 |
Appellate Court Simulations in the Classroom ? Faculty and Student Views from the Field
| |
| | Unformatted Document Text:
The Lower Court Decisions: After it was determined that President Bush’s victories in Missouri and California gave him an insurmountable lead in the race for the Republican nomination, the cases were consolidated in Federal District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The court then ruled against the plaintiffs in each case. In the Missouri case, the court agreed with the State that whatever disparate treatment might have been present, the actions of private volunteers did not constitute state action. Second, the court asserted that a rational basis existed for the disparate treatment of the affected groups. Third, the court noted that the right to vote is not the right to a particular outcome; and even if a substantial likelihood of changed turnout was present, it was due to the individual choices of the affected voters, making the issue non-justiciable.
In the California case, the court determined that even if voters whose homes were subject to inspection were less likely to vote, they were not deprived of the right, and no evidence existed to show that the reduced turnout determined the outcome of the election. The court also held that in most two-adult households in the State the female was in charge of domestic matters; therefore the requirement that a female be present did not violate the Constitution. The court rejected California’s claims that Congress exceeded its constitutional powers in passing CRAP. It offered four reasons: (1) Congress provided an adequate nexus between the purpose of the Act and interstate commerce; (2) the national benefits of CRAP, most notably crime reduction, national security and national pride, were sufficient to abrogate sovereign immunity; (3) implementation of the CRAP Model Program was not mandatory; and (4) the judge did not like the Terminator movies.
The Court of Appeals affirmed without opinion, thereby allowing certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court on an expedited basis.
-4-
|
| |
| |
|
|
The Lower Court Decisions: After it was determined that President Bush’s victories in Missouri and
California gave him an insurmountable lead in the race for the Republican nomination, the cases were
consolidated in Federal District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The court then ruled against
the plaintiffs in each case. In the Missouri case, the court agreed with the State that whatever disparate
treatment might have been present, the actions of private volunteers did not constitute state action.
Second, the court asserted that a rational basis existed for the disparate treatment of the affected groups.
Third, the court noted that the right to vote is not the right to a particular outcome; and even if a
substantial likelihood of changed turnout was present, it was due to the individual choices of the affected
voters, making the issue non-justiciable.
In the California case, the court determined that even if voters whose homes were subject to inspection
were less likely to vote, they were not deprived of the right, and no evidence existed to show that the
reduced turnout determined the outcome of the election. The court also held that in most two-adult
households in the State the female was in charge of domestic matters; therefore the requirement that a
female be present did not violate the Constitution. The court rejected California’s claims that Congress
exceeded its constitutional powers in passing CRAP. It offered four reasons: (1) Congress provided an
adequate nexus between the purpose of the Act and interstate commerce; (2) the national benefits of
CRAP, most notably crime reduction, national security and national pride, were sufficient to abrogate
sovereign immunity; (3) implementation of the CRAP Model Program was not mandatory; and (4) the
judge did not like the Terminator movies.
The Court of Appeals affirmed without opinion, thereby allowing certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court on
an expedited basis.
-4-
|
|
 Convention | | All Academic Convention is the premier solution for your association's abstract management solutions needs. | | Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. | | Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! | | Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! | | Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. | | Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! | | Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! | | Click here for more information. |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
