SUNDAYS AT JASA SPRING 2024 SEMESTER

The Supreme Court: When Law and Politics Collide
Mondays at 10:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. 
Virtual Class on Zoom Beginning April 8
Instructor: Leora Harpaz
Email - lharpaz@lharpaz.com


Instructor Bio:
Leora Harpaz is an emeritus professor of constitutional law at Western New England University School of Law as well as founder of the annual Supreme Court Conference where she was a speaker for over 25 years. Since receiving emeritus status, she has been an instructor in several senior learner programs and taught undergraduate law courses in the political science department at Hunter College. She received her B.A. from Stony Brook University and has law degrees from both Boston University and New York University.

Student Suggestions:
I welcome your suggestions for other subjects you’d like to hear about. Please use the following link if you would like to make suggestions for topics you would like covered in upcoming classes:
http://www.lharpaz.com/ContinuingEd/JASA/suggestions/

Class Material:
Material Prepared to be Shared in Class is Available on this webpage at http://www.lharpaz.com/ContinuingEd/JASA/supctlawpoliticscollidespring2024.html




Class 5 - May 13, 2024


U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Supremacy Clause:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Art. I, Section 8 - The Spending Clause:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States. . .


Class 4 - May 6, 2024


Michael Dreeben’s Opening Argument on Behalf of the Justice Department:
“This Court has never recognized absolute criminal immunity for any public official. Petitioner, however, claims that a former president has permanent criminal immunity for his official acts, unless he was first impeached and convicted. His novel theory would immunize former presidents from criminal liability for bribery, treason, sedition, murder, and, here, conspiring to use fraud to overturn the results of an election and perpetuate himself in power. Such presidential immunity has no foundation in the Constitution. The Framers knew too well the dangers of a king who could do no wrong. They therefore devised a system to check abuses of power, especially the use of official power for private gain. Here, the executive branch is enforcing congressional statutes and seeking accountability for Petitioner's alleged misuse of official power to subvert democracy. That is a compelling public interest. In response, Petitioner raises concerns about potential abuses. But established legal safeguards provide layers of protections, with the Article III courts providing the ultimate check. The existing system is a carefully balanced framework. It protects the president but not at the high constitutional cost of blanket criminal immunity. That has been the understanding of every president from the framing through Watergate and up to today. This Court should preserve it.”


Class 3 - April 29, 2024

John Sauer’s Opening Argument on Behalf of Donald Trump:
“Without presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, there can be no presidency as we know it. For 234 years of American history, no president was ever prosecuted for his official acts. The Framers of our Constitution viewed an energetic executive as essential to securing liberty. If a president can be charged, put on trial, and imprisoned for his most controversial decisions as soon as he leaves office, that looming threat will distort the president’s decision-making precisely when bold and fearless action is most needed. Every current president will face de facto blackmail and extortion by his political rivals while he is still in office. The implications of the Court’s decision here extend far beyond the facts of this case. Could President George W. Bush have been sent to prison for obstructing an official proceeding or allegedly lying to Congress to induce war in Iraq? Could President Obama be charged with murder for killing U.S. citizens abroad by drone strike? Could President Biden someday be charged with unlawfully inducing immigrants to enter the country illegally for his border policies? The answer to all these questions is no. Prosecuting the president for his official acts is an innovation with no foothold in history or tradition and incompatible with our constitutional structure. The original meaning of the Executive Vesting Clause, the Framers’ understanding and intent, an unbroken historical tradition spanning 200 years, and policy considerations rooted in the separation of powers all counsel against it.”

Michael Dreeben’s Opening Argument on Behalf of the Justice Department:
“This Court has never recognized absolute criminal immunity for any public official. Petitioner, however, claims that a former president has permanent criminal immunity for his official acts, unless he was first impeached and convicted. His novel theory would immunize former presidents from criminal liability for bribery, treason, sedition, murder, and, here, conspiring to use fraud to overturn the results of an election and perpetuate himself in power. Such presidential immunity has no foundation in the Constitution. The Framers knew too well the dangers of a king who could do no wrong. They therefore devised a system to check abuses of power, especially the use of official power for private gain. Here, the executive branch is enforcing congressional statutes and seeking accountability for Petitioner's alleged misuse of official power to subvert democracy. That is a compelling public interest. In response, Petitioner raises concerns about potential abuses. But established legal safeguards provide layers of protections, with the Article III courts providing the ultimate check. The existing system is a carefully balanced framework. It protects the president but not at the high constitutional cost of blanket criminal immunity. That has been the understanding of every president from the framing through Watergate and up to today. This Court should preserve it.”


U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Supremacy Clause:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

New York Constitution: Article I - Bill Of Rights -  § 11 - Equal protection of laws; discrimination in civil rights prohibited

No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of this state or any subdivision thereof. No person shall, because of race, color, creed or religion, be subjected to any discrimination in his or her civil rights by any other person or by any firm, corporation, or institution, or by the state or any agency or subdivision of the state.

Proposed Amendment to Art. I, § 11 (underlined language would be added)

A. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of this state or any subdivision thereof. No person shall, because of race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, creed, or religion, or sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy, be subjected to any discrimination in his or her their civil rights by any other person or by any firm, corporation, or institution, or by the state or any agency or subdivision of the state pursuant to law.

B. Nothing in this section shall invalidate or prevent the adoption of any law, regulation, program, or practice that is designed to prevent or dismantle discrimination on the basis of a characteristic listed in this section, nor shall any characteristic listed in this section be interpreted to interfere with, limit, or deny the civil rights of any person based upon any other characteristic identified in this section. 

 
Class 2 - April 15, 2024


Second Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

26 U.S.C. § 5845 - Definitions:
(b) Machinegun
The term “machinegun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

Diagram of Bump Stock: https://www.everytown.org/are-bump-stocks-machine-guns/

Gun Sign



Class 1 - April 8, 2024

14th Amendment, Section 3:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

14th Amendment, Section 5:
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


Trump v. Anderson

Per Curiam Opinion:

1. “[F]ederal officers ‘owe their existence & functions to the united voice of the whole, not of a portion, of the people,’ [and therefore] powers over their election and qualifications must be specifically ‘delegated to, rather than reserved by, the States.’”

2. “The ‘patchwork’ that would likely result from state enforcement would ‘sever the direct link that the Framers found so critical between the National Government and the people of the United States’ as a whole. But in a presidential election ‘the impact of the votes cast in each State is affected by the votes cast’ -- or, in this case, the votes not allowed to be cast -- ‘for the various candidates in other States.’” . . . “The disruption would be all the more acute -- and could nullify the votes of millions and change the election result -- if Section 3 enforcement were attempted after the Nation has voted. Nothing in the Constitution requires that we endure such chaos.”

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection:
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Second Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

26 U.S.C. § 5845 - Definitions:
(b) Machinegun
The term “machinegun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

Diagram of Bump Stock: https://www.everytown.org/are-bump-stocks-machine-guns/