POLITICAL SCIENCE 317
Citizenship, Equality, And The 14'th Amendment
Fall, 2003

INSTRUCTOR Bill Daniel
OFFICE 130 Founders Hall
HOURS 9:30 -11:00 TTh, 2:30 - 3:30 MW, or by appt.
PHONE 826-3914
E-MAIL wrd1@humboldt.edu, wrdaniel05@pacbell.net
WEB SITE (Dyllabus) www.humboldt.edu/~wrd1/PSCI317.htm

TEXT: Michael G. Perry; We The People: The Fourteenth Amendment and the Supreme Court

In the Spring of 2003 the U S Supreme Court rendered a number of key decisions affecting the rights of citizens and non citizens of the United States. The "war on terrorism," intensified after 9/11, has generated a number of government actions which may profoundly affect the rights and liberties of citizens and non-citizens alike. Legislation such as the PATRIOT Act and the proposed Patriot Act II, as well as a host of administrative rules and decisions have cast light on "what it means to be a citizen of the United States." The original Constitution says little about "citizenship." The 14'th Amendment, aimed at the States, provides such a definition, but the provisions of that Amendment have undergone numerous different interpretations over the past 135 years.

The purpose of this course will be to shed some light, both from a historical and current perspective on this matter. First, we shall consider the general question of citizenship and the obligations of the state and federal governments to citizens and aliens, in light of relevant Supreme Court decisions. We will then look to the 14'th Amenbdment and key Supreme Court decisions interpreting the "privileges and immunities" and "equal protection" clauses of it. All of this will be evaluated in the light of Perry's inquiries regarding allegations of usurpation of authority by the Supreme Court.

While some lecture/discussion is inevitable, the bulk of our class time will be devoted to case presentations. Each of you will be responsible for completing a "Brandeis Brief" of two cases assigned to you, and reporting your findings to the rest of the class. Each brief/presentation will be worth 10% of your grade. There will also be an essay mid-term (probably take-home) worth 30% of your grade. There will also occur a final project (50%) in which you will analyze the Court's decision in a recent case and in which, using Perry's criteria, you address the question of whether the Court has usurped political authority with respect to this decision. The paper should be written in a "pre professional" style, meaning proper grammar and diction, foot/endnotes, and a bibliography. The paper should be 10 to 15 pages in length.

Schedule of Classes

The Civil Rights Cases
08/25-08/27 Introduction: Perry, Ch 1
09/03-09/08 Fundamental Questions: Perry, Chs 2 & 3
09/10-09/17 Citizens and Aliens, Obligations of States: The Slaughterhouse Cases (All read), The Civil Rights Cases (1883), Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), Graham v. Richardson (1971), Sugarman v. Dougall (1973), Amback v. Norwich (1979), Plyler v. Doe (1982), Alexander v. Sandovol (2001)
09/22-09/24 Citizenship And the Federal Government:United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) Trop v Dulles (1954), Matthews v. Diaz (1976) Reno, v. American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (1999), Zadvidas v. Davis (2001), Demore et. al. v. Kim (2003)
09/29 Race, Segregation & Affirmative Action: Perry, Ch 4
10/01 Separate, But Equal: Plessy v. Furgeson (1896), Sweatt v. Painter (1950)
10/06-10/08 Public Schools: Brown v. Board of Education (1954), Brown II (1955)
Cooper v. Aaron (1958), Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenberg Board of Education (1971), Missouri v. Jenkins (1990) Board of Education of Oklahoma Public Schools v. Dowell (1991)
10/13-10/20 Affirmative Action: Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)
Chappel v. Wallace (1983), City of Richmond v. J A Croson (1989)
Metro Broadcasting Inc. v. FCC (1990), Adarand Construscion Inc. v. Pena (1995), Hopwood v.State of Texas (1996), Gratz V. Bollinger (2003) U of Michigan Case (undergrad), Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) U of Michigan case (Law School)
10-22 Sex and Sexual Orientation: Perry, Ch. 5; MID TERM (Take Home) handed out; DUE OCT. 27
10-27-10/29 Gender Discrimination: , Reed v. Reed (1971),Frontiero v. Richardson (1973), Craig v. Boren (1976)Rostker v. Goldberg (1981), Roberts v United States Jaycees (1984), Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan (1982) United States v. Virginia (1996)
11-03-11/05 Sexual Orientation: ,Commonwealth's Attorney for the City of Richmond v. Doe (1976), Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), Romer v. Evans (1996), Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
11/10-12/12 Sexual Harassment: Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986), Franklin v. Gwinnette County Public Schools (1991), Fafagher v. City of Boca Raton (1998), Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services (1998)
11/17/11/19 Voting and Representation: Baker v. Carr (1962),Wesberry v. Sanders (1964), Reynolds v. Simms (1964). Gomillion v. Lightfoot (1962),Miller v. Johnson (1995), Georgia v. Ashcroft (2003), Bush v. Gore (2000)
12/01/12/03 Abortion and Physician Assisted Suiside: Perry, Ch. 6; Row v. Wade (1973), Webster v Reproductive Health Services (1989), Rust v. Sullivan (1991), Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992)
Stenberg v. Carhart (2000), Washington v. Glucksberg (1997), Physician Assisted Suicide
12/08/12/10 Conclusion: Perry, Ch. 7
12/15 PAPERS DUE Monday, Dec. 15
   
CASES FOR CONSIDERATION Ashcroft. v Georgia, Lawrence v. Texas, Bush v. Gore, Gratz v. Bollinger., Grutter v. Bollinger, Stenberg v. Carhart