Blog

The lecture notes are here. The live chat is here.

The Legislative Powers

• Bicameralism & Presentment (260-261).
• INS v. Chadha (261-272).
• Clinton v. City of New York (272-281).
• Read Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution (3-4).
• Enumerated Powers in Article I, Section 8 (281-283).
• Bills of Attainder (283-284).
• Note 5 – Nixon v. GSA (293-294).
• Ex Post Facto Clause (294-295).
• Contracts Clause (295).

This is Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who wrote the majority opinion in INS v. Chadha.

 

This is Jagdish Chadha.

Justice Louis Powell authored a concurring opinion.

Justice White dissented.

 

The City of New York was led, at the time by Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who opposed President Clinton’s usage of the “Line Item Veto.”

The majority opinion was authored by Justice John Paul Stevens.

Justice Anthony Michael Kennedy concurred.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer dissented, in part.

Justice Antonin Scalia dissented, in other parts.

Nixon v. GSA concerned President Nixon’s attempts to keep secret tapes he recorded privately in the White House.

 

In Jeremy Schath v. State of Indiana , a 5-page opinion, Judge Bradford writes:

During the evening hours of November 17, 2012, Appellant-Defendant Jeremy Schath was raccoon hunting, with permission, on property located along the south side of County Road 640 in Decatur County. At some point, Schath’s hunting dog crossed onto property on which Schath knew he did not have permission to hunt. When Schath became aware that his dog had entered the other property, he entered the property, unarmed, for the purpose of retrieving his dog.

On March 12, 2013, Appellee-Plaintiff State of Indiana charged Schath with Class C misdemeanor hunting upon private property without the consent of the landowner. The trial court conducted a bench trial on July 29, 2013, during which the State amended the charging information to include the allegation that Schath chased wildlife, i.e., a raccoon, on privately owned property without the consent of the landowner. At the conclusion of the bench trial, the trial court found Schath guilty of the amended charge. On appeal, Schath contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction. Concluding that the evidence supports only the inference that Schath went on to the property in question to retrieve his dog, not to “chase” a raccoon, we reverse.

H/T Rob L.

Today we will discuss how you can own property in yourself.

The lecture notes are here, and the live chat is here. Here is a recent article about the rights of publicity of college football players.

First, we’ll do the case of Vanna White v. Samsung Electronic America.

The dissental was authored by Judge Kozinski, a colorable character on the 9th Circuit.

Here is the image of robot Vanna White. Alas neither of these predictions of the year 2012 came true (well played, Mayans).

 

To learn more about property rights in cell lines, I highly commend you read The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. This article in Salon discusses it.

By now, I’m sure you’ve seen the ridiculous video of Staten Island Representative Michael Grimm threatening to snap a reporter in half, and throw him off a balcony.

 

“And just finally before we let you go, we haven’t had a chance to talk about some of the…” Scotto began before Grimm cut him off.

“I’m not speaking to you off-topic, this is only about the president,” said Grimm, before walking off camera.

“So Congressman Michael Grimm does not want to talk about some of the allegations concerning his campaign finances,” Scotto said before tossing back to the station. But as the camera continued to roll, Grimm walked back up to Scotto and began speaking to him in a low voice.

“What?” Scotto responded. “I just wanted to ask you…”

Grimm: “Let me be clear to you, you ever do that to me again I’ll throw you off this f—–g balcony.”

Scotto: “Why? I just wanted to ask you…”

[[cross talk]]

Grimm: “If you ever do that to me again…”

Scotto: “Why? Why? It’s a valid question.”

[[cross talk]]

Grimm: “No, no, you’re not man enough, you’re not man enough. I’ll break you in half. Like a boy.”

NY1’s @BobMagic01 says @RepMichaelGrimm threatened to throw @MikeScotto over the balcony, then said: “I will break you in half.”

— David W. Chen (@davidwchen) January 29, 2014

So usually, making threatening comments to someone would constitute assault (it’s not clear from the video if he made physical contact, which would be a battery).

But, he made these comments in the Capitol. Are his comments protected by the “Speech or Debate” clause?

They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

The Court has limited this privilege to statements made as “part of the legislative process.” Making statements to the press–even in the Capitol–are not privileged.

Oh well.

Someone, please pan the camera to the Supreme Court for this line.

Last year, part of the Voting Rights Act was weakened.