JUDICIAL POWER


Clark D. Cunningham                                                                          Fall 2003

Office: Room 442

Phone: (404) 651-1242 Fax: (404) 651-2092

E-mail: cdcunningham@gsu.edu

Faculty Assistant: Karen Butler (Room 402 651-3432 kpbutler@gsu.edu)

 


SYLLABUS (As of November 3, 2003 )

8/19/03 Class One

INTRODUCTION TO LEGAL SYSTEM OF INDIA; OVERVIEW OF INDIAN HISTORY
Instructions for Class Preparation
  1. Peter Waldman, "Jurists' Prudence: India's Supreme Court Makes Rule of Law A Way of Governing," Wall Street Journal (May 6, 1966 p. 1).
  2.  Clark D. Cunningham, "Why American Lawyers Should Go to India," (pdf file)16 Law & Social Inquiry 777-790 (1991) (excerpts)
  3.  Biography of M.K. Gandhi
  4.  Guide to the movie, Gandhi
  5. Maps of India
    1. India under British rule
    2. India and Pakistan as of 1970
  6. Edited Introductions to Final Papers Submitted for Fall 2002
  7. Key provisions of the Indian Constitution
    1.  Part III: Fundamental Rights
    2.  Part IV: Directive Principles


8/26/03 Class Two
INTRODUCTION TO THEMES OF THE COURSE
Instructions for Class Preparation

  1. Bush v. Gore, 121 S. Ct. 525 (2000).
  2.  Mark Hamblett, “Terror Cases Put U.S. Judges in Tough Spot,"(pdf file) 114 Fulton County Daily Report No. 133 (July 10, 2003).
  3.  Jose Padilla v. Donald Rumsfeld
    1.  Declaration of Michael H. Mobbs (pdf file), Special Advisor to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (August 27, 2002)
    2.  256 F. Supp.2d 218 (S.D.N.Y. 4/4/03)
    3.  Photograph of Jose Padilla

8/29/03Tentative Paper Topic due (email).

9/2/03Class Three

DOING RESEARCH ON INDIAN LAW–APPLIED TO PROPOSED PAPER TOPICS
Instructions for Class Preparation

No new reading.

9/8/03Preliminary bibliography for paper due (email)

9/9/03. No class meeting.

Individual conferences in Room 442 on paper topics.

 

9/15/03    Abstract and revised bibliography for paper due (email)

9/16/03:   Class Four

Secure instructor's approval of paper proposal

 Instructions for Class Preparation

Assigned Readings

  1. Gopalan Moot Court Exercise Instructions
  2. The Preventive Detention Act, 1950.
  3. Tripathi P.K. "Perspectives on the American Constitutional Influence on the Constitution of India," in Constitutionalism in Asia,Lawrence W. Beer (Ed.), University of Maryland (1989).
  4. Granville Austin, The Indian Constitution (1996) A-89 to A-100
  5. Granville Austin, Working a Democratic Constitution (1999) A-101 to A-108
  6. Review Articles 19, 21 and 22 of the Indian Constitution

9/23/03. No class meeting.

Individual conferences in Room 442 on papers.

 

9/30/03: Class Five

Assigned Readings

  1. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 S.C. 27 (scan--will have been discussed during Class Four)
  2. Percival Spear, II A History of India 258-67 ("Post-Nehru India")(1979)
  3. Granville Austin, Working a Democratic Constitution 295-313, 334-43, 393-5
  4. Important persons in the Habeas Corpus case (photographs)
  5. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 S.C. 597
  6. Justice P.N. Bhagwati (later Chief Justice) (photograph)
  7. Photograph of Maneka Gandi in 2001 (then serving as national Minister of State for Statistics and Programme Administration)
  8. Francis Coralie v Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1981 S.C. 746.

 

10/7/03. No class meeting.

Optional individual conferences in Room 442 on papers.

First draft due by noon, Friday, October 10 (send as text file attachment to email).

 

10/14/03: Class Six: Public Interest Litigation in the U.S. and India

Assigned Readings (Pick up at 4th Floor desk)

  1. Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208 (1974)
  2. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983)
  3. Cunningham, "Finding the Roots of India's Public Interest Litigation Revolution"
  4. Cunningham, "Public Interest Litigation in the Indian Supreme Court," 29 J. Indian Law Institute 494 (1987)

10/21/03: Office Conferences.

 

10/28/03: Class Seven: Discuss all first drafts.

 

 

11/4/03: Class Eight:

Assigned Readings (Pick up at 4th Floor desk)

Preventive Detention
  1. Linda Greenhouse, "Justices Face Decision on Accepting 9/11 Cases," New York Times A1(Nov. 3, 2003)
  2. Padilla v Rumsfeld, 233 F.Supp.2d 564 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)
  3. "National Security Act: A Weapon of Repression," Peoples Union for Civil Liberty Bulletin (India) (May 1981)
  4. A.K. Roy v. Union of India, 1982 AIR S.C. 710 (1981)

    Capital Punishment

  5. Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002)
  6. Bachan Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1980 S.C. 898
  7. "Mandela Swears in First Constitutional Court," Washington Post (Feb 15, 1995)
  8. State v. Makwanyane, 1995 SACLR 218 (Const. Ct. S. Africa)

    Gender Justice

  9. Latifi v Union of India, 2002 LRI 36 (S. Ct. India)
  10. Prior v Battle, 1997 SACLR 50 (High Ct. Transkei S. Africa)
  11. Mabuza v Mbatha, 2003 SACLR 21 (Cape Good Hope Prov. Div. S. Africa)

 

Rules and Deadlines for Seminar Paper

Format: 12 point font (Times Roman), one-inch margins (on top, bottom, left and right), double-spaced text, single-spaced footnotes. (Please use footnotes, not end notes.) Follow Blue Book for citations with text and in footnotes. There is no minimum number of footnotes or citations.

Length:

First draft: 15 page minimum, 20 page maximum

Final paper: 25 page minimum, 30 page maximum

(Minimum and maximum page lengths will be adjusted if a student is approved by the instructor to take the course for 3 credits.)

Note that the first draft should be of the same finished quality as would be expected of the final paper, e.g. the quality of an appellate brief or law review note. The first draft should stand on its own as a potentially publishable piece; citations should be complete and correct. The grade on either the first or final draft may be reduced SHARPLY for persistent spelling errors, typographical errors, or other evidence of sloppiness. The first draft will be posted on the course web site to be reviewed by your fellow students and discussed in class.


Topic: The topic must compare the legal systems of at least two countries. One of those countries must be India. The comparison must relate to constitutional law, broadly defined to include the constitutional role of courts within the legal system of a country as well as substantive principles based on interpreting the text of a constitution. The first draft must include at least preliminary description and analysis of relevant law from the countries being compared. The final draft will probably include additional cases, law review articles and other relevant authorities as the result of additional research as well as revised analysis based on comments received from the instructor and in class discussion.

 

8/29   Submit paper proposal by email

9/8     Preliminary bibliography for paper due (email)

9/15   Abstract and revised bibliography for paper due (email)

9/16   Secure approval of paper proposal

10/10 First draft due by noon (as a text file attachment to email)

11/26 Final paper due by noon in my mailbox on 4th floor with second copy sent by email.

 

Absent good cause for lateness, grades on first and final draft will be reduced by 2 points for every business day (Monday - Friday) measured from noon. (For example a final paper turned in at 11:55am on December 1 will have the grade reduced by 2 points; the same paper turned in at 12:01pm on December 1 will be reduced by 4 points.) If final paper is not submitted by noon on 12/8 a failing grade will be entered for the course.


Grading: 10% class participation, 40% first draft, 50% final paper. You are encouraged to send me an explanatory email if you are late, absent or inadequately prepared for a class.