REQUIRED TEXTS:

Lee Epstein & Thomas G. Walker - Constitutional Law for a Changing
                                            America: Institutional Powers and Constraints (5th edition)                          

READING ASSIGNMENT OUTLINE

I.   Introduction, Course Overview, case databases (FINDLAW, LEXIS)

II.  The Constitution and the Supreme Court  (Sept. 1)
          Epstein & Walker, pp. 3-51; Baum (or other) - skim (at least) entire book 

III.  Institutional Authority: The Courts, Judicial Power & Judicial Review  (Sept. 6)
          Epstein & Walker, pp. 57-122
        CASES:  Marbury v Madison; Martin v Hunter's Lessee; Eakin v Raub; Ex parte McCardle;
                            Baker v Carr; Nixon v US; Flast v Cohen 

IV.  Constraints on Judicial Power, Sources/Scope of Legislative Power, and Inherent Power  (Sept. 13)
          Epstein & Walker, pp. 123-185
        CASES:  Powell v McCormack; U.S. Term Limits v Thornton; Gravel v US; McCulloch v
                          Maryland; McGrain v Daugherty; Watkins v US; Barenblatt v US; US v
                          Curtiss-Wright Export Corp.; South Carolina v Katzenbach
 
V.  Executive Power: Domestic Powers (Sept. 20)
          Epstein & Walker, pp. 187-262
        CASES:  Bush v. Gore; In re Neagle; Clinton v City of New York;  Morrison v Olson; Myers v US;
                           Humphrey's Executor v US; US v Nixon; Mississippi v Johnson; Nixon v Fitzgerald;
                           Clinton v Jones; Ex parte Grossman; Murphy v Ford; US v Curtiss-Wright Export Corp.

VI.  Executive Power: Foreign Relations and War Power and Exam Review (Sept. 22)
            Epstein & Walker, pp. 248-298
            CASES:  Mistretta v US; INS v Chadha; Bowsher v Synar; The Prize Cases; Ex parte
                            Milligan; Korematsu v US; Ex parte Quirin; Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v Sawyer;
                            Dames & Moore v Regan

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     First Exam Thursday September 29

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII.  Nation-State Relations/Federalism and New Judicial Federalism (Oct. 4)
             Epstein & Walker, pp. 319-405
              CASES:  McCulloch v Maryland; Dred Scott v Sandford; Hammer v Dagenhart;
                              US v Darby Lumber Co.; National League of Cities v Ursery; Garcia v San Antonio
                              Metropolitan Transit Authority; New York v US; Printz v US; Alden v Maine; Michigan v
                              Long; Missouri v Holland; Crosby v National Foreign Trade Council; Pennsylvania v
                              Nelson; Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v State Energy Resources; Conservation &
                              Development Commission

VIII.  The Commerce Power and the Court and the New Deal (Oct. 11)
              Epstein & Walker, pp. 406-453
                CASES:  Gibbons v Ogden; US v E.C. Knight Co.; Stafford v Wallace; Schechter Poultry
                                Corp. v US: Carter v Carter Coal Co.; NLRB v Jones & Laughlin  Steel Corp.;
                                Wickard v Filburn; US v Lopez; US v Morrison

IX.  Regulation of Commerce and Commerce Power of the States (Oct. 18)
             Epstein & Walker, pp. 458-483
              CASES:  Champion v Ames; Heart of Atlanta Motel v US; Cooley v Board of Port
                              Wardens; Southern Pacific Co. v Arizona; Hunt v. Washington State Apple
                             Advertising Commission; Maine v Taylor
 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 
** TAKE-HOME EXAM DUE, Thursday, Oct. 27  **
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

X.   Federal Taxing & Spending Power and State Taxing Power  (Nov. 1)
             Epstein & Walker, pp. 484-536
             CASES:  Pollock v Farmers' Loan & Trust; US v United States Shoe Corp.; South
                            Carolina v Baker; Davis v Michigan Department of Treatsury; McCray v US;
                            Bailey v Drexel; Furniture Co.;US v Butler; Steward Machine Co. v Davis; South
                            Dakota v Dole; Michelin Tire Corp. v Wages; Complete Auto Transit v Brady; Quill
                            Corp. v North Dakota; Oregon Waste Systems v Department of Environmental
                            Quality of the State of Oregon

XI.   Economic Liberties: Contract Clause (Nov. 10)
               Epstein & Walker, pp. 539-625
                CASES:  Fletcher v Peck; Trustees of Dartmouth College v Woodward; Charles River
                                Bridge v Warren Bridge; Stone v Mississippi; Home Building and Loan
                                Association v Blaisdell; United States Trust Co. v New Jersey; Allied
                                Structural Steel Co. v Spannaus

XII.   Economic Liberties: State Regulation and  Substantive Due Process (Nov. 17)
                Epstein & Walker, pp. 576-625
                 CASES:  Slaughterhouse Cases; Munn v Illinois; Allgeyer v Louisiana; Lochner v
                                New York; Muller v Oregon; Adkins v Children's Hospital; Nebbia v New York;
                                West Coast Hotel v Parrish: Williamson v Lee Optical Co.; BMW of North
                                 America v Gore

XIII.  The Takings Clause (Nov. 29)
                Epstein & Walker, pp. 627-657
                 CASES:  US v Causby; Penn Central Transportation Co. v City of New York; Berman v
                                 Parker; Hawaii Housing Authority v Midkiff; Nollan v California Coastal
                                 Commission; Lucas v South Carolina Coastal Commission; Dolan v City of Tigard

 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*** FINAL EXAM, Thursday, December 8, 10:15 a.m. -12:15 p.m. ***

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE:  You are responsible for making yourself aware of and understanding the polices and
procedures in the Undergraduate Catalog (pp. 274-76) on Student Academic Conduct, particularly those
sections that pertain to Academic Honesty. These policies include cheating, fabrication, falsification and
forgery, mulitiple submission, plagarism, complicity and computer misuse. If there is reason to believe
that any student(s) has been involved in academic dishonesty, that student(s) will be referred to the Office
of Student Judicial Affairs. Students who may be uncertain about an issue of academic dishonesty are
invited and urged to consult with me prior to the submission of any assignment or test.
 

INCOMPLETE POLICY (p. 29, Undergraduate Catalog).
    An incomplete is a "temporary grade" given when "illness, necessary absence, or
other reasons beyond the control of the student prevent completion of the course
requirements by the end of the semester or session." The grade of incomplete
"MAY NOT BE GIVEN AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR A FAILING GRADE." If the
unfinished work is not completed within a calendar year from the time the incomplete
is assigned, "the grade shall be converted to an 'E' (failure)."

COURSE REQUIREMENTS

A. Class Participation
 
Each student will be expected to stay current with the reading assignments and come to class prepared to discuss
each day's assignments. No specific portion of the semester grade is designated for this requirement, but regular
articipation in class discussions will weigh favorably and substantially in the determination of the final semester grade.

B.  Examinations
 
The semester grade will be based in large part on three exams. The first and final exams will be of the in-class type and
will contain fill-in, short answer, and essay questions. The first exam will be worth 75 points, and the final will be
comprehensive and worth 100 points. Study guides will be available at least a week before the exams. The second exam
will be a take-home exam. The take-home exam will be worth 75 points. If an exam is scheduled on a day when the
university is officially closed (e.g., a snow day), the exam will be given at the next class session. Make-up exams will be
allowed when warranted. If an exam is to be missed, students are expected to make arrangements prior to the scheduled
exam if possible. Once exams have been graded and returned, make-up exams will be possible only under the most
extenuating of circumstances. The instructor reserves the option of altering any or all elements of a make-up exam
including substantial changes in content and format.

C.  The "Justice/Case" Paper

Each student will be given an index card with the name of a Supreme Court justice, a case title, and a Roman numeral.
Each student is to research the justice and the case, and prepare a 5-6 page paper examining how the justice's background
"explains" his/her behavior in the assigned case. In most cases, the assigned justice has written the opinion of the Court,
r issued a separate concurring or dissenting opinion; you will be able to determine why the justice can to the legal
conclusion s/he did from the opinion. You are to discuss how this justice's pre-Court background and personal value
orientation show up in the case. The same justice will be assigned to several students, but the justice is combined with a
particular case only once. While any background material will be helpful, there is a five-volume set of books in Waldo that
can provide a solid base for almost everyone. This set of volumes is Leon Friedman and Fred L. Israel's The Justices of the
nited States Supreme Court (KF 8744.F75 1995). You may also wish to consult Clare Cushman The Supreme Court Justices,
and Melvin I. Urofsky The Supreme Court Justices (KF 8744.5859 1994). Some background information on the justices can
be obtainedfrom the Oyez Project. Use the link at the top of the page. These are reference volumes and cannot be checked
out, but you can photocopy what you need. You need to an online database such as Firstsearch for additional sources on
your justice. Full text of your assigned case can be found by using LEXIS or FINDLAW.

The paper is worth 50 points. The critical element will be your causal analysis -- what can you find from your justice's
background that "explains" the position taken in the case. The paper is due by the end of class on Tuesday,  November 22.
Late papers will be accepted, but a 2-point per day deduction will be assessed for papers submitted after November 22
(including Thanksgiving break). No late paper will be accepted after the last class session on December 1, and a score
of 0 (zero) for the project will automatically result.
 

Dr. Peter Renstrom	peter.renstrom@wmich.edu
3420 Friedmann Hall	269.387.5697

Western Michigan UniversIty Home Page	Political Science Department Home Page