COMPARATIVE LAW EXAM PART 2

QUESTION 1 :  In no more than two (2) pages, and citing to materials we have covered this semester, discuss the analysis employed by the courts in the Unites States, Canada and by the European Court of Human Rights in abolishing or limiting capital punishment (or extraditing persons to retentionist countries without assurances that the death penalty will not be sought) based on the individual right to life and/or freedom from cruel and unusual punishment (inhuman and degrading treatment). Complete answers will include an analysis of the source(s) of the individual right to life and/or freedom from cruel and unusual punishment (inhuman and degrading treatment) within the constitutional order of each nation we covered and how these rights have been developed and interpreted through case law; your answer should also include a discussion of the role that international human rights regimes, foreign law and/or international law played in this development and interpretation.

QUESTION 2: In no more than two (2) pages, and citing materials we covered this semester, please discuss the standards the United States, Canada and Germany have developed for addressing the issue of “hate speech” and the extent to which “hate speech” is recognized as protected (or semi-protected) “expression” within these differing constitutional systems. A complete analysis will include a discussion of the source(s) of freedom of expression within the constitutional order of each nation and the framework employed by the courts in each nation for addressing the issue of governmental regulation of expression based on its content. Please make sure to compare and contrast the source(s) of freedom of expression within United States, Canada and Germany and the frameworks employed by the courts in those nations for addressing the issue of governmental regulation of expression based on its content in the context of “hate speech”

QUESTION 3: In no more than two (2) pages, and citing materials we covered this semester, pleasediscuss the varying “tests” developed by the U.S. Supreme Court for addressing the issue of “entanglement” between government and religion, with particular emphasis on the “Lemon Test” and the test developed in Van Orden v. Perry. Compare and contrast these tests and accompanying analysis with the framework employed in the German School Prayer Case and the German Classroom Crucifix Case II. A complete answer will discuss whether the differing constitutional systems and attendant systems of analysis employed in Germany and the United States reflect a hostility towards religion in the public sphere or embrace governmental entanglement with religion and why this is the case.

QUESTION 4: In no more than two (2) pages, and citing materials we covered this semester, discuss the constitutional protections for freedom of expression developed within the defamation regimes in the United States and England with regard to matters involving public persons in relation to matters or public of concern and the role that the plaintiff’s interest in his or her reputation plays in the Court’s analysis. Complete answers will take into account the differing jurisdictional systems in the United States and England and how that, coupled with the differing defamation frameworks in these nations, led to the development of “libel tourism” and the legislative efforts that were undertaken in the United States and England to counteract that phenomenon.

QUESTION 5: In no more than two (2) pages, and citing materials we covered this semester, please discuss the differing standards employed by the United States Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Canada for determining whether a particular type of expression is proscribable by the government as being “obscene”. Your answer should also discuss the rationales provided by the United States Supreme Court and the Supreme Court ofCanada for allowing the content-based regulation of “obscene” expression and the extent to which these rationales rely on the “value” assigned by these courts to “obscene” expression within their constitutional orders.