PLEASE NOTE, ONE OF THESE SESSIONS MIGHT BE SUPPLANTED WITH A FIELD TRIP TO THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT OF MONTANA. I AM AWAITING CONFIRMATION FROM THE CLERK OF COURT.
DAY ONE-February 27, 2024 will begin with a whole-group discussion during which we will comparatively discuss the concepts of civil liberties and civil rights, standards of compelling state interest, and the anatomy of a Supreme Court Opinion. Also, we will identify the six civil liberties embodied in the 1st Amende
PLEASE NOTE, ONE OF THESE SESSIONS MIGHT BE SUPPLANTED WITH A FIELD TRIP TO THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT OF MONTANA. I AM AWAITING CONFIRMATION FROM THE CLERK OF COURT.
DAY ONE-February 27, 2024 will begin with a whole-group discussion during which we will comparatively discuss the concepts of civil liberties and civil rights, standards of compelling state interest, and the anatomy of a Supreme Court Opinion. Also, we will identify the six civil liberties embodied in the 1st Amendent of the U.S. Constitution. During the second hour, the course participants will break into small groups and begin reviewing the Court's opinion in Edwards v. Aguillard. Each participant will have a questionnaire to guide his/her analysis of the court's reasoning and holdings.
DAY TWO-February 28, 2024 will begin with a whole-group guided discussion during which we will examine the Edwards ruling in the context of the establishment and free exercise clauses. During the second hour, the course participants will once again break into small groups to review the Supreme Court's opinion in Citizens United v. F.E.C. As before, each participant will have a questionnaire to guide his/her analysis, and we will examine the court's holdings and judgment in the context of the free speech clause.
DAY THREE-February 29, 2024 will begin with a whole-group guided discussion during which we will examine the Citizens United ruling in the context of free speech interpretations and corporate law. During the second hour, we will consider questions of scutiny, compelling state interest, and individual rights as they were interpreted by the court in either case.