1

Govt 3322
Champagne, Room GR 3.802 after class. Also have an office in
MP3.206.
Fall, 2005
Phone (972)883-2927 or (972) 883-4607; e-mail:
tchamp@utdallas.edu
Office hours: M—3:15-7:00pm & W—3:15-4:15pm

Constitutional Law

Introduction

This course examines the structure and functions of American

government from a Constitutional perspective. Among the main
topics in the course are the powers of courts, the President,
and Congress. Affirmative authority for the passage of
legislation and the nature of federalism will also be
examined. The course will focus upon the development of
Constitutional doctrines. Major cases in each of the topic
areas will be analyzed and evaluated. Students will be
expected to read the cases prior to class and contribute to
the in-class analysis of cases.

Required Text

Otis H. Stephens, Jr. and John M. Scheb II, American

Constitutional Law, 3rd edition, (Thomson-West-Wadsworth
Publishing, 2003). The reading assignments will concentrate
on the assigned court cases. You should be able to get used
copies of this text.

Course Requirements

1. Class participation: In general, the course will follow a

lecture-discussion format with heavy emphasis on class
discussion. Socratic method, similar to the general law school
teaching method, will be used at times. Students will be
expected to argue and debate various Constitutional questions.

2. Exams: There will be three in-class exams. Each exam

will be 1/3rd of your grade. Each of these exams will cover
approximately one-third of the course and will consist of a
combination of short answers and essay questions.

Policy on Make-Up Exams

If you can not take an exam on the date noted in this

 2

syllabus, you should call me or leave a message on my machine.

Dial (972) 883-2927 and a message machine is activated after
four rings) explaining why you can not take the test on the
day of the exam. At least send me an e-mail at
tchamp@utdallas.edu. If I have not heard from you by the time of
the exam, you will receive a grade of zero on the exam. I
realize terrible things can happen to people on examination
days--things ranging from dead batteries and missed airplane
connections to hospitalizations and deaths in the family, but
everyone should be able to call and at least leave a message
by the time of the exam regardless of the emergency. You
should have a significant reason for missing the exam. You
will not be excused from the exam if your reasons are that you
are not prepared or that you have an exam in another course.
In general, I expect make-ups to be taken within one week of
the regular exam.

Remember that if you are having problems that are affecting

your performance in the class, talk to me. If a student needs
help, I will try to help and I will be very helpful if I am
aware that the student is trying, but some problem is
preventing high quality work.

Grading

98-100% = A+ (Note that while an A+ does not affect your UTD

GPA, it does increase your LSDAS GPA if you apply to law
school)
92-97% = A
90-91% = A-
88-89% = B+
82-87% = B
80-81% = B-
78-79% = C+
72-77% = C
70-71% = C-
68-69% = D+
62-67% = D
60-61% = D-
Below 60% = F

University policies regarding academic dishonesty will be

strictly enforced.

Class Dates and Assignments

August 22, 24, 29—Introduction

Readings: Marbury v. Madison, p. 65; Eakin v. Raub, p.

67.
 3

August 31, September 5 is Labor Day Holiday, September 7—The

Supreme Court in the Constitutional System

Readings: Dred Scott v. Sandford, p. 69; Ex parte

McCardle, p. 72; Cooper v. Aaron, p. 74; Baker v. Carr, p. 76;
Raines v. Byrd, p. 78; Bush v. Gore, p. 835.

September 12, 14, 19, 21—Congress and the Development of

National Power & Review for Exam 1

Readings: U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, p. 112;

M’Culloch v. Maryland, p. 115; Watkins v. United States, p.
118; Barenblatt v. United States, p. 122; Gibbons v. Ogden, p.
123; Hammer v. Dagenhart, p. 127; Carter v. Carter Coal
Company, p. 129; National Labor Relations Board v. Jones &
Laughlin Steel Corporation, p. 131; United States v. Darby
Lumber Company, p. 135; Wickard v. Filburn,
http://www.michaelariens.com/ConLaw/cases/wickard.htm; Heart
of Atlanta Motel v. United States, p. 138; Katzenbach v.
McClung, p. 140; United States v. Lopez, p. 141; United States
v. Morrison, p. 144; Gonzales v. Raich,
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZS.html
;United States v. Butler, p. 147; Steward Machine Co. v.
Davis, p. 151; South Dakota v. Dole, p. 154; South Carolina v.
Katzenbach, p. 157; City of Boerne v. Flores, p. 159.

September 26—Exam 1

September 28, October 3--Constitutional Underpinnings of the

Presidency. On or about October 3, I think we will be able to
get a guest speaker who is one of the leading experts on the
War Power. As we get closer to this date, I will provide
additional information.

Readings: Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company v. Sawyer,

p. 193; City of New York v. Clinton, p. 198; United States v.
Nixon, p. 200; Clinton v. Jones, p. 202; United States v.
Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation, p. 208; Dames and Moore v.
Regan, p. 211; The Prize Cases, p. 214; Ex Parte Milligan,
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/tribunals/docs/milligan.pdf;
Korematsu v. United States, p. 216; Ex Parte Quirin,
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=
317&invol=1; Rasul v. Bush,
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=
000&invol=03-334

October 5, 10—The Constitution and the Modern Administrative

State

Readings: J.W. Hampton & Company v. United States, p.

 4

238; Schecter Poultry Corporation v. United States, p. 239;

Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, p. 246; Immigration
and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, p. 248; Goldberg v.
Kelly, p. 254; Mathews v. Eldridge, p. 257; Dow Chemical
Company v. United States, p. 260.

October 12, 17, 19—The Dynamics of the Federal System & Review
for Exam 2

Readings: Chisholm v. Georgia, p. 296; National League

of Cities v. Usery, p. 298; Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan
Transit Authority, p. 301; Printz v. United States, p. 305;
Alden v. Maine, p. 310; Cooley v. Board of Port Wardens, p.
317; South Carolina Highway Department v. Barnwell Bros., p.
319; Southern Pacific Railroad Company v. Arizona, p. 321;
Philadelphia v. New Jersey, p. 325; Oregon Waste Systems v.
Department of Environmental Quality, p. 327.

October 24—Exam 2

October 26, 31, November 2, 7 Property Rights and Economic

Freedom

Readings: Dartmouth College v. Woodward, p. 397; Charles

River Bridge Company v. Warren Bridge Company, p. 399; Home
Building and Loan Association v. Blaisdell, p. 401; The
Slaughterhouse Cases, p. 404; Lochner v. New York, p. 408;
Adkins v. Childrens’s Hospital, p. 412; West Coast Hotel
Company v. Parrish, p. 416; Ferguson v. Skrupa, p. 419; Hawaii
Housing Authority v. Midkiff, p. 421; Dolan v. City of Tigard,
p. 421; Kelo v. New London,
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=
000&invol=04-108.

November 9, 14--Constitutional Sources of Civil Rights and

Liberties

Readings: Carmell v. Texas, p. 355; DeShaney v.

Winnebago Social Services, p. 356; Barron v. Baltimore, p.
358; Hurtado v. California, p. 360; Chicago, Burlington and
Quincy Railroad Company v. Chicago, p. 362; Palko v.
Connecticut, p. 363; Adamson v. California, p. 365; Rochin v.
California, p. 369; Duncan v. Louisiana, p. 371.

November 16, 21, 23—Equal Protection and the Anti-

discrimination Principle; Review for the exam

Readings: The Civil Rights Cases, p. 755; Plessy v.

Ferguson, p. 758; Brown v. Board of Education v. Topeka I, p.
 5

761; Brown v. Board of Education v. Topeka II, p. 763; Loving

v. Virginia, p. 764; Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of
Education, p. 767; Missouri v. Jenkins, p. 769; Adarand
Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, p. 773; Gratz v. Bollinger,
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=
000&invol=02-516; Grutter v. Bollinger,
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/23jun20030800/www.supr
emecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/02-241.pdf ;Frontiero v.
Richardson, p. 777; United States v. Virginia, p. 781; Board
of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, p. 783;
Romer v. Evans, p. 788; Lawrence v. Texas,
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=
000&invol=02-102

November 28--Exam # 3