Return to Constitutional Law I Main Web Page

Here is the proposed schedule for April (subject to modification, as always, as a result of student revolution). We need a couple of make up sessions for when I was ill (Feb. 25, 26), and another couple of additional sessions for the oral presentations. We discussed in class using Thursdays, 1:00-3:00 p.m., Room 125, for both purposes.

Oral presentations. To give everyone a little more time to prepare their oral presentations, I propose we use April 10 and 17 for that purpose. I know there has been a request for a little guidance as to what is expected. There may be more later, but for now, know that it will involve two lawyers for each side (who can divide the argument among themselves as they choose), with a five minute presentation from each lawyer (including interruptions from the bench). Speak to legal arguments only; given the short time for presentations assume the court is familiar with the facts and does not need a "fact statement" as such. (Of course, you are not forbidden to refer to individual facts essential to a legal argument in the course of making that argument.) To the maximum extent possible, the presentations should be extemporaneous, or possibly from note cards, rather than read from a prepared text. This will leave us 1-2 minutes extension, when essential, and 2-5 minutes for my immediate response/evaluation for the four participants, during a half-hour slot for each argument. Those students not participating are encouraged to attend all presentations; but this is neither a requirement nor will it improve your course grade.

Class sessions. This means we will have three class sessions the week of April 1, 2 and 3, and 22, 23 and 24; and two class sessions (plus the oral presentations) the weeks of April 8, 9 and 15, 16. (And Mary and I would like to invite you all to the house for dinner the evening of April 24. More details on that later.) (For these extra class session Thursdays, of course, they will run 1:00 to 2:30, rather than 1:00 to 3:00 (although I'm always willing to stay a little longer with anyone who wants to).)

Which brings me to the matter of readings.

As you'll see below, the material to come is pages 29-68 (though not in that order), 224-32, and 332-407. In addition, we still have pending 306-31 (either for discussion or lecture), and some previous pages that I indicated I would sometime cover by lecture only (I believe this to be roughly pp. 171-204). Since the pages for reading/discussion (even counting in the 306-31)  averages out about 16 pages for each of 9 sessions (plus the 10th session as a lecture over the omitted material (presumably on April 24)), it looks like that should work.

Final exam and "review session." The final is currently scheduled for May 9, 1:00-3:00 p.m. My present intention is to have two parts. Part I will be closed book and short answer (maybe 10 questions). Part II will be open book and essay (probably just one question). (This is designed to give everyone an opportunity to excel at something.)

I am happy to address any questions you may have as you are reviewing your outline, notes and text prior to the final that you want to e-mail to me (within limits; one professor, offering to do this, once received 2000 e-mails!). I will probably use the procedure we used with the briefing problem: an e-mailed answer to everyone.

However, it is my own view that a "review session," as such, especially in constitutional law, is more than a non-productive waste of your time. I think it is a positive disservice. If you have been working away at your outline since the first week of class, and perhaps using the one I prepared and offered everyone at that time, no review session is going to add anything to what you already know. If you have not been doing that, no review session will substitute for it; to suggest that it might (as holding one does suggest) is sending you the wrong message. That is because, as you have long since learned in this class, and I have repeated with some regularity throughout the semester, constitutional law is not about "black letter law" and exceptions. Of course, you need to know some cases' facts and holdings. But con law is a process, an array of methods of analysis; it's a set of skills -- as you've seen from your writing assignments -- not a repetition of memorized anything. If you've been experiencing that all along as you read and think about the justices' various approaches, and following what we've done in class, you're in good shape. If you've been relying on a commercial outline, and looking for "the rules," "the law," you will find the final a somewhat bewildering experience.

-- N.J., March 28, 2003

* The instructor would like to acknowledge, and thank, Professor William Buss for this proposed selection and ordering of readings.
** Spring break week is from March 15-23, 2003.