Discussion question one | Choose one

No unread replies.No replies.

Union organizers at a hospital wanted to distribute leaflets to potential union members, but hospital rules prohibited leafleting in areas of patient care, hallways, cafeterias, and any areas open to the public. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruled that these restrictions violated the law and ordered the hospital to permit the activities in the cafeteria and coffee shop. The NLRB cannot create common law or statutory law. What kind of law was it creating?

OR

Assume that the US Congress passed a bill that says all US citizens and/or residents not born in the USA must return to their country of birth within one month. Further assume that the president pledges to sign the bill into law and says he will have the armed forces enforce compliance. Finally assume that the law is written during peacetime and no present threat exists.

In the United States, all courts have the power to review decisions of other branches and determine their constitutionality, and the "final" power of review rests with the nine appointed justices of the Supreme Court.

Remember to consider the Strict scrutiny standard and previous case law (Korematsu), state why this law is or is not unconstitutional. You can find the standard in the PDF for slideshow #3.

So if Arnold Schwarzenegger, a non-US born citizen, wants to fight the order to leave how will you argue for or against his position? Based on a 1944 case Korematsu v. United States what will be his best argument for asking the court to declare the law unconstitutional? Be sure to begin your answer with what is wrong and/or right about the law. Read about the dissent (Links to an external site.) here.

Read the 14th Amendment (Links to an external site.). You should read at least the summary of the Korematsu case here (Links to an external site.). You may read the full case (Links to an external site.) here.

Don't panic, just give the first two ideas that you think will be best to use in this situation.

OR

Usually, both a plaintiff and a defendant can demand a jury trial in cases asking for cash damages. If you were involved in a trial with $50,000 at stake, would you want a jury trial? Would you trust a group of strangers to arrive at a fair verdict, or would you prefer a judge to decide the case? Would your answer depend upon whether you were the plaintiff or defendant?

OR

A police officer in North Carolina stopped Nicks car because it had a broken brake light. Nick allowed the officer to search the car and, during the search, the officer found cocaine. It turns out that the original stop was invalid because drivers in North Carolina are allowed to drive with only one brake light. The cop did not know the law. Does the exclusionary rule prevent the cocaine from being admissible in court?