ConLaw and Property Classes #1: "The Judicial Power" and "Adverse Possession: The Theory and Elements"

|The Volokh Conspiracy |

This semester, I will be posting my YouTube class lectures. You are welcome to follow along at home. Or you can watch the livestream on my channel. Property II meets from 9:00 CT-10:15 CT and Constitutional law meets from 10:30 CT-12:10 CT. For Property, we use the 9th edition of Dukeminer & Krier. And for ConLaw, we use my textbook with Randy, as well as our 100 cases supplement.

Today we covered the judicial power in ConLaw, and adverse possession in Property II. At the end of class, I ask students to submit a brief summary of what they learned. The iClicker app limits short answers to 140 characters (the old length of a tweet). My favorite from today:

"You really enjoy Hamilton. Marshall is over rated. Courts lack jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus in its original jurisdiction."

This student was paying attention.

NEXT: Citing a Dubious Study, This Congressman Wants the FDA To Ban E-Cigarettes As a COVID-19 Hazard

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The student also spelt “mandamus” correctly.
    I’m impressed.

    1. Especially for a student with a GPA roughly in the range of 2.8-3.3, and a LSAT around 150.

      1. Well, my students are K-12 teachers….

  2. I applaud Prof. Blackman for his pioneering efforts to give people access to one of the country’s worst law schools for free, rather than paying $35,000 for the privilege

  3. “Now let’s say there’s a plot of land, let’s call it ‘Joshacre’ . . . “

  4. Whether Congress can abolish federal judgeships by abolishing the courts that judges serve on is not a “debate” (as Josh states). Congress has done it, not once, but twice. Both times the constitutionality was debated by Members within their chambers, and both times the bills to abolish passed. There can certainly be a debate over whether Congress ought to use this authority again. Should Congress abolish a federal court again, thus displacing the sitting the judge(s), lawyers are free to craft novel legal arguments in an attempt to convince a contemporary judge that such an Act is now unconstitutional.

    But, just like how Josh uses historical practice to explain the Emoluments Clause, historical practice demonstrates that Congress possess the power to abolish federal courts.

    1. Not sure how much weight you can give to that, when most of members hadn’t even read Prof. Blackman’s law review article about it.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.