Hi, I have three essay questions for my constitutional law class that have been stumping me for some time.
1) The Q: Justice Brown concluded in Plessy v. Ferguson that if "the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority...it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that interpretation on it." Was that accurate? How would that assessment be viewed in light of the sociological data advanced in Brown v. Board of Education? Is the inclusion of sociological data a desirable factor for judges to take into consideration? Discuss and explain your answers in detail.
What's stumping me -- Should I try to include the different attitudes towards considering sociological data in general, in deciding matters on the court in 1896 vs. 1954? Or should I maybe just narrowly mention the difference in attitudes towards equality between the races and integration?
2) The Q: How does the Zurcher v. Stanford Daily (1978) case explain how Congress can respond to a Supreme Court ruling and provide greater protections to individual privacy and press freedoms? Discuss and explain your answer in detail and provide and explain examples.
What's stumping me -- Should the "examples" the question asks for be within the Zurcher v. Stanford Daily case and/or the Congressional reaction/the law passed or something else entirely?
And if it was other separate examples, why would it ask specifically about Zurcher v. Stanford?
And more generally, has anyone had to deal with these types of questions where the focus is confusing, and if so, how did you wind up answering the question, and did that way work for you?
3) The Q: The FIRAC (Facts, Issue{s}, Rule of Law, Analysis, and Conclusion) method of legal analysis provides students the ability to lessen the difficulties of the law to a straightforward blueprint. When FIRAC is properly used, it offers an important process that may be used by attorneys and law students to critically analyze and think about legal problems. Do you think that identifying the question(s) is critical to the FIRAC method? What are the reasons for the apparent difficulty that many students have identifying and answering the question(s)? Discuss and explain in detail your answers. Be sure to provide several examples and explain the examples.
What's stumping me -- Anyone know any famous cases that might be difficult to FIRAC?
I'm a senior in high school taking criminal justice 2 so i don't know if i will be much help, you can try doing a case on Infanticide, or on a case in which a baby is born but killed after or during birth.
A case we studied a lot was " Tinker vs. Des Moines" there's a lot of details in it...
Also if the focus is confusing what i did was just read and read and re-read the case and examine every single little detail because it all matters. you have to think outside the box and that's hard sometimes..
i hope i was able to help you, like i said i have no knowledge of how crim.justice works in college . goodluck :)
1) In order to answer the first essay question regarding Justice Brown's assessment in Plessy v. Ferguson, it is important to address both the accuracy of his conclusion and the impact of sociological data presented in Brown v. Board of Education.
To answer the first part of the question, you should critically evaluate Justice Brown's statement that the "badge of inferiority" is solely based on the interpretation of the colored race. While it is true that the actual text of the law does not explicitly mention inferiority, it is important to consider the historical context and systemic discrimination that African Americans faced at that time. By separating the races and upholding segregation, the law itself perpetuated the idea of racial inferiority.
Moving on to the second part of the question, you should discuss how the inclusion of sociological data in Brown v. Board of Education undermined Justice Brown's conclusion in Plessy v. Ferguson. The sociological data presented in Brown v. Board of Education demonstrated the harmful effects of segregation on African American children, both academically and psychologically. It highlighted the unequal educational opportunities and the adverse impact on their self-esteem. This evidence challenged the notion that segregation could be perceived as separate but equal.
As for addressing attitudes towards considering sociological data, it would be beneficial to briefly mention the difference in 1896 and 1954. By 1954, society had evolved, and there was greater recognition of the harmful consequences of segregation. The Court in Brown v. Board of Education relied on this sociological data to support its decision to overturn Plessy. However, the focus should primarily be on explaining the impact of the sociological data rather than the shift in societal attitudes.
2) In analyzing the Zurcher v. Stanford Daily case and how Congress responded to it, you should focus on explaining how Congress can provide greater protections to individual privacy and press freedoms after a Supreme Court ruling. The "examples" the question asks for should be related to how Congress responded legislatively to address the issues raised in the Zurcher v. Stanford Daily case.
An example could be the Privacy Protection Act of 1980, which was enacted by Congress in response to the concerns raised in the Zurcher case. This act established procedures and limitations on law enforcement's ability to search and seize journalists' materials for conducting criminal investigations. By providing this example and explaining how it addressed the concerns raised in Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, you will demonstrate how Congress can respond and provide greater protections.
The question specifically mentions Zurcher v. Stanford Daily because it is an important Supreme Court case that dealt with the balancing of individual privacy and press freedoms. It provides a relevant context to discuss how Congress responded to the issues raised in that particular case.
3) In addressing the question about the FIRAC method of legal analysis, it is important to consider whether identifying the question(s) is critical to the analysis and why many students struggle with this aspect.
To answer the first part of the question, you should argue whether or not identifying the question(s) is critical to the FIRAC method. It is important to explain that identifying the question(s) is indeed critical because it establishes the foundation for the analysis. By clearly understanding what legal issues need to be addressed, the subsequent steps of the FIRAC method, such as identifying relevant facts, applying the relevant rule of law, and analyzing the facts in light of the rule, become more focused and targeted.
In addressing the reasons for the difficulty many students face in identifying and answering the question(s), you should provide several examples. These examples could include cases with complex or multi-layered legal issues, such as Roe v. Wade (abortion rights), Citizens United v. FEC (campaign finance), or District of Columbia v. Heller (Second Amendment rights). These cases often involve various subsidiary questions that require careful analysis to fully grasp the issues at hand.
Additionally, you can explain that students may struggle with identifying and answering the question(s) due to the complexity of legal reasoning, unfamiliarity with the subject matter, or lack of clarity in the wording of the question itself. You can provide specific instances where this difficulty arises and offer suggestions on how students can improve their skills in identifying and answering the question(s), such as close reading, outlining, and seeking clarification if needed.