The length of this summary should be a minimum of two pages in length, double spaced 12' font.  DUE DATE IS

Be sure to cite sources correctly - no particular method is required. MLA, APSA etc.

You will be required to complete at least one non-text reading assignments during the course of the semester, as assigned by the instructor.  I expect your review and subsequent remarks to be written in a careful and thoughtful manner. Each article review summary must follow the format given below. Deviations will lower your grade, and significant deviations may result in no grade being given for the assignment.

You may take a historical approach or a current approach to this assignment.  The structure of your paper will be the same, however some information may be different depending on the approach you wish to take.

 

I - Cite the particulars of the case:  Included should be the title of the case,  date the case was argued and decided, the subjects of the case. Also, you will want to discuss the participants, ie. Supreme Court Justices who played a major role, Chief Justice, the lawyers and their clients in the case.

 

II - Provide a statement of purpose by answering the questions:

a. Why was the case before the Supreme Court?

b. What are the facts of the case?

c. What are the questions presented in the case?

 

III  What was the conclusion of the case?

         Who wrote the majority opinion and what was the vote

        What was the significance of the Decision.  How did it impact the relationship between the local, state and National Government?

 

(BE SPECIFIC AND TO THE POINT). You should be able to write this Information in two or three short paragraphs. Use this space to inform the reader as to what to anticipate in the body of the Summary. The following is provided as an illustration to help you Understand what is required and expected.

The author wrote this article to talk about welfare reform. He thinks it's good and that we're wasting too much money.

The reader has no idea what aspect of welfare is being discussed, nor an understanding of why or where the author thinks we're spending too much money - in food stamps, Medicaid, corporate welfare, farmer bailouts, etc. Is the author going to argue that all welfare is "bad" or simply that we could 'trim some fat'? Is the author going to argue that too many people draw welfare, and if so does the author distinguish between old people, babies, teen mothers, etc. Does the author present any solutions to the problems noted? Does the author seem to have a hidden agenda or a bias that is obvious?

The author is presenting a moral argument against the continuation of all forms of welfare - for individuals or families without respect to their ages or physical condition - beyond a fixed number of years in a lifetime. The author contends that continuation of support beyond a minimal period of time - perhaps five years total - encourages laziness and is counter productive in the long term both to the individual and to the taxpayers. The author does not offer any research or other information to support the claims made, but rather argues that it seems to be true given some measure of what the author terms ' common sense.'

 

III - Note some main points discussed by both parties involved in the case as well as questions or points brought up in the justices opinions. I am mainly looking for supporting data or evidence provided by the participants involved in the case. It is permissible to simply list and discuss each of the main arguments presented by the author. This section should compromise the largest section of your summary. Write succinctly!

 

IV - Conclusion:  What is the opinion of the court?  Was there only one opinion or were there dissenting or concurring opinions along with it, if so briefly report on them.  Finally, what is (your opinion). I am interested not only in whether you agree or disagree with the justices opinion, but also why? Provide supporting data for your conclusion. or example, is there a strong indication of a partisan or an ideological bias.

 

Mainly, I am interested in how this decision has or may affect or impact state and local governments, and in what ways?  For example, does or (could) the Courts decision hamper the state by imposing an unfunded mandate upon the state thereby causing the state to re-assess it's budget priorities?