課程資訊
課程名稱
 美國憲法案例專題一
CASE STUDY ON AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW(I) 
開課學期
 97-2 
授課對象
 法律學院  法律學系  
授課教師
 張文貞 
課號
 LAW5272 
課程識別碼
 A21 U2300 
班次
  
學分
 2 
全/半年
 半年 
必/選修
 選修 
上課時間
 星期二3,4(10:20~12:10) 
上課地點
 社法研3 
備註
 本課程中文授課,使用英文教科書。與研究所合開。
限學士班三年級以上
總人數上限：24人 
Ceiba 課程網頁
 http://ceiba.ntu.edu.tw/972american_case_law 
課程簡介影片
 
核心能力關聯
 核心能力與課程規劃關聯圖
課程大綱
為確保您我的權利,請尊重智慧財產權及不得非法影印
課程概述

本學期將以「美國聯邦憲政秩序下的跨國性議題」(transnational issues of American constitutionalism)此一新興議題作為探討焦點。隨著全球化以及跨國法律秩序的開展，不僅憲法與國際法（尤其是國際人權法）有愈來愈緊密的連結，內國憲政秩序中也有愈來愈多的跨國性議題產生。
外國人的地位、外國人的人權保障以及外國人與本國人的關係等，在各式跨國交往愈來愈頻繁的趨勢下，成為重要議題。在恐怖攻擊的威脅下，各國的反恐行動反而成為外國人（尤其是特定族裔的外國人）人權侵害的藉口。法院如何在安全以及人權（尤其是外國人的人權）之間取得平衡？
更有意思的是，因為美國聯邦外國人侵權行為法(Alien Torts Claims Act)的規定，許多跨國人權訴訟的戰場移師到美國聯邦法院，使得美國內國法律秩序有了與國際法律秩序（尤其是國際人權秩序）對話的窗口、甚至是磨合的介面。憲法的跨國性以及其與國際法之間的關連，愈趨重要。
Seminar on American Constitutional Case Law


Class Number: A21 U2300及U2890
Class Schedule: Tuesday 10:20am – 12:10pm

Instructor: Professor Wen-Chen Chang
Tel: 2351-9641 ext. 509
Email: wenchenchang@ntu.edu.tw

Teaching Assistant: Lo, Yi-Chen
Email: r96a21012@ntu.edu.tw

Spring, 2008
I. Course Introduction
This semester will focus on the rising transnational issues in American constitutionalism. Along with the trend of globalization and the development of transnational legal dialogue, the nexus between constitution and international law has become much stronger. There are also growing numbers of transnational legal issues in the domestic constitutional cases.
Various forms of frequent transnational interactions have raised the importance of certain issues, such as the status of and human rights protections for foreigners, and their relationship with nationals. Under the menace of terrorist attack, measure of anti-terrorism turns into excuses for human rights violations on foreigners, especially on certain races. How courts can strike the balance between national security and human rights (especially human rights of foreigners)?
More interestingly, due to the recent development of Alien Torts Claims Act jurisprudence, many transnational human rights litigations have diverted their battle field to the U.S. Federal Courts. Thus American law has its platform for the dialogue with international law. The transnationality of constitution and its nexus to the international law gain more and more significance.

 

課程目標
 本學期所研讀的案例主要包括三個部分：第一部分是環繞在外國人侵權行為法所衍生的重要跨國人權訴訟；第二部分探討憲法的跨國性以及其與國際法的關連。第三部分則針對外國人之人權保障相關問題，尤其是在反恐脈絡下的新興議題，作廣泛研讀。 
課程要求
 本課程將非常重視同學上課的參與及討論，同學的充分準備與參與是這門課成功與否的關鍵。每位修課同學都必須於學期中報告一次以上的案例並撰寫摘要（包括事實、法院判決、判決理由（多數意見）、協同或不同意見、判決後續發展以及對該判決的批判）。學期末必須選取相關案例撰寫詳盡之案例評釋作為學期報告，大學部同學八千字以上（可以共同撰寫），研究所同學一萬字以上。學期成績表現以第一部份的討論與上課表現（50%）及期末報告（50%）綜合評量核算。

II Class Schedule
*required readings
#suggested readings but required for graduates

Week One: 2/19
Course Introduction

Week Two: 2/26
1. Early Decisions
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).

Week Three: 3/4
Cummings v. Missouri, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 277 (1867).
The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677 (1900).
Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905).

Week Four: 3/11
Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412 (1905).
Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920).
*Vicki C. Jackson, Constitutional Comparisons: Convergence, Resistance, Engagement, 119 HARV. L. REV. 109 (2005)
*Vicki C Jackson, Transnational Challenges to Constitutional Law: Convergence, Resistance and Engagement, 35 FEDERAL L. REV. 161 (2007)

Week Five: 3/18
2. Eighth Amendment & Death Penalty
Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958).
Oklahoma v. Thompson, 487 U.S. 815 (1988).

Week Six: 3/25
No Class this week

Week Seven: 4/1
Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361 (1989).
#Ernest A. Young, The Trouble with Global Constitutionalism, 38 TEX. INT'L L.J. 527 (2003)

Week Eight: 4/8
Knight v. Florida, 528 U.S. 990 (1999).
Foster v. Florida, 537 U.S. 990 (2002)

Week Nine: 4/15
Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002).
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005).

Week Ten: 4/22
3. Separation of powers
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952).
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S.Ct. 2749 (2006).
#Vicki C. Jackson, Constitutional Law and Transnational Comparisons: The Youngstown Decision and American Exceptionalism, 30 HARV. J.L. & PUB. POL'Y 191 (2006).

Week Eleven: 4/29
4. Federalism
Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997).
Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (2000).
#Mark Tushnet, Federalism and International Human Rights in the New Constitutional Order, 47 WAYNE L. REV. 841 (2001).

By 4pm: Submission of term paper topic and outline


Week Twelve: 5/6
5. Rights
5.1. Equal protection
Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003).
5.2. Due process
Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957).

Week Thirteen: 5/13
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

Week Fourteen: 5/20
5.3. Privacy
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
Planned Parenthood of S.E. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).

Week Fifteen: 5/27
Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997).
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).

Week Sixteen: 6/3
5.4. Alien people’s rights
Oyama v. California, 332 U.S. 633 (1948).
Alien Children Education Litigation, 501 F. Supp. 544 (1980).

Week Seventeen: 6/10
The presentation of student’s term-paper outline

Week Eighteen: 6/17
The deadline for final term paper

 
預期每週課後學習時數
  
Office Hours
 每週一 13:30~15:00 
指定閱讀
  
參考書目
 本學期選讀之多數案例都屬相對新穎，本課程並不採研讀教科書的選輯案例方式，而是必
須要求同學閱讀選取案例的完整判決。這些判決全文的pdf檔會於本課程非同步教學網站中
提供，同學亦可由圖書館的Westlaw資料庫中取得。美國聯邦最高法院的網站
(http://www.supremecourtus.gov/)或其資料庫
(http://supreme.justia.com/index.html)也有相當豐富的資訊可作參考。Stone et al,
Constitutional law (5th ed., 2005)可作為美國憲法相關問題的基本參考。課程中亦將
隨時補充相關書面資料。 
評量方式
(僅供參考)
  
No.
項目
百分比
說明
1. 
 課堂報告及討論 
50% 
  
2. 
 期末報告 
50% 
  
 
課程進度
週次
日期
單元主題
第1週
 02/17  Course Introduction 
第2週
 02/24  I. Transnational Protections of Aliens:
The Scheme of the Alien Torts Claims Act
*Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 US 692 (2004) 
第3週
 03/03  *Sarei v. Rio Tinto PLC., 221 F.Supp.2d 1116 (2002)  
第4週
 03/10  *Khulumani v. Barclay National Bank Ltd., 504 F.3d 254 (2d.Cir. 2007) 
第5週
 03/17  *Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 473 F.3d 345 (D.C. Cir. 2007) 
第6週
 03/24  II. Extra-territorial Constitutions and the Relevance of International Law
*Medellin v. Dretke, 544 U.S. 660 (2005) 
第7週
 03/31  *United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990) 
第8週
 04/07  *Societe Nationale v. District Court, 482 U.S. 522 (1987) 
第9週
 04/14  III. Constitutional Protection of Aliens
A. Equal Protection
*Sugarman v. Dougall, 413 U.S. 634 (1973)
#Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (1971) 
第10週
 04/21  *Foley v. Connelie, 435 U.S. 291 (1978)
#Bernal v. Fainter, 467 U.S. 216 (1984) 
第11週
 04/28  Student must submit the topic and outlines for their term papers by 4pm
*Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)
#In re Alien Children Ed. Litigation, 501 F.Supp. 544 (1980) 
第12週
 05/05  B. Due Process and Alien’s Right to Entry and Exit
*Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 US 678 (2001)
#Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893) 
第13週
 05/12  *Jama v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 543 U.S. 335 (2005)
#Kenyeres v. Ashcroft, 538 U.S. 1301 (2003) 
第14週
 05/19  C. Alien’s Rights Protection in the Context of Terrorism
*Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004) 
第15週
 05/26  *Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004)
#Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006), 126 S.Ct. 2749 (2006)
 
第16週
 06/02  D. Aliens or Not: The legacy of Empire
*Igartúa-De La Rosa v. United States (Igartúa III), 417 F.3d 145 (1st Cir. 2005) (En Banc)