for your classmates so now it's recording and your classmates who are not on the call are probably like what are they laughing at but anyway so that's the fun story for today but um I this is my F this is one of my favorite weeks to teach because we are digging a little bit deeper um all of you should have received extensive feedback from me and I want to preface before I go any further with a couple things which is if I wrote you a lot of feedback it does not mean that you did poorly that you failed that I think you're a bad student none of that cuz I got a couple panicked emails that were like Professor you wrote me warn peace and um I I do that because I want to see you all improve and get to that next level that I know you can reach so please don't take it as an affront to your work or the quality of your work I just know that you guys can take it to that next level because how boring would it be if you guys never improved the whole point that you're here in this class and in your other classes is that you're learning and week to week to week you should be improving right so um I just wanted to start out with that little tidbit and then remember when I said not to use filler words well my friends I'm looking at you guys because I had a ton of students use filler words so again as you write I want you all to look at your writing and ask a few things which is first and foremost did I use first person if you did kill it do not use first person okay so the other thing is be more confident in your writing I'm and and this is normal please don't think this is abnormal at this stage we're at the very beginning of this term so it's understandable but try not to preface your position and by that I mean don't say it might be or maybe or I could be wrong I actually saw a couple of those and it just killed my Professor Soul because you should even if you personally think that your rationale may not be 100% you don't want your client to think that and you don't want the reader to think that so make sure that your writing is confident even if internally you may be questioning it okay and I see Dale rais his hand yeah Dale hello oh let's see if you put it in the chat let me see oh hold on I'm working on two screens so let's see I use the words I advise because the question itself used that word my mistake oh that's okay Dale and that's an and and it's not really a mistake I don't want you to think that you're wrong um and you're right it did say what do you advise but typically in legal writing like when I would write to the lead attorney when I was first starting out I would I I would avoid saying I think because it's not the law according to Shaw right I wish it was it would be like water burer and rainbows every day but um instead you need to preface it as to the law is blah and that comes off stronger and it's more concise and psychologically the reader will read that and think oh okay this is the position as opposed to saying I thinkk or I advise and I get why you would use it don't get me wrong I 100% understand it but it's stronger to phrase it the other way so thank you for saying that so essentially say what you think versus prefacing it and then a lot of you actually caught this and I was super pumped about this is and many of you caught that it doesn't have to be just National and it doesn't just have to be Regional meaning it didn't have to be either or it could be drum roll both right so and that kind of hedged on this week's theme which is federalism that sense of shared power and so some of y'all caught on to that and for those of y'all that did not it's okay but um that is a good lesson learned as to try to think outside the box sometimes right so the answer may not be either or it may be both um so that was a cool tidbit that I saw for many of you guys now the next thing I'm going to say may sound harsh and I don't mean it to be but ultimately Dr helie and I we don't care what your conclusion is what we care about is how you got there okay so let me put it another way if you put Regional Focus power if you put National Focus power if you said both that's fine that's not right and it's not wrong what we care about is how did you get there what rationale are you using to support your conclusion that's what really matters right so we focus on your logic so that should give you guys a a little bit of a relief I think moving forward don't approach an assignment thinking oh my gosh I think I'm wrong I think it's this what you should be asking yourself is does my argument makes sense that's the million-dollar question um as you move forward all right so moving forward practice incorporating some of the readings as well so I encourage a lot of you in my feedback that um another good thing to do as we move forward is say as Federalist paper number 51 stated or as Marberry versus Madison held say something to that effect now the follow-up question that many of you are thinking and I'm a mind reader is well what about the word count that will not work against you meaning if you cite a case and your word count is supposed to be let's say a 100 words like it is this week and I'll talk about that here in a second um and you're at 110 words and you're like oh crud I need to cut out the references don't we're not going to count that against you okay that would again be kind of cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs so you have a couple options when you reference a case you can reference it within your work so again you could say as marbor versus Madison held or something to that effect or you can even footnote it um I actually like it when I see students do that because I I like and again this is just kind of a personal thing I think it looks nice um but you can footnote it maybe you know put the number one go down and then have the case citation and that again is another good way to organize or structure your response um so you have both options all right so yay now we get to the fun stuff so this week again think about the fact we don't care about your conclusion we care about how you use the cases they're your tools and with that being said there's something to think about when you buy a house you don't well you may care about the color right that can be fixed though it's whether the house is built on a good foundation that matters right so your greatest tool as a legal writer is your case law don't forget it just like a plumber has his or her tools so do you in terms of being a legal writer so I want you as you move forward to create a strong foundation for the legal house that you're creating and don't forget to use case law it always amazes me term after term term how when we get to the last week I still have students that don't reference any case law and it like breaks my heart there's like a little violin playing it's very sad um because that is the bulk of what your job is as a legal writer is to use that casea to support and strengthen whatever position you're taking so ask yourself whether or not you've used case law and whether or not you've used it effectively all right so that brings me to this week's material so it says this discussion assignment has two parts you need to finish both parts limit your response post to 100 words total okay so for uh the first part judicial review you're supposed to select one and only one of the following questions to discuss in this post put please at least uh oh that's a typo please respond to at least uh two peers right so your response poster peers again you don't have to abide by that 100w limit but your what let's say you choose question one your response to question one should be no more than a 100 words likewise whatever you choose for part two should be no more than 100 words okay so again if you go uh let's say 110 words we're not going to ding you you're not going to fail so if you're a little over that's quite all right so um again 100 words for number part one 100 words for part two please don't go too far over that um but ask yourself whether or not you use case law I want to see case law tucked in there now with that being said I don't want you to throw 50 cases in there just to be like boom you asked for case law you got it don't do that um if you just have one case reference that's okay what I'm looking for this week is did you site case law and did you use it well does it make sense does it actually help your argument don't just throw case law in there just to throw it in okay all right so that brings me to this week's cases which again are some of my favorites because the stories behind them are amazing so we'll tackle first and foremost the case that every law student this week is learning in every law school across the United States which is Marberry versus Madison Maryland is a typo I apologize for that federalism defined which is a m versus Maryland another great case and then we'll look at Gibbons V Ogden to look at what power does Congress have right what are their limitations and what are their abilities and then we'll look at Prince and then we'll look at Hamilton paper number 78 which is a great one to explore so without further Ado let's just dig in um before we dig into the case though a little RNR and by RNR I do not mean rest and relaxation unfortunately um RNR for my class means repeat recap okay so Pop Quiz does the US Constitution say anything about the powers of the United States Supreme Court anybody get that let's see try to see if anybody up okay good see this is what I don't like about having uh multiple screens because it switches sides on me which is not fun okay hold on where did my thing go hold on guys I'm gonna stop sharing for just a second because oh there we go let me put this up and then there we go sorry about that my double screens were confusing me I'm as I'm not technologically savvy as as you guys could probably guess okay so no absolutely not which our founding fathers were smart cookies but this vagueness that is found in a lot of our United States Constitution has given us a little bit of feathers being ruffled right and specifically let's look at this next question does it say who can serve as a Supreme Court Justice how many can serve at one time how we get rid of one who Miss behaves does it say anything about any of that okay you guys are seeing a theme so no doesn't say anything like that in fact in article 3 section one which defines the Supreme Court it mentions it once right and then it just says that they shall hold their offices during good behavior but what does that even mean good behavior there's only I'm sorry oh never you kind of cut out there a little bit boy can you say that again I'm sorry oh some of that comes from the Federalist 78 yes it does you're absolutely right and we'll tackle that here in a second because we'll build up to what motivated that um and how that Federalist Paper 78 actually inspired our first case that we'll look into so it's really neat to see this circular type of logic flowing from not only the case law but the rationale that inspired that case law and history because history matters so how did the Supreme Court become the final word how did they this group of individuals get the power and the authority to say what the law is literally across the land right how did they get this ability and the answer Falls to this case right here guys which again is my favorite case so I want to set the stage though because the when you read the case and I want you guys to be honest with me when you read this case how many of you felt like you needed to drink 10 cups of coffee and um have like a legal thesaurus next to you at all times how many of you felt like that when you were reading this yep absolutely okay so don't feel bad it's especially for that case the language the way in which they describe things it's just different right but what you don't get when you read that case is the history behind it what inspired Marbury versus Madison so buckle up because I am about to tell you one of the best legal stories I heard ever while I was in law school and it's been burned in my brain I'm going to share it with you guys now we think our presidential debate and our presidential elections right now are contentious and they are however there was another contentious presidential debate between John Adams and who did he run out run uh who was his opponent Jefferson Bingo good old Thomas Jefferson so Thomas Jefferson was an anti-federalist John Adams was a staunch Federalist right so two completely different schools of thought right now Adams took for granted that he would be reelected he was like I got it in the bag but alas he lost and he did something pretty sneaky so before he left office in a time period which we typically call the lame duck session right that's a SE SE time period in which typically and I say typically the president doesn't do anything they kind of just Coast it until they walk out the door right John was like oh no I have a little idea so he started appointing Federalist judges flooding them in right he's like he's kind of like Oprah like you get a judge ship you get a everybody gets a judge ship right and so he thought he was pretty Savvy now here is where the story gets interesting the person that was to deliver these appointments was none other than John Marshall now why should y'all know that name he became the Supreme Court Justice yes on this case so the very person that messed the whole deal up is the very person that's ruling on the case can you imagine if that happened today I would not want to even open my computer so but this is the funny part and this is the part that they don't include in the opinion now what they don't tell you is why why didn't he get that appointment to Marbury does anybody know it's a very human thing that I think that most of us have probably done so at that point they didn't have email they didn't have cell phones they had to deliver these appointments by horseback so Marshall's riding his horse and he stops off at a pub at a Tavern right and he did something that I think again many of us have probably done which is his Famous Last Words which was are you ready for this I'm just gonna have one does anybody just have one no so Marshall tied one on too many got you know three sheets to the wind and oh darn by the time he came to he realized he didn't deliver that appointment to Marbury so poor Marbury is like sitting there like where's Marshall what the hey like where did he go but it was too late by that time Jefferson had already come in and what do you think he said to Marbury when Marbury was like Hey dude I I need my appointment Jefferson was basically like screw you I don't want any more Federalists flooding my my you know benches absolutely not so he wasn't going to honor marber's appointment and so the million-dollar question facing this court which again was headed by John Marshall the very guy that caused this whole chaos was should they force um Thomas Jefferson to honor this appointment to Marbury right so it gets a little more interesting than that let me go down here and I put this here for you guys I like to tell the story as opposed to showing the slide because I just I want your attention but what's interesting is when Jefferson was um elected this is another fun fact John Marshall was actually his cousin his third cousin and they hated each other so you have John Marshall and Jefferson butting heads hate each other and the story goes that when he uh Marshall was holding the Bible for Jefferson to take his oath of office they were basically talking trash to each other the whole time like I hate you I hate you too and so to say that this case was contentious would be an understatement okay so at that point right yeah you're not wrong Martin Martin said nothing's changed yeah it's you know it's always been an interesting Dynamic right um so Marshall knew that this case could make or break the Supreme Court nobody had respect for the Supreme Court at that point in fact and I say this literally they were literally in a broom closet they didn't have this Grand beautiful courtroom that they have today um nobody knew what their place was they weren't respected and so they basically again were put in like a broom closet so when this case came before them Marshall took them and this kind of sounds like a horror movie but to a cabin in the woods and they brought a ton of wine with them and they spent three months crafting this decision because again they knew they were smart cookies they knew that this could give them Authority but also set the stage moving forward for the court to have the power to do something anything right so one of my favorite things about John Marshall because he's one of my favorite justices and I usually don't give my personal opinion but I just think he's a funny historical figure um is he had this rule in the cabin and said that would only drink wine on rainy days so Marshall would say on sunny days are you ready for this so brilliant he would say our jurisdiction is so vast that it might be raining somewhere so basically Marshall did not learn his lesson uh drank a lot but at the same time I would say that there's something to be said for the fact that they crafted one of the most important legal decisions in history so I guess wine is good for the heart and the legal Soul uh that's the moral of the story I got from that yes Ashley you might say it's like the original 5:00 somewhere yeah I like that so the issues ultimately before the court was has the applicant meaning Marbury the guy who got and excuse my language but got screwed out of his judicial appointment does he have the right to the commission right the second issue before The Supreme Court was okay well if he has that right and the right has been violated is there a remedy can the the court provide some type of solution right and then the third question third issue if there is a remedy is it mandamus now pause pump the brakes I told you in the first lesson that if you ever come across a word that you don't know what it means you should instantly pump the brakes and look it up so somebody tell me break it down if I'm Bob at the bar and I tell you you know what the heck is mandamus how would you describe to me what mandamus is a mandate that the court the Supreme Court would have the authority to mandate Jefferson for example to do something I love it and you know what McKenzie my favorite thing that you said and I want you to start breaking it down simply right I want you to get if you can break it down and this is what I usually say to my students if you can break it down to Bob at the bar then you know your stuff if you can break down very complex subjects and Concepts to anybody then know your stuff and McKenzie you did that beautifully especially at the end where you said make him do something that's what Mand damus is it's making somebody do something so very good all right so with that being said the answer to number one was when the commission was signed by the president meaning John Adams the appointment was made so they said yes he has the right to the commission because John Adams he put his John Hancock all those different Folks at that time um on that Commission so that was a for answer number two though if he has a right and the right has been violated is there remedy and they said well yeah of course every person can turn to the law to write or wrong so that's why you're here Marbury right so they said the doors open to all now number three if there is a remedy is it mandamus and they said the country affords him a remedy but what is the power of the Court who are they to tell the president what to do now I really want you to kind of take a pause for a second we have three branches of government right we all know this we have the executive the legislature the Judiciary and everybody's supposed to stay within their wheelhouse right so that is what the court is saying is we can't make Jefferson recognize this appointment we can't do that because that's not in our wheelhouse we can't make X do y but we do have the right to and this is so beautiful okay ready drum roll judicial review so think about how beautifully simple that was guys is that they said we can't make Jefferson do this so they're staying on Jefferson's good side because remember Jefferson he's not a happy camper you know he kind of was Huffy Puffy a lot of the time right so they have to stay on his good side because if they don't he could easily kill the Supreme Court at that point because at that point they lacked Power Authority any type of responsibility nobody really knew what they were so they didn't want to make him mad but they still had to create a niche for themselves and that's exactly what they did so there's nothing in the United States Constitution that says what the Supreme Court has the power to do they create they themselves created that power through the concept of judicial review which that concept means that they say what the law is period now there's a much more complicated way to describe that of course but again I like to kiss keep it simple silly so again judicial review and its most basic form gives the Supreme Court the right to say what the law is Tada so think about that and how monumentally simple but yet powerful that one phrase is so in a nutshell it was a legal for Madison to withhold the delivery appointments however it was beyond the power of the Supreme Court to order him to deliver them and again that is the longer definition of digtial review but they have the final say that's what I want you to take away from this case Okay so each case and this is a suggestion for you guys as you take notes or type out your notes or however you do it you should provide at least like a one sentence summary of that case so for uh Marbury versus Madison your one sentence may be judicial review they have the power to say what the law is Boom so that way as we move forward you'll have a running list of all the cases that we go through and it'll be much easier to look over at your list and say oh yeah that case did this as opposed to rereading the whole thing okay so that's my that's my little suggestion moving forward so and Michael said checks and balances absolutely Patrick saidy yet we have the executive branch and legislative branch trying to force the judicial branch to undertake a more expansive ethics process current day yeah it's it's you know what I love about this course Patrick and for a lot of you who may be thinking the same thing is as we go through you're G to say holy cow we're history has a funny way of repeating itself and you'll never and I want to emphasize something you will never hear my personal opinion about politics because my opinion does not matter but you will hear me say consider this as food for thought that's usually my my go-to right and it is interesting as food for thought to think about how the debates that you see let's say in the Federalist papers that you guys are reading this week are still the debates that we're having now so again it's not anything new but what a beautiful thing it is I think and this is my personal opinion that we can debate this I think that's awesome and I love it especially right now um I'm preparing our pre-law society to have a a mock court trial right and they're horrified they are absolutely terrified and I tell him good you should be terrified because that one shows me you care but two I want you to be okay with not agreeing with somebody that's okay and that's a beautiful thing right so anyway neither here nor there Martin said is that a power or a right or is it the same oh you know what I don't have an answer for that I'm going to have to think about that so I'm going to put a pen in that and I'll come back to that I may follow up with a video about that because that's is a fantastic question that I don't want to answer just yet so I kind of want to give that a little more thought is that okay but that is a very good question okay all right so now we walk a little bit further to the second question of the week which is where do you find the powers reserved to the federal government well article one so article one section 8 um enumerates a few things but you can read along with me if you'd like the Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes duties impost and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general well welfare of the United States but all duties and post excises shall be uniform throughout the United States so notice Article 1 Section 8 says enumerated powers enumerated powers that means that we know for a fact that these are the powers that Congress has under their belts right now let's go a little bit further Article 1 Section 8 specifies the powers of congress in great detail these powers are limited to those listed and those that are are you ready for these m words necessary and proper to carry them out all their lawmaking powers are left to the states the first Congress concerned that the limited nature of the federal government let me move my face was not clear enough in the original Constitution later adopted amendment 10 which reserves to the states or to the people all the powers not specifically granted to the federal government so that is just a summary for you but the takeaway from that is we have these enumerated powers which we just read together but we also have this door right and it goes and it Creeks open just a little bit and it gives them the ability to craft new powers new uh authority over the states as long as they can say it's necessary Bo and proper but you guys should be asking what is that even mean right so we have the 10th Amendment of course which says the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the states or reserved to the states unless and again I want to put the pen in it unless they consider something necessary and proper that should be like the little Aster at the end of the 10th Amendment right so that brings us to molik versus Maryland which again is a fantastic case full of an amazing story and I think I said this in the first class but I want to reiterate it no case makes it to the Supreme Court if it's boring okay these cases have amazing stories behind them so likewise this was a huge Core case defining federalism so in your notes as you write down um your hopefully one sentence description of each case as we move forward make sure to put next to molik versus Maryland defined federalism period okay now there's this fine balance between the federal and the state and in the first week of class you guys kind of dipped your toes into that issue because we know that having just all the power with the national government or just all the power with the regional government meaning federal or States may have its benefits but the magic really comes to fruition when they share power right but the question is how much should they share and what goes to the feds and what goes to the states right so that's what this case really touches on now in 1816 Congress passed a law to incorporate the bank of the United States meaning a national bank so it wasn't like a private bank it was the national federal bank right and so they have that power that's an enumerated power per article one they can coin money regulate it and so ultimately they said you know what this is the best way to achieve coining money and regulating it is that we had this National Bank and so they started to set up shop in many states um issuing money notes and the first one was actually in good old Philly right so that's important I want you to kind of perk your ears up and note that the First National Bank was in Philadelphia not Maryland okay and there's a reason I'm emphasizing that the second one opened up in Maryland by McCullen now at that point Maryland punches back they're pissed right they're like absolutely not they said this isn't Maryland we can tax you so they started taxing the federal government and they said you don't have the power your your article one section 8 power doesn't say you can open a bank and so they're like screw you we're going to tax you so they actually tried to tax mccullock the bank manager and astronomical amount of money and molic was like uh no thank you absolutely not so he refused to pay the tax Maryland was punching back they weren't happy so we have a major buding of heads between federal and state right so they're gonna duke it out so this is my favorite thing John Marshall he comes back into the story so hi John he's back right so you'll see John in a bunch of these cases and I think it helps to see his name and think of something are you ready for this this I like to think of John Marshall not looking like this but you remember back in the day Arnold sorger would say like and I do horrible Impressions and I'm so sorry for what I'm about to do but he's like I want pump you up right so with that in mind think about he always wants to pump up the power of the federal government so anytime you see his name I want you to instantly know the feds are gonna win like and I I don't even say that jokingly whenever you see John Marshall's name in an opinion know that Federal power is just going to go like you know it's again G to be like Arnold sweger very beefy right so I hope that visual helped but there are several arguments that were made in this case right the first one was and this is by the the federal government right this is mullik arguing this he's saying look the branches are doing their job they set up a bank already there's presidents because remember Maryland wasn't the first place that the National Bank set up shop the first place was in Philadelphia so basically mccullock is arguing we this is not the first time this is happened and nobody else has had an issue with this but you Maryland right the second argument that was made and this makes um Libertarians probably scream and silently in their sleep but this was an argument that was made he argued that they have ultimate sovereignty meaning the federal government and his argument was look you the people voted for these representatives in Congress in the Senate and so as a result we can do whatever we want because you gave us the power so states don't have ultimate sovereignty in this Arena yikes right so um essentially Congress gets to determine what implied powers means as long as it's rational now the third argument this is the last and this is something that's lasted to this day is the What's called the elastic clause now when you see that that reference I want you to instantly think necessary and proper that's what that Clause is reference so um I don't have a rubber band I thought I should have grabbed one but for a rubber band when you go like this you're expanding it right because it's elastic so you're whoop it gets bigger so that's exactly what necessary Ander is doing if the federal government the legislature believes that they should regulate something because it's necessary and proper then like a elastic rubber band The Power of the federal government expands right do you like my sound effect um so they said in order to execute previous Powers so they're saying in order to do our job um what like and I'm trying to think of a way in which they probably say this so they're saying essentially let us help us help you that's their argument so let us expand our powers so we can do our job that's their essential argument right so the intent of the founders was to allow elastic clause to expand Powers not limited so they're arguing the founders included that necessary and proper clause in order to allow us to expand our powers because just like the Ninth Amendment and think about this just like the Ninth Amendment basically says if a right is not written down in the Bill of Rights it doesn't mean it doesn't exist right so put another way there's nothing in the United States Constitution that even mentions mentions or references marriage nothing but yet through the Ninth Amendment our Supreme Court has said yes uh people of different races can get married loving V Virginia right that's a an expansion of power so they're again saying that this is a catchall this allows Congress the the legislature to do their job in a way that perhaps the founders didn't think about right so this was a huge win for the national government um it gave them the ability to decide how it wants to do it job so this is the first time in which um the court said yeah you can do that federal government you can create more power for yourself through the necessary and proper clause okay so now we're going to take it one step further okay we're we're taking baby steps through the powers right so now we get to the interstate commerce clause the interstate commerce clause refers to article one section 8 Tada um clause three of the Constitution which says to regulate commerce with foreign Nations and among the several States and with the Indian tribes right now let's take a step forward that brings us to Gibbons V Ogden now before I even go one step further you have what's called interstate and then you have a concept called intrastate here we're dealing with Interstate meaning the federal government has the power to regulate activity that occurs among the states meaning if I um Let me Give an example if I'm transporting something from Texas to Louisiana just me crossing a toe over that state line instantly blankets me with the federal power meaning the federal government can regulate my activity because I'm crossing state lines but if I'm just staying in one state that's ENT trust State and arguably it's a little tougher for the federal government to regulate it's not possible but it's a little tougher so in Gib be Ogden we're talking about inter state meaning more than one state is involved okay so this is another Marshall case so any clue as to how he may rule y'all should know this he's going to pump it up let's see yes absolutely absolutely so he's going to vote for the feds he's going to pump up that power it's getting pretty beefy right so Gibbons V Ogden another Amazing Story just because again there's a lot of human uh dynamic in it right but you may not have gotten that when you read it but I'm going to bring it to life for you so here and you guys already know what interstate intrate means but we have an individual named Folton now many of us learn about Fon in elementary school what do we learn about Folton who is Folton and I don't mean the coffee any guesses okay y'all ready I'm gonna I'm gonna go to the next bullet point and y'all are going to say oh okay you ready he invented the steamboat the B and Steamboat right so now I imagine many of you are like oh yeah yes d got it he said invented the steamboat absolutely so F invented the steamboat and at that point Livingston teamed up with Folton and they did so to secure licenses to navigate Rivers because at that time you had to go to the federal government to get a license to navigate the river right now you all know that Rivers blow across state lines period the end the Mississippi River goes to the very top of our country all the way down to the Gulf of Mexico right um so with that being said that's Interstate which would be bum bum bum Federal territory right but there was an issue Ogden who was actually at that time the former New Jersey governor he fights their Monopoly he's like this is Bogus the only people and this is what I imagine him saying guys he didn't actually use the word bogus but he's basically saying look Livingston and Folton that's bull because they're the only ones who can get this license now they can navigate the entire River make all the money and that's bull right so he's not happy but eventually if you if you can't win them join them right or if you can't beat them join them so he buys a franchise from Folton and this um allows him to navigate that River but he has to give a cut of the money to um to Folton right so he gets Gibbons as a partner so him and Gibbons are buds they're like best friends super super close um I Envision them having like sleepovers and braiding each other's hair like they love each other they're really close however like many friendships something happens right so they get mad at each other and The Story Goes allegedly it was over a woman and they're pretty Huffy Puffy with one another so they break up and he's like you go on your side of the playground I'm gonna stay on mine so again your professor has had a lot of coffee so they break up they're not buds anymore so at that point Gibbons he gets kind of sneaky he obtained a federal license from Congress to navigate are you ready the same river that Ogden is navigating under a state license because at that point Ogden got a state license so Congress has the ability again to regulate trade amongst the foreign nations in several States there's that Interstate uh flavor coming in so the hard of matter is who has the better license the federal one or the state one is it Gibbons or is it Ogden who's going to win that fight now here's a fun fact Webster was arguing for the federal government meaning Gibbons that the river goes between the states so the federal government has the power and the ability to regulate Rivers now why am I bringing up Webster why should that name sound familiar to you all because there's a lot of really familiar names in this case see Federal yeah but what should Webster that name should sound familiar to you he wrote something I'll give you a tip he wrote something very important yep exactly so Gibbons he's like not holding back I mean he's punching poor Ogden left and right think about it he has the actual man who wrote the dictionary as his attorney that is arguing for defining Federal power like holy cow like that's a drop the mic moment because that that's pretty Savvy right so you know G uh poor Ogden at this point is like crap like there I have no I stand no chance right so the big issue at that point was we were dealing with um The Fallout from the Civil War the south is still pissed off they're concerned with Federal argument because they're like wait a minute you're going to have more power over us and the federal government's like yeah because rivers flow between the states so they were concerned also with the fact that roads also are inti state so this is the first um wrestling match that the states had with the federal government on allowing the federal government to regulate things that exist within a state that typically the state was regulating so the federal government's pulling away power from from the states in this instance it's the first time that they really did that and so that necessary and proper clause comes into play and John Marshall he inates within that opinion that y'all will read that it's necessary for the federal government to regulate their waterways because they flow and so they're Supreme and Gibbons wins you kind of have to feel bad for for poor Ogden in this chance it's like poor guy so Monopoly Ogden had doesn't live to see the light of day he lose is an interstate commerce clause power is now expanded it's broadened as a result of the necessary and proper clause so the federal government and the theme I want you to see is that the Supreme Court has the ability to say what the law is as a result of Marbury versus Madison and not only do they have the right now to say what the law is but you start to see that the Supreme Court is expanding Federal power more and more and more and more right now that brings me to Prince now the prince case is interesting um because it was the last case to to be released the judges were literally walking out the door and they did that on purpose you know they they do strategize when they release opinions because if they were to release prints at the start of all the opinions being released they would have gotten hammered but they did it as they were literally walking out the the doors to go on vacation right and it was in response the prince decision was in response to the 1993 Brady handgun control prevention act now pause history is a fun thing and I want to to highlight something Friday once a month ashle she said don't they release the popular opinion on the Friday once a month yes but it depends they can order they can release an opinion um in a certain order so yes they do release it on Fridays but depending on what's a good way to say it they don't have to release a certain opinion that Friday meaning they can release this opinion and then wait a couple weeks for to release the next opinion but they don't have to release a specific opinion on a specific Friday they can actually determine what opinions they release on those days so they waited to release it literally at the very last minute it was very very delayed um and just FYI it's almost 950 so if you guys need to hop off you won't hurt my feelings I'm recording and I apologize for going a little bit over but there is a lot that we had to cover this week but in this case it was a temporarily requir the ACT required the state and local officials versus the feds to conduct background checks for guns now the sellers were required to report the pending sales to the local police Chiefs these are not federal um agents they're not feder federal law enforcement they're to the local police Chiefs and then they were required to conduct background checks now there are separate lawsuits brought but essentially what the local police chiefs were arguing is this isn't our job this is your job you wanted this act federal government cool well then you are responsible for carrying it out this is not our job you're putting more on her plate than we can handle and so the United States Supreme Court the issue that they were confronted with was can Congress make State officials participate in the implementation of a federal program and they looked at the necessary and proper clause and they looked at the 10th Amendment and ultimately for the first time and this is important think about what I'm saying the first time in United States Supreme Court history since the cases that we just looked at Federal power was shrunken back down it was limited because they said no Congress cannot compel them that's not in their wheelhouse can't do that and so this decision as you read it is really interesting Scalia who at that time was alive and on the Supreme Court he argued there's no historical evidence that Congress could make State officials Implement Federal programs so he's saying there's no rationale that could support us allowing the federal government make these local officials do something that the federal government can do right so that was their argument now there are a lot of concerns that Scalia voiced um so to speak and that decision he was concerned with the 10th amendment's issue of dual sovereignty and he said look the States retain a significant amount of autonomy meaning Power Authority over themselves and he said this act upsets that balance in other words Scalia was always afraid of this door opening to allowing the federal government to absorb too much power right and so he voices that within this opinion and so he argued the federal power would increase if they could enlist officers of 50 states so in other words he was afraid of of the federal government creating like a police force right a defacto police force so they say congress cannot delegate power to state law enforcement officers but there is a potential loophole and this is something that they kind of gave as a as a give to the other side they said States could voluntarily comply they just can't be forced so they're saying look you don't have to comply but if you want to Texas if you want to New York then you can but you just you federal government can't make them okay so let me check the chats Patrick said it feels similar to when feds were attempting to address alcohol age and how they withheld money unless States came along absolutely Patrick in fact there's the way in which um alcohol has been handled seat belts uh laws have been handled um I'm trying to think of some other examples of cigarette laws one of the biggest protest I ever saw and as a law student and this is a long time ago um we had to attend the protest not to be a part of it but to make sure that everybody's legal rights were being respected that they had their First Amendment right to protest um actually kind of dealt with that Louisiana um ra the taxes on cigarettes and it was actually and this is sad but it was one of the biggest protests that they had encountered was on this new cigarette tax and it was interesting because the federal government actually had come in and there was this big budding of heads because they actually wanted to set a standard tax on cigarettes and Louisiana was like well we can make it higher because they wanted to fix the roads and so it was an interesting um conflict so to go to your point Patrick without alcohol absolutely the federal government has kind of used a carrot saying we'll give you money um to do XYZ in your state if you raise your drinking age to 21 right so yes the federal government can't force a state to do something but they sure as heck can dangle out a bunch of carrots right that is still legal so good example okay so that brings me to Federalist Paper number 78 so when I say good old hamy who am I are you referring to Hamilton excellent absolutely so Hamilton wrote the FED papers and yep everybody got that right in the chat good job and what he's trying to say is he's replying to Brutus now this is the original Twitter battle or X battle whatever Twitter's calling itself now I don't even know but this is like the original social media battle because Brutus put out a list of concerns about the power specifically of judges right and Hamilton he's basically replying to brutus's concerns he's saying you know it's unclutch your pearls Brutus everything's cool and so it's an interesting back and forth but specifically Brutus argued that the Judiciary power lacked accountability was too independent and he said anti-ed like himself Brutus we're afraid if we get these guys in for life they may impose their will over the Constitution and then what do we do and think about that that's the same argument that is literally being had today right we're saying we have these people in office and when they do questionable things or if they do things that are allegedly questionable how do we get them out right because there is no designation for good behavior in fact okay this is kind of a trick question but and don't Google it yet but how many Supreme Court justices have been ousted for violating good behavior and I think I'm way too excited about this question for you guys okay you guys ready okay I'm so excited to tell you this so you're all wrong okay the answer well you're right and you're wrong the answer is one okay so Thomas Jefferson Here Comes Good Old Tommy he comes back he actually was pissed because he wanted to rid of the Federalist on the court he was like there's too many Federalists and so he actually kicked off one of the Supreme Court judges just for being a federalist and then that's when the legislature was like uh Hey Thomas you can't really do that so they put him back on so technically zero but technically for a very small time period won all right so just fun fact all right so that'll probably win you a game at like a bar trivia one night all right so Brutus was concerned and as you can see he makes some good points right there are some points that you're like yeah that checks out that that is actually a good concern so he was concerned about getting rid of Judges the process is not easy and as we now know historically it's rarely done so Hamilton he comes in and I kind of Envision him as the guy at the party who's trying to break up a fight right he's like everybody calm down like chill guys chill we're all friends so he says calm down folks there's no power of the purse meaning this the Supreme Court doesn't have the ability to tax they can't make you pay anything and then they said he argues they don't have the power the sword they can't uh declare a war they can't um do those things that the other branches of government may have more Authority and power to do in fact he argues they're actually the weakest of the branches pretty interesting now he argues that they're men of virtue and that we should trust them and essentially and I'm going to put this another way if we didn't have the Supreme Court then cases could arguably go on forever which some attorneys may love right but there needs to be an end chapter everybody you know and I'll give you it we read a book so we can get to the end right it would be kind of cuckoo if you get to the end and it's like oh it keeps going and it keeps going and it keeps going and it never ends I tease my mom because she watches um soap operas and I used to love soap operas I Guiding Light and this this is dates me because it's not on anymore but used to love it but you can see you could and I always loved how and even to this day you can turn on a soap opera and even if you haven't watched it in like 10 years you can get caught up in like five minutes right because they never end but that kind of loses its its glamour after a while it's like okay they're doing this story story line again which that's why I love novellas Mexican soap operas because they end and then they start a new soap opera and I think that's awesome but essentially he's saying we have to have this body of individuals because if not what is the alternative and that's a great question what is the alternative right oh so says Days of Our Lives yes Days of Our Lives absolutely Heather said and if you don't see the body at least three times they don't yes they come back that's so true yes there's always like these zombie characters that like they fall off a building and are set on fire and then they come back the next you know week and they're like I'm fine that'd be great um so the response the Anti-Federalists come back again this is like a Twitter battle and they're saying are you kidding me Hamilton they said there's no power above them no authority to remove them they're independent of the people of the legislature and I love this line and every Power under heaven so Brutus is not happy right so Hamilton says we need judicial review early Echo Marbury and we need someone to do it if not them then who which again is a great question so he argues that trust is vital amongst the branches we have to honor their word because otherwise it's tyranny again it's 2024 and we're having the same conversations so pretty amazing all right so boom I'm finally done and I'm so sorry that I went oh actually it is just now 10 so I actually went right on the money okay so I I'm a little happy with myself right now thank you Nick all right guys so um I'm gonna stay on a couple more minutes does anybody have any questions um thoughts jokes whatever can you clarify so for the discussion for this week we have our two responses to the prompt do we have to do a total of four responses to our peers or just two just two great question so you're gonna pick one question to answer in part one one question for part two and then just two classmate responses that's totally fine four would be would be Overkill but if you want to go that much then absolutely go for it and then can you also clarify with the discussion if it's 200 words total or 100 words total 200 words total so you can do 100 words for part one 100 words for part two or if you find yourself having more to say for part one you could put words for part one and 50 words for part two however you want to break it up so another way of saying it is you shouldn't go over 200 words and however which way you want to break it up any other questions all right I'm GNA talk slowly as I say thank you if you guys have any other questions absolutely oh absolutely I'm glad you think it's interesting I these stories are so fun and you know one of the things that actually I would love to do one day and I haven't had the time to but I would love to write a book on just the Stories Behind these cases because I feel like we and this is just me talking from a Podium for a second but I feel like we Ser disserve our legal Scholars our legal students people who are just interested in the law because these cases don't give the backstory Justice like I bet and I could be wrong but I bet many of you had never heard the backstory to Mary versus Madison or Gibbons V Ogden right and these stories I think bring life these cases and it humanizes them right we often forget that we're dealing with people and people have emotions we're complicated we act kind of cuckoo sometimes and it's the cuckoo part of humanity that I think is so fun right so um the the as we come into the next weeks the other cases that we'll dive into are just as fun um but please don't hesitate to let me know when not if you have questions need help um any of that fun stuff just reach out and let me know um I have one other question real quick yeah could you help with the like one sentence um for each of the cases so I know you mentioned like barbury V Madison judicial review the Supreme Court has the power to say what the law is and then like the bullet points like mull Maryland defines federalism how would you like narrow the cases down in like the conclusion of one sentence for the other three o good question question let's see would it help y'all if I created a cheat sheet for y'all that did that yes mess y'all up I think it' be helpful okay okay so let me put it to you this way I'm going to create one I'll post in the announcements along with this um recording but if it would mess y'all up then ignore it it's not required it's just kind of lag naap right which in Louisiana means like a little extra so um I'll post it in the announcements along with the recording and the PowerPoint but by no means for those of you who have your own process it you don't have to pay any attention if you don't want to does that sound good you yeah that's abs and then Ashley did you have a question uh yes ma'am can you go over um or just briefly describe what you're talking about in the beginning about implying case law to our discussions just so I make sure that I'm incl including that the right way for sure yeah absolutely so when you respond your argument again doctor hel and I are not focusing on your conclusion meaning if you think and this is just an example if you think the judicial branch is the weakest branch of government we don't we don't care what we can't and that I don't mean to sound so rough when I say that but what we care about is how did you get to that conclusion So within your rationale you should be using case law and you can use one one case you can use five cases just make sure that whatever case or cases you reference support your position so you could say um let me think if you think they're the weakest branch of government you could say um or let's just go with the strongest because it's kind of easier but if you say that the strongest branch of government you could say um and Marberry versus Madison the court afforded themselves the authority to say what the law is here period and then go forward with um as seen in molik V Maryland the court has the ability to expand or to approve the expansion of congressional power you know so you're using the cases to flesh out why your conclusion is Right does that make sense yes and you know going along with that Ashley and this goes to everybody and I'm so sorry for putting this at the end but a good rting technique is not only avoiding first person but stating your position right out of the gate so one of the things that I had mentioned to a lot of you this first week is instead of tucking your position away in the middle of your analysis or the conclusion move that up meaning right out of the gate you should State your position so if you think that the judicial branch is the strongest branch of government say that start that with your analysis say the judicial branch is the strongest branch of government for several reasons first blah right so that sets the stage that tells the reader exactly where you stand so that all the subsequent analysis only serves to support your position does that make sense okay good de can I if if you have if you cite a case then do we have to within the discussion site the end like the reference like APA style or something oh no no no no great qu question Rob No in fact I'm glad you mentioned the the referencing style um as long as you just mention the case name y'all don't have to put the actual uh book chap you know us 51 1937 y'all don't have to put that if you just put as the Court held in marber versus Madison that's enough for us because Dr heli and I know we know the cases that you're referencing um so you don't have to put out the whole thing thing as long as you just reference the the barebones name of the case then you're a okay you don't have to put in any special formatting all right my friends well thank you so much for a great session if you guys again have any questions please don't hesitate to reach out to me and I look forward to seeing what you guys come up with this week right bye thank you bye thanks