Outline/agenda for Friday's lecture/seminar on the History of Maryland
Law, ca. 1765-ca.1824.
The morning will be spent on an overview of the history of the law,
based upon the reading assigned and a review of the document packets made
available via the web. If you are having difficulty viewing the packet
materials on the web, don't be concerned. We will have access to
the web-based materials in the classroom on a large screen.
The afternoon will be spent resolving ourselves into a court to determine
the questions:
Under the Constitution of 1776, who should judge whether or not an act
of assembly is unconstititional, and under the Constitution of 1776, was/is
Chapter I of the Laws of 1785 unconstitutional under any provision of the
Constitution, but especially Article 59 and Article 42 of the Declaration of Rights.
Copies of the Constitution and Form of Government in effect in 1785,
and its accompanying Declaration of Rights are attached to the faxed and mailed copy of this memo for
your review..
For purposes of the afternoon discussion, please review:
WHITTINGTON vs. POLK [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL] COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND,
GENERAL COURT, EASTERN SHORE 1 H. & J. 236; 1802 Md. LEXIS 1
THE STATE vs. DASHIELL [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL] COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND
6 H. & J. 268; 1824 Md. LEXIS 20
CRANE vs. MEGINNIS [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL] COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND,
EASTERN SHORE 1 G. & J. 463; 1829 Md. LEXIS 38
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND vs. JOSEPH B. WILLIAMS.
[NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL] COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND 9 G. & J. 365;
1838 Md. LEXIS 1
These cases are readily available from Lexis and Westlaw. Attention
should be paid to their pronouncements on Judicial Review.
In addition to the Declaration of Rights and Constitution as it was
in effect in 1776, I am also attaching the text of Chapter I of the laws
of 1785 and the original dissent of Gabriel Duvall in Whittington v Polk
from our collections.
|
