1. You have read excerpts on constitutional interpretive philosophies by Justice

1. You have read excerpts on constitutional interpretive philosophies by Justice Scalia and Justice Brennan that present competing views about how the constitution should be interpreted. Explain why Scalia is more persuasive and why. Your initial post should be in the range of 150-250 words. Use file titled “Originalism vs Nonoriginalism”
2. Recall last week’s medical marijuana hypothetical. In 200-400 words, write a discussion post briefly explaining how you believe the Supreme Court would have decided that dispute during (1) the Gilded Era (Carter Coal, Hammer v. Dagenhart, etc.) and (2) the New Deal era (Darby, Wickard, Heart of Atlanta, etc.). Then, explain which of these two periods reflects the better understanding of the Commerce Power, in your view.
*Hypothetical mentioned above*
Suppose that under state and Federal law, it is a crime to possess marijuana in most circumstances. State law makes an exception in cases where a physician provides a written recommendation that marijuana be prescribed to ease the suffering of a seriously ill patient. In contrast, the Federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) contains no such exception for medical use.
Diane suffers from chronic pain due to an injury she received in a car accident years ago. After trying many treatments, her doctor determined that marijuana was the only drug that would alleviate her severe pain. Diane’s doctor gave her written authorization to use marijuana, as required under the state statute.
Diane grew six marijuana plants for her own consumption on her own property and used these to treat her pain successfully. But on August 15, Federal Drug Enforcement Agents raided Diane’s property and seized and destroyed her plants. The agents determined that Diane’s possession of the plants was entirely lawful under state law but nevertheless violated the CSA.
Diane sues, arguing that application of the CSA exceeds Congress’s Commerce Clause power.
3. Franz Makos is charged with arson. According to the prosecution, Mr. Makos started a fire at a local bicycle shop on a Sunday when the shop was closed, following a dispute earlier that week with one of the owners about the amount the shop charged him for repairing his bicycle. Mr. Makos admits that he did have an argument with someone at the shop about the cost of the repair, but he denies he had anything to do with the fire at the shop. Mr. Makos claims that he was in his car, on the way to visit his mother, and was nowhere near the shop when the fire started. Mr. Makos’ mother has confirmed that he did visit her later that Sunday.
If Mr. Makos testifies, the prosecution would like impeach him with a felony conviction. In 2013, Mr. Makos was convicted of arson. Angry with a plumber who he believed had overcharged him, Mr. Makosset set fire to the plumbing shop. Following trial, Mr. Makos was sentenced to 36 months in prison. He served 24 months before being released. This is the only conviction on Mr. Makos’s record.
The prosecution would like to introduce evidence of this prior conviction to impeach Mr. Makos.
Should the judge admit the conviction under Rule 609? Why or why not?
If the conviction is admitted for impeachment, what will the jury learn about the conviction?
Your initial post should consist of 200-400 words.