(Begriffsjurisprudenz) (Interessenjurisprudenz)
(Formalismus)
Course Today
IRAC
We do IRAC to learn
1) how to analyze a case — how to break it down into it’s elements.
2) to understand how the judge’s think
3) to learn the rules
4) to learn to argue about the rules — rationales — why use this rule? is this rule good? why?
Lawyers argue about
1) Facts!
2) Fitting the facts to the law
3) Laws
a) What the law is
b) What the law should be
Briefing cases teaches us how to do all that.
Case of Palko v. Connecticut
Case 1
Issue: is the prohibition of double jeopardy binding on the states due to the Vth Amendment
(via the xivth adt)
<
Whether a fundamental right applies to the states depends on whether the right is essential to the concept of ordered liberty.
Application:
The prohibition of double jeopardy does not apply to this case because it is the trial of an error of law.
The double jeopardy prohibition may not apply to the states because it is not essential to the concept of ordered liberty because
1) some jurists do not think double jeopardy is vital to justice.
2) some countries do not have a rule prohibiting double jeopardy
3) This case only determines that double jeopardy does not apply in the situation where an error of law by the trial judge forces a retrial.
of a case due to error of law
Conclusion:
The defendant’s conviction for murder is upheld including their sentence to death.
See how something which seems logical orderly and fair can be used to justify something unfair? Ew.
Pair off with a partner
each of you choose one term and ask your partner to define it.
each of you scores 1 point for a correct definition.
continue until one of you does not have an answer and is outscored.
then we will go over the terms which you did not know.
—————–
proportionality =
means ends rational review
with strict scrutiny for
a) suspect classes
b) laws which burden fundamental rights
what is a suspect class?
a discrete and insular minority (=politically isolated and powerless)
subject to historical discrimination
what is a fundamental right?
something essential to “ordered liberty”
(lol, nice conclusion…)
CONCLUSORY REASONING = nice conclusion,
what is your reason?
Equity corrects law
Equity works substantive justice
the law is unfair to me in substantive terms because it is excessively formal e.g. because it focuses on a deadline or because it interprets some term strictly.
OR my remedy at law is inadquate!
Your ordinary remedy is money damages
exceptional remedies include:
injunction
equitable remedies are: discretionary exceptional remedies. courts do NOT have to grant them ever! they choose to grant them in the interests of justice.
you must specially plead your equitable remedies, and have acted equitably yourself. equity does not reward the inequitable person!
COLOR OF LAW
the constitution binds the u.s. federal government and protects private people from the federal power.
the u.s. constitution generally does NOT govern private law conduct between private law actors.
e.g. the rental case — the constitution didn’t prevent private discrimination in rental real estate — but to enforce the racially discriminatory law required state action.
ok so color of law is the idea that we can treat a private party as if they were the state when they act under color of state law
say we have the sheriff. he is off duty. he beats the person for being the wrong skin color. just because he’s a jerk. then he has acted under color of law, it is state action.
color of law is a way to stretch the application of the constitution to cover acts by private persons; the private person is abusing the power of the state, that is, they are acting “under color of law”.
—————–
Saturday: Helvering , then:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=489&invol=189
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0411_0001_ZS.html