課程大綱

課程資訊

課程名稱	美國憲法案例專題二 CASE STUDY ON AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW(II)
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	LAW5273
課程識別碼	A21 U2310
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
備註	教室為社法研3。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_2
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	學期主要是以通論方式(general study)，全盤性探討美國憲法上的指標性案例。在權力分立與制衡面向，涵蓋聯邦原則、司法審查、行政權與立法權之關係互動；在基本權利面向，包括平等保護（種族、性別以及其他弱勢族群的平等）、實體之正當程序（包含應受平等保護之基本權以及憲法未明文規定之基本權）以及程序性之正當程序。 College of Law, National Taiwan University 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	本課程在前二年曾經分別以專論方式探討美國憲法之財產權以及言論自由，所以這兩個部分在這一學期將予以省略。值得注意的是，雖然本門課的修習不須要以修過英美法導論為前提，但修習過該門課會對本課程的學習有相當助益，而在英美法導論課程已討論過之指標性案例，在本門課亦將略去不談，未曾修習該門課程之同學可以自行參閱該課程之講義資料。
課程要求	本課程的設計主要是希望透過案例的閱讀，讓同學初探美國憲法之全貌，因此指標性判決的研讀、摘要及報告，將是課程進行之重點。每位修課同學都必須認領一次案例的摘要及報告，並帶領課程之討論，這部分的表現將占學期總分之一半。此外，在期末時，修課同學必須選擇本課程所討論之指標性案例，撰寫判決評釋，大學部同學可以二人一組撰寫，字數以六千字為度，研究所同學必須獨立撰寫，字數以八千字為度。 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
指定閱讀
參考書目	案例選輯教科書：STONE ET AL., CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (4th 2001)
評量方式 (僅供參考)

課程進度

週次	日期	單元主題
無資料