Constitutional Law I
Howarth
Spring 1999
ESSAY QUESTION I (1 hour)
Legislators in Pennsylvania were concerned that young women from Pennsylvania were going to New York to have abortions, thereby circumventing Pennsylvania's more restrictive laws requiring parental consent before a minor could obtain an abortion. Legislators in New York were also concerned about their state becoming an abortion capital for the region. The New York legislature enacted a statute requiring that insurance payments for abortion services performed in the State of New York will only be available for insurance policies issued to residents of New York. This statute was a compromise between those lawmakers who wanted no restrictions and those who wanted a complete ban on providing abortion services to non-New Yorkers. Proponents of the statute point out that no one is completely barred from obtaining an abortion in New York; the potential loss of insurance payment simply creates an economic disincentive.Jane Doe is a resident of New Jersey who is sexually active. She previously had an abortion in a New York City hospital, which she considers to be the best health facility available to her. She led the unsuccessful opposition to New York's new law, because she wants the security of knowing that if she gets pregnant again, she will be able to obtain an abortion in New York City. She has filed a suit in federal court challenging the constitutionality of New York's statute. You are the law clerk for the federal district court judge who has received the lawsuit. The judge has asked you for a memo on the constitutional issues involved.
ESSAY QUESTION II (One hour)
As you know, the words of the Constitution are often ambiguous, leading to a variety of choices regarding the meaning to be given to the text. The Supreme Court, charged with the obligation of rendering authoritative interpretations of the text, is sometimes more successful than at other times. Please identify the Supreme Court opinion read and discussed in this class which you believe was the example of the Court's biggest failure in Constitutional interpretation. Describe the Court's treatment of the issue of the case, critique the Court's constitutional interpretation in that case, and then propose an alternative Constitutional interpretation that you believe would make the Constitution more worthy of respect. (Presumably you also believe that the Supreme Court itself would be more worthy of respect had it followed your analysis.) This essay is designed to take full advantage of what you have learned about the strengths and weaknesses of the major approaches to or methods of constitutional interpretation.You may write about any case studied in the course. Please take some time to think about your response before writing. This essay will be graded on knowledge and understanding of the case selected, knowledge and understanding of the methods of constitutional analysis, clarity, thoughtfulness, and originality. You can write about any case studied in the course, but the list below is provided to spark your memory about some of the options.
Plessy v. Ferguson
Brown v. Board of Education
Marbury v. Madison
Baker v. Carr
The Steel Seizure Case
United States v. Nixon
Clinton v. Jones
INS v. Chadha
Bowsher v. Synar
Morrison v. Olson
McCulloch v. Maryland
Lopez v. United States
Katzenback v. Morgan
Flores v. City of Boerne
Garcia v. SAMTA
Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways
Skinner v. Oklahoma
Lochner v. New York
Griswold v. Connecticut
Roe v. Wade
Casey v. Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania
Bowers v. Hardwick
Washington v. Glucksberg