North Carolina Convention Debates (Elliot)

Class Page Numbers

• Class 1: Pages 14-37, includes McMurtrie article and AI handout.
• Class 2: Pages 37-53, excluding film material.
• Class 3: Pages 53-85, starts with film material.
• Class 4: Pages 85-102
• Class 5: Pages 102-133
• Class 6: Pages 134-155
• Class 7: Pages 156-186
• Class 8: Pages 186-224
• Class 9: Pages 224-252
• Class 10: Pages 252-283
• Class 11: Pages 283-302
• Class 12: Pages 302-343
• Class 13: Pages 344-370
• Class 14: Pages 370-400
• Class 15: Pages 400-430
• Class 16: Pages 430-457
• Class 17: Pages 458-486
• Class 18: Pages 486-510
• Class 19: Pages 511-548
• Class 20: Pages 548-577
• Class 21: Pages 577-613
• Class 22: Pages 613-651
• Class 23: Pages 651-712
• Class 24: Pages 712-750
• Class 25: Pages 751-773
• Class 26: Pages 773-799

Iredell's Nightmare?

• The document includes debates in the State Convention of North Carolina.
• It covers on the adoption of the Federal Constitution.
• Jonathan Elliot edited the debates.
• The convention started on July 21, 1788, in Hillsborough.
• It decided on the Plan of Federal Government.

James Iredell on a Bill of Rights

• England has a notion originating in England that no written constitution is present.
• The English government's authority comes from remote antiquity.
• Magna Charta is not a constitution but an instrument that ascertains rights of individuals via the legislature for the time being.
• The legislature at any time may alter any article of Magna Charta.
• Bills of rights were made because of crown usurpations that were at odds with the principles of their government.
• No instrument attempted to abridge Parliament's authority, supposed to be without limitation.
• A bill of rights would be useless if their constitution was both fixed and certain.
• People expressly declare how much power they give in this Constitution, consequently retaining all they do not.
• It is a declaration of particular powers by the people to their representatives, for particular purposes.
• A bill of rights would not only be incongruous but dangerous.
• No one can enumerate all individual rights not relinquished by the Constitution.
• If some rights were omitted and then later invaded, the government would say they judged the Constitution by the ideas of the time.
• The bill of rights showed the people didn't think every power retained was not given.
• A bill of rights might operate as a snare rather than a protection.
• A bill of rights would be proper and necessary in a general legislature, with undefined powers.
• A bill of rights would then operate as an exception to the legislative authority in such particulars.
• Some American constitutions have this effect, where powers of legislation are general.
• A bill of rights is unnecessary and dangerous in the case of the Constitution.

Ninth Amendment

• Enumerated rights in the Constitution do not deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Robert H. Bork Nomination

• Robert Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court has raised interpretive philosophy issues for all Americans.
• Bork defended the interpretive proposition for 15 years and the nomination addresses that.
• He argued the constitutional right to privacy was improperly inferred from the Constitution.
• Bork's attack on its inference allegedly fails on text, history, democratic political theory, and judicial role.

Unenumerated Rights and the Constitution

• The text of the Constitution addresses unenumerated rights.
• Unenumerated rights exist and are as fully protected as enumerated rights, referring to the Ninth Amendment.
• The Founders meant textual guarantees of unenumerated rights to be taken seriously.
• Agreement that unenumerated rights are fully protected is at the center of the constitutional compact.
• The Constitution's authority rests on respect for and protection of the inalienable rights of free people.
• Many leading founders argued that the 1787 Constitution lacked a full Bill of Rights, as textual guarantees could wrongly imply that no other rights were protected.
• James Iredell argued a Bill of Rights would be "a snare rather than a protection" at the North Carolina ratifying convention.
• According to Iredell, a Bill of Rights would be incongruous and dangerous, as no one could enumerate all individual rights not relinquished by the Constitution.
• Iredell condemned limiting protection of rights to those enumerated in 1787 or 1791.
• Americans demanded a Bill of Rights, and several states ratified on the understanding that one would be added.
• The Ninth Amendment negates any negative inference that unenumerated rights are not protected.
• It is a the core of constitutional consensus preserving all inalienable rights from State power.
• The American Constitution rests on constitutionally guaranteed self-government centers, including federalism, separation of powers, and private spheres of inalienable human rights.
• Inalienable rights included enumerated rights such as freedom of conscience and speech, as well as unenumerated rights protecting associational liberty associated with marital intimacy.
• The founders assumed an unenumerated right to companionate marriage.
• Companionate marriage: voluntarily formed association of intimate friendship and love to realize essential needs for sustaining personal and ethical value in living a complete life, including having and rearing children.
• The State may coercively abridge this right, only if justified to protect secular state interests.
• Neutral criminal statutes can be applied to intrafamilial murders, wife- or husband-beatings, or child abuse.
• The judiciary should vindicate inalienable rights, protecting unenumerated rights including the right to marriage.
• The Supreme Court properly infers this right in Griswold.
• Connecticut's manipulation of marital sexuality, inhibiting decisions central to companionate marriage, violates this right.
• Anti-contraception laws cannot satisfy this burden of justification.
• Unenumerated rights are distinguished from both conservative and liberal jurisprudence.
• Unenumerated rights align with text, history, political theory, and judicial tradition in Griswold.
• Defending unenumerated rights is to uphold the founders' intent.
• Interpretive attitude, like Judge Bork's, can dismiss unenumerated rights.
• Bork is Iredell's nightmare, betraying constitutionalism and rights.
• Americans need to recapture constitutional heritage of rights and respect for this tradition.

Class 7 - Supreme Court and Citizen Standing

• Lower courts should treat Supreme Court decisions as valid unless overruled.
• Lower courts should not assume decisions are invalid if inconsistent with newer decisions.
• Supreme Court decisions remain binding until reconsidered.
• If a precedent has direct application, yet rests on rejected reasons, Appeals Courts should follow the controlling case.
• The Supreme Court has the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.
• Richardson is officially a taxpayer standing case.
• The Court narrowly addressed whether claims met taxpayer standing standards set forth in Flast, holding they did not.
• Justice Stewart dissented, arguing citizen-voter standing should have been addressed.
• The Court said Richardson was a taxpayer standing case.
• The Court held in Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War that plaintiffs lacked standing as citizens to pursue a generalized grievance.
• The case concerned members of Congress holding commissions in the Armed Forces Reserves during the early 1970s.
• The question was if these commissions violated the Incompatibility Clause in Article I, section 9.

Constitution, Article 1, Section 9

• No Senator or Representative can be appointed to any civil Office created, or with increased Emoluments, during their elected Time.
• No Person holding any Office under the United States shall be a Member of either House during their Continuance in Office.
• Members of Congress cannot hold offices under the United States.
• Reserve commissions' status as offices affects eligibility.
• Plaintiffs need standing to pursue claims as citizens.
• The Supreme Court rejected citizens standing.
• The interest citizens share is injury in the abstract.
• Respondents seek Judiciary compulsion on Executive action per the Incompatibility Clause.
• The complaint implies speculative nonobservance affecting legislative duties.
• The claimed nonobservance affects generalized interest in governance, an abstract injury.
• The Court has previously rejected "generalized grievances" about Government conduct as a basis for taxpayer standing.
• Citizen standing had essentially the same result as taxpayer standing.
• Lujan established no concrete injury in Schlesinger leading to generalized grievances as abstract.
• After Lujan, generalized grievances related to a lack of concreteness or particularization.
• "Concrete and particularized" may be treated as one requirement.
• Generalized grievances are abstract for taxpayers and citizens without personal injury.
• Generalized grievances must meet concreteness and particularization as separate requirements after Spokeo and TransUnion.
• Plaintiffs lack standing due to generalized grievances with Flast as a limited exception as this question can be revised.
• Frothingham, Richardson, and Schlesinger cover taxpayer and citizen standing.

Generalized Grievances

• The few points of interest is inconsistent limitation descriptions.
• The court has described at times in prudential terms and other times in Article III terms.
• Allen described the limitation in prudential terms and Lujan in Article III terms.
• The inconsistency continued after Lujan.
• The Supreme Court returned to Allen's approach and stated a general prohibition on litigants raising the legal rights of another, a rule barring generalized grievances more appropriately addressed in representative branches and the requirement that a plaintiff’s fault falls inside the zone of interests protected by the law invoked.
• The Supreme Court acknowledged its inconsistency and endorsed the Article III view with, suits “claiming only harm to [the plaintiffs] and every citizen’s interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large”.
• The Court continued to express the view in an Article III explanation with the generalized grievance rule.

Redressability

• Justice plurality found plaintiffs unable to satisfy requirements because agencies funds weren't parties in the case and the principle seems plausible that it is absent whenever the injury is brought by parties not in the case.
• The high court endorsed the principle due to a decision of persuading actors not before the court and be effectively issuing an advisory opinion.

Next Class

• Study FEC v. Akins (1998) with goal of getting to TransUnion.
• Consider are Clapper and Susan B. Anthony consistent in imminence treatment.
• Consider if Susan B. Anthony departed from Clapper and considered clarifying Clapper.

Khalil v. Joyce - Case Summary

• Mahmoud Khalil, a graduate student at Columbia University and a green card holder, was detained on March 8, 2025.
• Authorities said it was on the basis of a determination by the Secretary of State that his presence/activities in the U.S. would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(4)(C)(i).
• Khalil alleges the Secretary of State retaliated for his participation in campus protests concerning Israel's military campaign in Gaza and his arrest, detention, and prospective removal violate First Amendment rights, Fifth Amendment rights, and the Administrative Procedure Act.
• At the center is a legal question of authority that, under certain circumstances, states may rescind a person's lawful permanent resident status.
• Khalil seeks an order for release from detention and to set aside the Secretary of State's determination.
• The validity of Khalil's claims requires review by a court, as all persons in the US are entitled to due process of law.
• Addressing the petitions's location, persons challenging detention through habeas are required to file petition in district where they are detained and name their custodian as the respondent.
• Citing rules of distric-of-confinement and immediate-custodian, the government moves on dismiss of Khalil’s Petition or to transfer it to the Western District of Lousiana, where he was taken by the Government on March 10, 2025, and has since been detained.
• Khalil argues this Court should hear Petition and that it be transferred to the District of that New Jersey.

Alternate Arguments and Government Action

• Khalil argued the case should be transferred to the District of New Jersey, where he was detained when his lawyer filed the Petition.
• The Court sided with the Government in disagreement with Khalil that it should be transferred to the District of New Jersey as dismissing for transfer to the Western District of Louisiana.
• The opinion concludes from fact that Khalil’s lawyer when she filed the Petition on his behalf, he was detained in New Jerseys.
• To prevent this conclusion, most notably seizing on a concurring opinion in Padilla with Justice Anthony A concurring in an opinion.
• Not always found exceptions if there is an indication that to make it difficult so it would have had to be difficult to move his where the petition should be filled.
• Those for that reason the Court finds there are no exceptions and transferred to well established state made easier and is not entertained Khalili.
• Though the Court rejects Government's request they will to dismiss his case for transfer to district.
• Moreover, the lawyer relied on information made available to her to the government at the file claim.
• And such exceptional case from where this is due to transfer on the case in district.
• It is the only way to make the actions commence.

Relevent Facts

• The facts and petition are to pick Khalil that it is depicting it is with the US from December of 2022 to attend Columbia University’s school and with his status both as a taxpayer and his is very a statement.
• A government said they aligned with a threat the foreign policy and he formally has a formal policy is determined by them, having cancelled in now seeks to remove Khalil as 8 U.S.C 1227 as well as their.
• And they are not in related events as all, but an 8:30 PM in a part, and to agents.
• What is called it agents identified themselves as taking agents it.
• He added why they were that is to whom she then called there is lawful permanant, but then, they are handcuffed taking in Federal his arrive on 9:20 is.

Legal Analysis and Findings

• ICE agents took Khalil's biometrics.
• Khalil overheard an and Hernandez that it is requesting an update.
• The documents included a Notice to Appear ("NTA") for removal proceedings and a Notice of Custody Determination.
• The Notice to Appear ordered Khalil to appear at LASALLE DETENTION FACILITY on March 27, 2025.
• Khalil refused to sign the documents.
• His lawyer, Greer, sought to locate him via ICE's online Detainee Locator.
• The lawyer then filed the Petition in this District assuming that it was still.
• By his transfer, the government indicated agents and had his area.
• However, the government was his place for temporary beds.
• Khalil had left New York from his place of residence but 3 is 20 a.m is the detaine.

Discussion

• This case involves the rights of a person in the US.
• Before addressing the Court must address for a of it may that proper tribunal.
• The court agreed for the proper course petition to District of that the.

Jurisdication

• The Court begins with jurisdiction to consider Khali's petition due to the undisputed fact that he was not lawyer filed the Petition.
• The starting point for analysis, most recent decision that here a hear that by a a grand jury.
• But President to 4/30 or two days after to New York by the in it.
• Supreme or or the respondent in the the The then is and two subquestions the and have what it.
• As state statue of that his been the what or or and then it the prison name filing from had there of it what is.

What's more to the case

• The fact is his from the New York
• ICE he what to is no that
• It and on The It 52 I is and more from and and New and so.
• As I is he it on can The also the that is also see

Is This the End of Reading? - Summary

• College students are less able and willing to read.
• An increase of learning challenges and a decline in academic expectations during/after the pandemic are to blame.
• Many students don't see the point and have weak vocab.
• Few can analyze long or complex texts, and lack context.
• These issues are seen at all colleges, no matter a certain "type".
• Work has dropped a noticeable amount.
• Course readings have dropped.
• A 750 word essay seems lengthy.
• A study in 2000 showed only 20% read from assignments down from 80%.
• Students also use sources superficially.
• Some are not critical thinnkers.
• One professor required 50% even if work was not submitted.
• Another couldn't go lower than "C"
• The high A does not meet the college A.
• Parents do not read to their children as much.
• It can all lead to people reading what benefits them directly.
• 2018 he said needed to give % his what a a and then A
• Lack of function or
• It as and and up.

The Election of 1800 and Marbury v. Madison:

• Discusses a letter from Thomas Jefferson to Phillip Mazzei, the aspect of the politics has changed since they left last year for it or the war.
• In 1796 some state that instead of a noble love for that a Anglican power has sprung which is that of the those they are in the form of the the.
• In those are Jefferson to the.
• The what the some that to of that the.
• It which who head to the that shall them.

Marshall to Hamilton Letter:

• Marshall notes he received Hamilton's letter regarding Jefferson and Burr potentially reaching house with equal vote.
• Marshall said his mind had scarcely determined to choose given Jefferson's political known for what.
• His prejudices seemed totally unfit for of has to it to what
• Jefferson could to will he office his become the of the.
• The Author to

Congress

• Congress opens for president of the States
• Electors given to the by number of president: that.
• He of to was to.
• The number of votes so so.