigration, Ryan and Dan take very different approaches to discussing some of the national security concerns related to immigration. Ryan looks into the idea of what are commonly called sanctuary cities and sanctuary states, breaking down what these terms mean and the potential threats they pose to national security. Dan, in his post, writes about how immigration can be a national security issue, not just as the president insists from who comes in, but also from the global inequality that pushes people to come to the U.S. through documented means or otherwise.
Tim and Brad both write about U.S. drug policy, but focus on temporally different aspects of how we got to where we are now, and what this means for federalism. In his post, Tim discusses the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, explaining what this law did as the first national drug law and why it was introduced, as well as linking this to the rise of national drug laws. Brad discusses the Cole Memo, which was part of an Obama era policy to effectively ignore the enforcement of marijuana laws in states that went through a legalization process, and the current changes happening with this policy.
Kei, in her blog, explains more about the complex relationship between tribal self-governance in the U.S., and Congressional oversight of tribes in the U.S., also speaking to the scope of federal power.
Kelly F., Jordyn, and Chelsea look at the powers that the legislative, executive, and judicial branches have, respectively. Kelly F. this week writes about the Congressional power to investigate, explaining what this is and two of the important cases that help establish some protections for those who are being investigated by Congress. Jordyn looks at the president’s power and influence over the Department of Justice. Chelsea explains the sources of judicial review power, looking at theoretical, political, and legal claims as to the origins of this power for our federal judiciary.
Troy writes about the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment and how it has been used to allow for federal regulation of state action.
Kelly S. addresses the Supreme Court case, Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, discussing the issues in this case and what it means for the opportunities for self-enrichment and inclusion being offered to people.
Hello and welcome back for another semester of student blogs about American law. This is the first week of substantive posts, and let me tell you, we are already off to a great start. While there are some great historically-themed posts here, we also start off with a lot of current political topics. Unsurprisingly immigration and marijuana legalization—two current major questions of federal power and federalism more generally—show up in quite a few of the posts.
As is my normal practice, especially with a class this size, I’ll briefly touch on the main point of the posts and hopefully encourage you, dear reader, to go forth and check out the posts. I know the students appreciate it when they find out that people who aren’t just me (or their peers) are actually reading their work. Given the quality of these posts, there is more than enough to recommend them for some good informative reading. On to the posts (and digging ourselves out from under the over 7 inches of snow we got yesterday)!
Three students explicitly write about federal conflicts over marijuana legalization. But, before we get to these, I want to start with the one student who went even further back to look at earlier attempts to regulate drugs in the U.S. Tim approaches drug laws from a different perspective than his peers, looking at the U.S.’s first drug laws, San Francisco’s 1875 Opium Den Ordinance, describing this law and the purpose of it.
From here, Troy, Brad, and Kelly S. all touch on different aspects of federalism around the legalization of marijuana. Troy writes about our federal system in the context over the growing disputes over federal versus state power related to the creation and policing of marijuana laws. Brad discusses states’ efforts to legalize marijuana while suggesting that the current administration is likely to push back against these state efforts. Kelly S. rounds out this group by looking into the not-so-distant past for how the Court has already approached the issue. Kelly S. investigates the legality of marijuana by looking at the Supreme Court’s ruling in the 2005 case Gonzales v. Raich.
Three other students wrote about different aspects of the current immigration debate. Tyena writes about the conflicts that can arise between state and federal laws pertaining to immigration, as well as provides some history on immigration law in the U.S. more generally. Ryan discusses President Trump’s immigration plans, and the various actions that he and his administration have taken to achieve these plans. Rounding out this group, Annelis explains the current state of discussions around DACA, touching on the program itself, some of the proposed alternatives, and how this relates to the recent government shutdown.
In their blogs, Hermina, Dan, and Sung all focus on other areas of contemporary Constitutional law questions rooted in the current political climate. Hermina discusses the potential for another government shutdown, and the Constitutional and statutory reasons for the shutdown, if a compromise on a spending bill is not reached by February 8. Dan also looks at the impending shutdown, focusing on Trump’s seeming provocation for another shutdown and the Congressional efforts to avoid this. Sung, meanwhile, elaborates on Trump’s power to (indirectly) fire Special Counsel Mueller, as well as the norms around such actions.
Finally, I am ending this round-up with the three posts that touch on the history and structure of the Supreme Court, and importantly the Constitution. Kei importantly highlights some of the ways in which the Framers of the U.S. Constitution where influenced by the governing principles of the Seven Iroquois Nations, showing how these influences are reflected in the Constitution. Chelsea touches on the Constitutional structure (and lack thereof) of the federal judiciary, and briefly discusses a bit about the Court’s jurisdiction, too. Lastly (by virtue of being the last one I am talking about and nothing else), Kelly F.’s first post takes on Marbury v. Madison, discussing the case as it relates to judicial review and about the Court’s role in our political system more generally.
Collectively these blogs represent a range of topics, legal issues, and political views. They are all fascinating, and you’ll be better off if you take the time to read them (and if you don’t believe me, go read them and see if I’m right!).
Hi there! It is that time again: blog time! This semester (Spring 2018) we are back with a new round of Constitutional Law blogs. The students blogging this semester are doing so for the Constitutional Law in the Governmental Process class that I teach. This is largely questions of institutional powers and constraints, otherwise known as: what can the various parts of the government actually do, and who can stop them. I’m excited, and hopefully you are too! The students will begin making their posts next week, and as in the past, I’ll be offering round-up posts that give brief overviews of the students’ posts. Check back soon, and tell your friends.
Well, it is now finals week, and after a jam packed November, I find myself very far a wee bit behind on these wrap-up posts. While I’ve been buried under grading and my own projects, my students have continued to produce top-notch blogs about various issues of American public policy. To make sure their work is duly honored, I’m addressing the three rounds of posts here in this SUPER POST! (If I call it a super post it sounds better than just saying a bunch of posts talked about all at once, right?)
Despite my tardiness, I am incredibly proud of the work that these students have put into their blogs, and the course more generally. I hope that they are as well. If you agree with me, feel free to drop by their blogs and leave them comments. Moving forward, the blogs are their own, so some may choose to continue to post while others may not. Regardless of their choice, they have already all done superb work.
In her last three posts, Sam looks at how Title IX functions, and potential ways it could do more to ensure equality in collegiate athletics. Sam writes about how the ERA would have interacted with Title IX had the ERA been ratified. Sam also describes how Title IX relates to pregnant student athletes regarding participation, scholarships, and their position on their team. Sam ends her blog by reflecting on a semester’s worth of blogging, how it relates to her final paper for our course, and the future of Title IX.
Ben’s final posts focus in on the importance of reliable, accurate information, especially in the contexts of public education and mental health issues. Ben shares more of his personal struggles, while also arguing for better education and information for health care professionals to share with parents and their children regarding mental health issues. Ben also addresses much of the controversy surrounding Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, including her decision to remove 72 different guidelines pertaining to protections for students with disabilities. In his final post, Ben wrestles with the utility, and problems, with genetic testing regarding what they can offer, but also what you are giving up to the companies that administer these tests.
Kelly’s last few posts this semester get into the overall costs, defined broadly, of current American immigration politics, with a special focus on the ending of DACA. Kelly takes a break from writing about the human cost of immigration policies and ending DACA to discuss the incredibly high economic cost of ending DACA. Kelly also explores the dehumanization in how we talk about and treat “immigrants” as a class in the United States. Kelly’s final post involves both a story from one of her classes, and her reflection on her own position regarding the current state of American politics around questions of immigration.
Hermina’s final posts continue to zero in on the effects of current changes being made to Title IX, as well as various activist efforts to push back against the harm being done to victims under the changes to the implementation of Title IX. Hermina writes about the differences between criminal and civil law, including burden of proof, and how this relates to the changes the Department of Education is pursuing regarding Title IX. Hermina also explains that a group, Equal Means Equal, is suing the Department of Education over its recension of the Dear Colleague Letter put in place by the Obama administration regarding the handling of Title IX incidents on campus. Hermina’s final post examines the accomplishments that Title IX has brought about, but more importantly she writes about all the work left to be done, and how it can be accomplished.
As has been the case with his blog this semester, Sung continues to explore various areas of the American economy and American economic policy. Sung explores the role of U.S. currency in international markets and what this means for the U.S. economy. Also, Sung evaluates the House of Representatives’ version of the tax bill, looking at what it means for various segments of the economy and the American public. Sung’s final post addresses the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the recent power struggle taking place at the head of the Bureau.
Nick wraps up his blog for this semester by looking at comedy and music, and what these intersections tell us about free speech and policies pertaining to obscenity and otherwise offensive speech. Nick takes a little bit of a deviation to talk about the comedian Lenny Bruce, and how his comedy challenged some of the policies around obscenity and free speech. Nick also writes about the Supreme Court case ruled on last term pertaining to trademarks and offensive language involving The Slants’ efforts to trademark their band name. Nick, in his final post, talks about George Carlin’s “Seven Dirty Words” monologue, and how a broadcast of it sparked an important free speech case involving the FCC.
Alex’s final posts all pertain to what is happening with DACA now as various actors scramble to try to come up with a replacement after Trump has begun to end the program. Alex explains that there is increasing support among some Republicans in the House of Representatives to pass legislation creating a permanent fix for DACA. Alex also addresses some of the changes happening to DACA, including who may still renew their applications, and what is required to actually do so. Alex, in his last post, discusses the two major pieces of legislation currently being developed to replace DACA, the Dream Act and the BRIDGE Act.
In her final posts, Taylor explore what is wrong with current education policy, as well as offers up some potential solutions to address the large-scale problems she has blogged about all semester. Taylor explains how changes at the Department of Education are further impacting those who have been advantage of by for-profit schools. Taylor also provides a clear overview and explanation of what charter schools are and involve, given the Department of Education’s push to embrace charter schools at the expense of traditional public schools. Taylor’s final post involves her pitch for more centralized control over public education as a means to cut down on inequality and inconsistencies in the current system.
In his last few posts, John discusses various aspects of current American law and policy that further challenge the idea of a separation of church and state. John writes about the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act (RLUIP), what it does, and some of the controversy around how it has been used in a few situations. John also addresses, and critiques, three different arguments put forth on behalf of maintaining tax exempt status for churches and religions. John’s final post looks at the tax exemption for housing allowances for various religious officials and discusses this in the context of contemporary American politics.
These students have demonstrated a remarkable grasp on the policy areas they have been studying, and often how these policies intersect with various areas of contemporary politics. As a professor, I could not ask for more regarding the level of engagement, learning, and professionalism on display in these blogs.