Review Sheet CRJU 315 Exam One
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Liberty University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
315
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by BaronLobster3761
Review Sheet
CRJU 315
Exam One
I will choose 7 terms off this list and you will have to answer 5 of them (10 pts. each).
1.
Judicial Review
2.
The 14
th
Amendment
3.
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights
4.
Establishment Clause
5.
Symbolic Speech
6.
Deciding to Decide
7.
Art I Sec 8
8.
Little Bill of Rights
9.
Article VI
-
supremacy clause
10.
Fundament v. Ordinary Law
11.
The Current Members of the Supreme Court
12. Due Process
13. Free Exercise of Religion
14. John Marshall
15. Equal Protection
16. Brown v. Board of Education
17. Limits of Speech (clear and present danger, imminent lawlessness, obscenity)
18. Facts and Reasoning
19. Stare Decisis
I will also choose one of the two following essays (50 points)
1.
Write a dissent from
Marbury v. Madison
.
Be sure that you critique both
Marshall’s overall argument as well as at least three of his specific justifications
for judicial review.
2.
Carefully evaluate the hypothetical below.
You are the trustee responsible for
giving out the money.
Argue who should and should not get the money and why.
In doing so it is vital that you create one clear and consistent method for deciding
all of the cases, not have a different set of standards for each claimant.
In 2004, a number of concerned citizens, worried about what they regarded as the
corruption of American life, met to consider what could be done. During the course of the
discussion, one of the speakers electrified the audience with the following comments:
The cure for our ills is a return to old-time religion, and the best single
guide remains the Ten Commandments. Whenever I am perplexed as to
what I ought to do, I turn to the Commandments for the answer, and I am
never disappointed. Sometimes I don’t immediately like what I discover,
but then I think more about the problem and realize how limited my
perspective is compared to that of the framer of those great words. Indeed,
all that is necessary is for everyone to obey the Ten Commandments, and
our problems will all be solved.
Within several hours the following plan was devised: As part of the effort to encourage a
return to the “old-time religion” of the Ten Commandments, a number of young people
would be asked to take an oath on their eighteenth birthday to “obey, protect, support, and
defend the Ten Commandments” in all of their actions. If the person complied with the
oath for seventeen years, he or she would receive an award of $10,000 on his or her
thirty-fifth birthday.
It is now 2022, and the first set of claimants comes before you.
It has already been
determined that these claimants followed nine of the commandments.
You must decide if
they followed the commandment “Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery.”
I want you to do the following:
1.
Define adultery, based on a notion of "old time religion"
2.
Outline each claimant's argument.
3.
Explain why each claimant should or should not get the money
Claimant A
is a married male. Although freely admitting that he has had sexual
intercourse with a number of women other than his wife during their marriage, he brings
to your attention the fact that “adultery,” at the time of Biblical Israel, referred only to the
voluntary intercourse of a married woman with a man other than her husband. He
specifically notes the following passage from the article Adultery:
The extramarital intercourse of a married man is not per se a crime in
biblical or later Jewish law. This distinction stems from the economic
aspect of Israelite marriage: The wife as the husband’s possession... and
adultery constituted a violation of the husband’s exclusive right to her; the
wife, as the husband’s possession, had no such right to him.
A has taken great care to make sure that all his sexual partners were unmarried, and thus
he claims to have been faithful to the original understanding of the Ten Commandments.
However we might define “adultery” today, he argues, is irrelevant. His oath was to
comply with the Ten Commandments; he claims to have done so.
Claimant B
is A’s wife, who admits that she has had extramarital relationships with other
men. She notes, though, that these affairs were entered into with the consent of her
husband. In response to the fact that she undoubtedly violated the ancient understanding
of “adultery,” she states that that understanding is fatally outdated:
(a) It is unfair to distinguish between the sexual rights of males and females. That the
Israelites were outrageously sexist is no warrant for your maintaining the discrimination.
(b) Moreover, the reason for the differentiation, as already noted, was the perception of
the wife as property. That notion is a repugnant one that has been properly repudiated by
all rational thinkers, including all major branches of the Judeo-Christian religious
tradition historically linked to the Ten Commandments.
(c) She further argues that, insofar as the modern prohibition of adultery is defensible, it
rests on the ideal of discouraging deceit and the betrayal of promises of sexual fidelity.
But these admittedly negative factors are not present in her case because she had
scrupulously informed her husband and received his consent, as required by their
marriage contract outlining the terms of their “open marriage.”
(It turns out, incidentally, that A had failed to inform his wife of at least one of his sexual
encounters. Though he freely admits that this constitutes a breach of the contract he had
made with B, he nevertheless returns to his basic argument about original understanding,
which makes consent irrelevant.)
Claimant C
, a male (is this relevant?), is the participant in a bigamous marriage. C has
had no sexual encounters beyond his two wives. (He also points out that bigamy was
clearly tolerated in both pre- and post-Sinai Israel and indeed was accepted within the
Yemenite community of Jews well into the twentieth century. It is also accepted in a
variety of world cultures.)
Claimant D
, a practicing Christian, admits that he has often lusted after women other
than his wife. (Indeed, he confesses as well that it was only after much contemplation that
he decided not to sexually consummate a relationship with a coworker whom he thinks he
“may love” and with whom he has held hands.) You are familiar with Christ’s words,
Matthew 5:28: “Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after, he hath committed adultery
with her already in his heart.” (Would it matter to you if D were the wife, who had lusted
after other men?)
Claimant E
has never even lusted after another woman since his marriage on the same
day he took his oath. He does admit, however, to occasional lustful fantasies about his
wife. E, a Catholic, is shocked when informed of Pope John Paul II’s statement that
“adultery in your heart is committed not only when you look with concupiscence at a
woman who is not your wife, but also if you look in the same manner at your wife.” The
Pope’s rationale apparently is that all lust, even that directed toward a spouse,
dehumanizes and reduces the other person “to an erotic object.”
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help