Williams v. FloridaChisom v. RoemerRepublican Party v. WhiteRoe v. WadeProfessor RentelnFall 2014Political Science 130g Study Guide forMidterm Tuesday October 14th The midterm examination will consist of two parts. For Part I you will choose 4 out of 8short answer questions. Be sure to describe the item and then analyze it; explain itssignificance for the course. For Part II you will choose one of two topics and write ananalytic essay.PART I: Possible items for short answer questions - Advantages/disadvantages + significanceWhile this list is fairly comprehensive, the test may include additional material based on lecture or readings. Note that the items are grouped by topic, so you might be asked define the concept, explain a case, or identify a leading figure. You should be sure to provide the context for the item. Give a brief description and then analyze the term. Youranswer should be no more than a 2 or 3 paragraphs.Also add stuff from last dayThe Queen v. Dudley and Stephens case/doctrine of necessity: cannibalism caseTypes of arguments:- Utilitarian: greatest good for greatest # of peopleo Criticisms: hard to quantify worth of lives, retroactively applied (no random choosing), non consensual- Intentionality/volition: intent is not to murder but rather to sustain lifeo Criticisms: weakened by lack of consent (he couldn’t speak)- Doctrine of necessity: extreme circumstances and measure of last resorto Applies in self defense; however, the guy didn’t threaten themo Precedent: 1842 The United States vs. Holmes—left open the possibility of necessityas defenseo Criticisms (it was struck down): Judgement of necessity is unclear—who judges, by what measure- Principle leaves him who profits to determine the necessity which willjustify taking someone’s life to preserve his owno Judges didn’t want to make precedent that would justify murdero Not recognized as a plausible defense because it will do more harm than good by creating a defense that could justify many types of murder Example: hunger could be defense for stealing, homelessness a defense for trespassing, etc.o Today, SCOTUS recognizes defense of necessity but strongly limits its scope—defense of necessity must show imminent peril, lack of reasonable lawful alternatives to actions, and proportionality of harm caused and avoidedo English court did not recognize necessity defense until 2000, when began to open it up a little1Professor RentelnFall 2014 Conjoined twins were born, and if they were not separated the healthier one and unhealthier one would both die; parents wouldn’t separate them but High Court judge gave doctor permission to go ahead with the operation Appeals court agreed, said that in the situation of the conjoined twins, doctors had no personal gain, ailing twin was designated for death, doctors were unable to act in the interest of both parties- State of nature argument: argument that outside of society (in sea) state rules/laws don’t apply, no jurisdiction in the middle of sea?o State of nature argument is dangerous because it means that you can go to places in the world where you are not bound by moral or legal conducto They are in an English boat—they are subject to English laws- Relate to 3 schools of jurisprudenceo Legal positivism: cannibalism was seen as necessity on open seas, legal positivism says that law is valid if there is force backing it (on the boat the captain is the state/law)o Natural law: act lacked core morality b/c eating your brothers at sea is wrong Judge used natural law: “we are often compelled to set up standards we cannot reach our selves and to lay down rules which we could not ourselves satisfy” = moral compass- Used legal positivism= the act fits the “legal definition of the crime”o Historical school: since there is precedent that people do this at sea, it is accepted, public opinion supported  acceptable- Is the value of life absolute?o Verdict says that it is: murder is never justifiedo Later sentence is contradictory b/c sentenced to death Life of cannibals is not as good as the life of the kid who was killed- Fair procedure?o Public opinion would swing in their favor if they had more fair procedureo Fair procedure strengthens utilitarian, intentionality/volition, and necessity argument  Utilitarian: proves that they wanted greatest good for greatest number of people, not only for specific people Intentionality: assuming part of the risk proves that purpose/intent is only for survival Necessity: assuming part of the risk proves that purpose/intent is for necessity for survival- Consent?o Would due process matter?- Relationship between law and justice?o Relationship between law and public opinion? Law is constant, public opinion fluctuates (originally was positive towards prisoners then became sour)William v. Walker Thomas Furniture Company/doctrine of unconscionability- Facts of the case: 2Professor RentelnFall 2014o Selling furniture on payment plan where furniture company owns it until all payments are fully paido Any accounts or imbalances: if there’s one imbalance the furniture company gets all furniture with running balanceso Woman buys record player, defaulted on one payment and company possessed all furniture Social worker, lived on $218 a month with 7 kidso Furniture company was aware of her financial situation and sold her the stereo player anywayo Trial court and appellate court didn’t make findings on possible unconscionabilitycase remanded to trial court for further proceedings- Established doctrine of unconscionability: contracts that include an absence of meaningful choice on one party with contract terms unreasonably fair to the other partyo Meaningful choice determined by equality of bargaining power AND reasonable opportunity to understand terms of contract  Without reasonable opportunity to understand contract, there is lack of real consent to terms of contract- Amplified by her background (social worker, income, uneducated) Inequality in bargaining power determined by general commercial background (you need to know about the trade or profession, need education) and commercial needs of trade/case- Equality of bargaining power: it has to be mutually favorable and you have to be able to bargain for it- Precedent: Scott v. United States (1870)—SCOTUS stated that unconscionable contracts areunenforceable under Congress’s Uniform Commercial Code, court gives plaintiff