Syllabus

www.sjsu.edu/faculty/kpnuger

Professor Ken Nuger Office: BT 455

Pols 121b Civil Liberties Phone: 924-5346

10:30-11:45 T, TH Office Hours: 7:15-8:45, 12:45-1:15 T, TH and by appointment

Political Science 121b: Civil Liberties

This course introduces the student to the institutional, political and legal bases that determine how the U.S. political system and especially the U.S. Supreme Court resolve civil liberties and civil rights issues. This is a fascinating subject. We will explore many of the contours of free speech and press, the criminal justice system, including search and seizure issues, self incrimination and cruel and unusual forms of punishment, constitutional privacy, including abortion, right to die and sexual autonomy and finally several discrimination issues including racial, gender and sexual orientation discrimination. While the workload is typically demanding of an upper division course, those who take their responsibilities seriously will find this course a rewarding, enlightening and fun experience. Therefore, I encourage you to pursue this course vigorously; for if you do, the rewards will be abundant.

Required Readings

Please purchase the following:

Epstein, Lee and Walker, Thomas, Constitutional Law for a Changing America: Rights, Liberties and Justice, 4^th ed.

Grading

Inherently a vulgar subject but one with which we must all contend. You will have two examinations, one midterm and a final, each worth 100 points. You must also write a 5 to 7 page position paper/analysis on a subject relevant to civil liberties or civil rights. This paper will be due no later than Tuesday, April 30^th. The paper is worth 30 points. If the paper is turned in late, it will receive a 6 point penalty. Students will also occasionally turn in their legal briefs, which will be worth 10 points per brief. Briefs must be typed, not handwritten. If you turn in a handwritten brief, it will be docked 2 points. You may drop your lowest graded brief when calculating your grade. Finally, students will be called upon to present briefs of assigned cases. While not graded, the quality of your oral presentations may affect my perception of whether you should receive the benefit of the doubt if the points you earned borders between two different grades. Similarly, class participation can help tip the scales in your favor if your final grade is in doubt.

Attendance

Attendance will be recorded each day but you get 2 ½ weeks (five class days) of paid vacation (what a great deal!). For each day of class you miss after three absences, you will lose two points. If you use less than five absences in the semester, you will receive two extra points toward your final grade up to a total of ten extra points. For example, if you miss five days of class, you neither gain nor lose points. If you miss six classes, you lose two points, seven classes, four points, etc. If you miss only four classes, you earn two points; three class, four points and perfect attendance earns you ten extra points. Not only is this a good way to encourage you to attend the greatest show on earth and earn points, but just being in class regularly will help you better master the material.

Misc. Grahdoo

All written work must be legible. If I cannot read an exam, you will have to read it to me in my office as part of an oral exam. This is not as easy as it may seem so please write legibly. Tardiness tends to be a distraction to the entire class and while an occasional tardiness cannot always be helped, excessive tardiness (more than a couple of times) will be duly noted. Finally, please turn off your electronic communication devices as they also pose a distraction to the class.

Final Words

The nature of this course demands from you a constant reappraisal of how the Supreme Court develops constitutional issues. As a dynamic process that reflects the transient values of society, constitutional law, to be fully appreciated, must be studied as a continuum. Each case is much like a frame in a movie. Each frame gives you a picture but the succession of frames gives you a complete story. Similarly, while a case may give you some insight into a constitutional principle, analyzing the compendia of cases on a specific legal issue will allow you to understand constitutional issues far beyond that which would be possible from studying a single case. Therefore, I expect from each of you, diligent preparations out of the classroom and intelligent, rigorous conduct in the classroom.

General Course Readings

Readings and cases will be assigned each class. We shall present and analyze the cases the day(s) following their assignment. We shall select cases primarily from the following chapters listed below. Please note that I will place a few selected cases on reserve for our class to analyze in addition to those listed below. Also, I may ask you to retrieve a few cases to analyze that will not be placed on reserve.

Unit One: Concepts of Constitutional Interpretation

Part 1, The Living Constitution

pp. 3-9

Ch. 3, The Incorporation of the Bill of Rights

pp. 71-75, 80-81, Box 5-3 on page 226, 621 (right column),-622

Unit Two: Freedom of Speech and Press

Ch. 5, Freedom of Speech, Assembly and Association

Skim the textual material and ignore the cases, except for Brandenburg, which you must read, from pp. 208-236. Get a sense of the different tests that governed speech critical of the government and its policies. Also, Table 5-1 on p. 239.

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) pp. 236-238

Read pp. 241-243 (to symbolic speech), p. 257, 262-266 (on Public Forums) to get a sense of some guiding principles that effect the constitutionality of different free speech regulations.

Hill v. Colorado (2000) pp. 266-271

Read pp. 271-272 on hate speech.

R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) pp. 272-277, including box 5-7

Ch. 7: The Boundaries of Free Expression: Obscenity and Libel

Obscenity

pp. 348-350, 353 (right column)-357, 366-368 (Obscenity and sexual discrimination), 372 (emerging issues…)-373 and 377-378

Miller v. California (1973) pp. 357-360 (Table 7-1 on p. 361)

New York v. Ferber (1982) pp. 362-365

Libel

pp. 378-379, 398-401

New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) pp. 379-385

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988) pp. 395-398

Unit Three: Constitutional Criminal Procedure

pp. 479-484

Ch 9: Investigations and Evidence

Fourth Amendment

pp. 485-488, 492-493, 498-502, 507-508, 512-519, 525-526

Katz v. U.S. (1967) pp. 493-498

Vernonia School District v. Acton (1995) pp. 502-507

Mapp v. Ohio (1961) pp. 519-525

U.S. v. Leon (1984) pp. 526-531

Fifth Amendment self incrimination clause

pp. 531-532

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) pp. 536-543 and p. 547 (table 10-2)

Ch 10: Attorneys, Trials and Punishments

Eighth Amendment

pp. 591-593,

Gregg v. Georgia (1976) pp. 593-601

Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy Clause - a brief note

pp. 613-614 (start at Kansas v. Kendricks, right column)

Unit Four: The Right to Privacy

Read the whole chapter, pp. 412-475 and the handout on Washington v. Glucksberg (1997)

Unit Five Discrimination

Racial Discrimination

pp. 628-640, 633-635, 637-638, 660-661

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) pp. 629-632

Brown v. Board of Education (1954) pp. 638-641

Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority (1961) pp. 664-666

Moose Lodge v. Irvis (1972) pp. 666-668

Affirmative Action

pp. 718-720, 728-729, 732-733, 745-748

Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke (1978) pp. 721-727

City of Richmond v. Croson (1989) pp. 733-738

Sex Discrimination

pp. 669-671, skim 681-683 and 690-691

Craig v. Boren (1976) pp. 677-681

Sexual Orientation Discrimination

pp. 696

Romer v. Evans (1996) pp. 696-701

Other Forms of Discrimination

pp. 702-704, 711, 715-718

San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez (1973) pp. 704-711

Saenz v. Roe (1999) pp. 711-714