Huntingdon College: | Political Science | Club | Club News | Courses | SPS | Maps | What's New?
PSC 314:  Political Theory and Constitutional Law
PSC 212: American Policymaking System
PSC 306: Public Organizations
American Government Guest Speaker Series, Spring 2005.
Compiled by Dr. Jeremy Lewis; Revised 22 Apr. 2005; click Reload or Refresh for latest version.


PSC 314, Lucie McLemore, District Court Judge, "The Bill of Rights in the District Court."  week 12, T March 29
Judge McLemore, an HC and Jones Law School graduate, is elected to the Montgomery County district court.
Summary:
Judge McLemore used amendments of the bill of rights to illuminate examples of cases, warrants and procedure in the Montgomery County district court.




PSC 314, Scott Rouse, Dep. Solicitor General,  "Constitutional Law in the Attorney General's Office", T Apr 12 [changed]
Raw notes of discussion, by Charles Walters, 2005..
alabama has law the prohibits the sell of sex toys such as vibrators and dildoes
Does the state have the right to regulate these devices?
Only bans the sale, not the use.
The AG's office has to defend the law whether they agree with it or not
Placing priorities on laws as such wastes the time of the State, when they need to be working on things such as the budget
There is continued sale of these items because a federal injunction that has prevented arrests
Is this the government's business (is it popular, morally wrong?)
One shop had these items visible to the eyes of minors thus, the law was formed.
Unlike the federal government which must have specific authority to create law, the state government can really create whatever is not prohibited
Argument is that there is a federal privacy right that prohibits the states to issue a law of this character
Strict interpreters of the Constitution believe there is "extra textual" issues that have been placed in the Constitution dealing with issues such as this Alabama law
The Constitution is enduring, and  if we  need a "right to die" or "right to use sexual devices" we can amend the Constitution in the place of implying things such as the "privacy theory"
Washington v Glutsberg- push to right to get someone to assist in committing suicide, the Supreme Court ruled no, there is no right
The Supreme Court is reluctant to spread the right of privacy, because it "takes it off board politically" that way protests have no place because the issue already has been decided, and it removes the issue from the democratic field
The court must decide what types of rights they are going to recognize,
they have to be traditional rights, very specific, and of course lawful and not infringing
Extra textural rights fall under the case of Griswold v Conneticut where birth control was a large issue
Some of rights that have been raised:
-having children is a fundamental right
-marriage is fundamental right in Loving v Virgina
-directing children's education
-Moore v Cleveland where living with your extended family is a right
these are well excepted rights and are embedded into society
Birth control- is there a tradition of birth control in America?- elevated to Constitutional right, but strays from the standard as set in Glutsberg
Roe v Wade- Court has said that the right of privacy is a right to have an abortion (is there a tradition of abortion in America)
If something has not been regulated should regulation be based on the way culture has dealt with issue in past?- there has to be some positive protection in the law to create this regulation
International standards have been looked at to judge American case outcomes
If other countries have created a law against American established right, should this not raise a red flag to our own laws?
Some states have board that weed out worst sex offenders and release the rest, the question has been raised that all states, should they have the same regulation? Do states have to give "full faith and  credit" to other state's laws?
Sometimes laws and rights do not coincide, such as the right to refuse medical treatment, but you cannot kill yourself.
Court said there is not a federal right to education, in the case of US Supreme Court v Rodriquez but, school is a tradition, and that most students education is paid for by the US government.
-these cases point out inconsistencies in the Supreme Court rulings
Lawrence v Texas- overturned Bowers v Hardwick- Bowers was 1986 the court case that ruled homosexual conduct was not a fundamental right- the facts in the cases were extremely similiar but, they did not rule there was a right
Depending on how you interepret a right depends on how the court will interpret the right, if a court examines a case under strict scrutiny there is little chance of securing a victory
but in the cases of rational basis scrutiny there is a large posibility that the issue could be changed
Romer v Evans- government is hard to be ruled against (?)
If someone is pushing a right today, is there a limit to what right can be pushed?
Then all these rights are lumped into the right to privacy creating a broad spread that seemingly has no end.



PSC 306, Gordon G.  Martin, VP, Alabama Power, and former congressional lobbyist,  "From Lobbying to Managing: Power and the Enron Scandal," F 15 Apr.  [PPT, large] [HTML]
Mr. Martin, a former Washington lobbyist, and currently Vice President managing south Alabama operations, is alo a trustee of HC.  He holds one Master's degree and (except for the language requirement) virtually a second Master's.



PSC 306, Katheryn Kennedy, Counsel, Office of Governor,  "The Governor, the Legislature, and Public Policy", M 25 Apr.
Distance Education proposal slides: [PPT, large] [HTML]