Read the Supreme Court Opinion for: Muscarello v. United States
Note that the majority opinion in this case was not unanimously agreed upon. You should read the full opinion written by Justice Breyer as well as the comments made by the dissenters (after the majority opinion).
After you have read the Supreme Court opinion and have understood the circumstances of the case, respond to the questions in a-f that follow. In your assignment, you should number your responses as they are numbered below.
In your responses, summarize in your own words as much as possible. You may use quotes from the opinion when necessary to capture an important idea/argument, but you should do so sparingly and make sure to describe the significance of a quote to your response after you use it.
A)Describe the legally relevant language issue at hand. What is the disagreement over the word “carry” or “carry a firearm” in the case? This is basically provided in the facts of the case.
B)From your perspective, what is a prototypical meaning of “carry a firearm?” In other words, if a person said that someone “used a firearm” what would you be most likely to think that meant? Be specific in your description.
C)Discuss arguments on each side of the case (from the perspective that Muscarello carried a firearm and from the perspective he didn’t carry a firearm). These arguments are discussed in the opinion. Be specific in your response—cite specific arguments from the opinion (the comments made in the dissenting opinion should also help with this question).
D)How does the language issue of the case relate to linguistic concepts that we have been discussing in the course (e.g., lexical ambiguity, syntactic ambiguity, vagueness, indeterminacy, prototypes, fuzzy boundaries)? Make sure to explain how it relates to the concept(s) you selected (from the list above). Note that only some of the concepts are relevant to the case. Discuss only those you think are relevant.
E)How did the Supreme Court rule on the case and on what basis did they make the ruling?
F)Do you agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling? Why or why not? Give support for your response. In answering this question consider other questions such as these: Does a literal reading of the law lead you to conclude that the defendant violated this statute? What was the likely intent of the framers of this statute? Do you think legislative intention even matters (the intention of lawmakers)?Read the Supreme Court Opinion for: Muscarello v. United States
Note that the majority opinion in this case was not unanimously agreed upon. You should read the full opinion written by Justice Breyer as well as the comments made by the dissenters (after the majority opinion).
After you have read the Supreme Court opinion and have understood the circumstances of the case, respond to the questions in a-f that follow. In your assignment, you should number your responses as they are numbered below.
In your responses, summarize in your own words as much as possible. You may use quotes from the opinion when necessary to capture an important idea/argument, but you should do so sparingly and make sure to describe the significance of a quote to your response after you use it.
Describe the legally relevant language issue at hand. What is the disagreement over the word “carry” or “carry a firearm” in the case? This is basically provided in the facts of the case.
From your perspective, what is a prototypical meaning of “carry a firearm?” In other words, if a person said that someone “used a firearm” what would you be most likely to think that meant? Be specific in your description.
Discuss arguments on each side of the case (from the perspective that Muscarello carried a firearm and from the perspective he didn’t carry a firearm). These arguments are discussed in the opinion. Be specific in your response—cite specific arguments from the opinion (the comments made in the dissenting opinion should also help with this question).
How does the language issue of the case relate to linguistic concepts that we have been discussing in the course (e.g., lexical ambiguity, syntactic ambiguity, vagueness, indeterminacy, prototypes, fuzzy boundaries)? Make sure to explain how it relates to the concept(s) you selected (from the list above). Note that only some of the concepts are relevant to the case. Discuss only those you think are relevant.
How did the Supreme Court rule on the case and on what basis did they make the ruling?
Do you agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling? Why or why not? Give support for your response. In answering this question consider other questions such as these: Does a literal reading of the law lead you to conclude that the defendant violated this statute? What was the likely intent of the framers of this statute? Do you think legislative intention even matters (the intention of lawmakers)?Read the Supreme Court Opinion for: Muscarello v. United States
Note that the majority opinion in this case was not unanimously agreed upon. You should read the full opinion written by Justice Breyer as well as the comments made by the dissenters (after the majority opinion).
After you have read the Supreme Court opinion and have understood the circumstances of the case, respond to the questions in a-f that follow. In your assignment, you should number your responses as they are numbered below.
In your responses, summarize in your own words as much as possible. You may use quotes from the opinion when necessary to capture an important idea/argument, but you should do so sparingly and make sure to describe the significance of a quote to your response after you use it.
Describe the legally relevant language issue at hand. What is the disagreement over the word “carry” or “carry a firearm” in the case? This is basically provided in the facts of the case.
From your perspective, what is a prototypical meaning of “carry a firearm?” In other words, if a person said that someone “used a firearm” what would you be most likely to think that meant? Be specific in your description.
Discuss arguments on each side of the case (from the perspective that Muscarello carried a firearm and from the perspective he didn’t carry a firearm). These arguments are discussed in the opinion. Be specific in your response—cite specific arguments from the opinion (the comments made in the dissenting opinion should also help with this question).
How does the language issue of the case relate to linguistic concepts that we have been discussing in the course (e.g., lexical ambiguity, syntactic ambiguity, vagueness, indeterminacy, prototypes, fuzzy boundaries)? Make sure to explain how it relates to the concept(s) you selected (from the list above). Note that only some of the concepts are relevant to the case. Discuss only those you think are relevant.
How did the Supreme Court rule on the case and on what basis did they make the ruling?
Do you agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling? Why or why not? Give support for your response. In answering this question consider other questions such as these: Does a literal reading of the law lead you to conclude that the defendant violated this statute? What was the likely intent of the framers of this statute? Do you think legislative intention even matters (the intention of lawmakers)?Read the Supreme Court Opinion for: Muscarello v. United States
Note that the majority opinion in this case was not unanimously agreed upon. You should read the full opinion written by Justice Breyer as well as the comments made by the dissenters (after the majority opinion).
After you have read the Supreme Court opinion and have understood the circumstances of the case, respond to the questions in a-f that follow. In your assignment, you should number your responses as they are numbered below.
In your responses, summarize in your own words as much as possible. You may use quotes from the opinion when necessary to capture an important idea/argument, but you should do so sparingly and make sure to describe the significance of a quote to your response after you use it.
Describe the legally relevant language issue at hand. What is the disagreement over the word “carry” or “carry a firearm” in the case? This is basically provided in the facts of the case.
From your perspective, what is a prototypical meaning of “carry a firearm?” In other words, if a person said that someone “used a firearm” what would you be most likely to think that meant? Be specific in your description.
Discuss arguments on each side of the case (from the perspective that Muscarello carried a firearm and from the perspective he didn’t carry a firearm). These arguments are discussed in the opinion. Be specific in your response—cite specific arguments from the opinion (the comments made in the dissenting opinion should also help with this question).
How does the language issue of the case relate to linguistic concepts that we have been discussing in the course (e.g., lexical ambiguity, syntactic ambiguity, vagueness, indeterminacy, prototypes, fuzzy boundaries)? Make sure to explain how it relates to the concept(s) you selected (from the list above). Note that only some of the concepts are relevant to the case. Discuss only those you think are relevant.
How did the Supreme Court rule on the case and on what basis did they make the ruling?
Do you agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling? Why or why not? Give support for your response. In answering this question consider other questions such as these: Does a literal reading of the law lead you to conclude that the defendant violated this statute? What was the likely intent of the framers of this statute? Do you think legislative intention even matters (the intention of lawmakers)?Read the Supreme Court Opinion for: Muscarello v. United States
Note that the majority opinion in this case was not unanimously agreed upon. You should read the full opinion written by Justice Breyer as well as the comments made by the dissenters (after the majority opinion).
After you have read the Supreme Court opinion and have understood the circumstances of the case, respond to the questions in a-f that follow. In your assignment, you should number your responses as they are numbered below.
In your responses, summarize in your own words as much as possible. You may use quotes from the opinion when necessary to capture an important idea/argument, but you should do so sparingly and make sure to describe the significance of a quote to your response after you use it.
Describe the legally relevant language issue at hand. What is the disagreement over the word “carry” or “carry a firearm” in the case? This is basically provided in the facts of the case.
From your perspective, what is a prototypical meaning of “carry a firearm?” In other words, if a person said that someone “used a firearm” what would you be most likely to think that meant? Be specific in your description.
Discuss arguments on each side of the case (from the perspective that Muscarello carried a firearm and from the perspective he didn’t carry a firearm). These arguments are discussed in the opinion. Be specific in your response—cite specific arguments from the opinion (the comments made in the dissenting opinion should also help with this question).
How does the language issue of the case relate to linguistic concepts that we have been discussing in the course (e.g., lexical ambiguity, syntactic ambiguity, vagueness, indeterminacy, prototypes, fuzzy boundaries)? Make sure to explain how it relates to the concept(s) you selected (from the list above). Note that only some of the concepts are relevant to the case. Discuss only those you think are relevant.
How did the Supreme Court rule on the case and on what basis did they make the ruling?
Do you agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling? Why or why not? Give support for your response. In answering this question consider other questions such as these: Does a literal reading of the law lead you to conclude that the defendant violated this statute? What was the likely intent of the framers of this statute? Do you think legislative intention even matters (the intention of lawmakers)?Read the Supreme Court Opinion for: Muscarello v. United States
Note that the majority opinion in this case was not unanimously agreed upon. You should read the full opinion written by Justice Breyer as well as the comments made by the dissenters (after the majority opinion).
After you have read the Supreme Court opinion and have understood the circumstances of the case, respond to the questions in a-f that follow. In your assignment, you should number your responses as they are numbered below.
In your responses, summarize in your own words as much as possible. You may use quotes from the opinion when necessary to capture an important idea/argument, but you should do so sparingly and make sure to describe the significance of a quote to your response after you use it.
Describe the legally relevant language issue at hand. What is the disagreement over the word “carry” or “carry a firearm” in the case? This is basically provided in the facts of the case.
From your perspective, what is a prototypical meaning of “carry a firearm?” In other words, if a person said that someone “used a firearm” what would you be most likely to think that meant? Be specific in your description.
Discuss arguments on each side of the case (from the perspective that Muscarello carried a firearm and from the perspective he didn’t carry a firearm). These arguments are discussed in the opinion. Be specific in your response—cite specific arguments from the opinion (the comments made in the dissenting opinion should also help with this question).
How does the language issue of the case relate to linguistic concepts that we have been discussing in the course (e.g., lexical ambiguity, syntactic ambiguity, vagueness, indeterminacy, prototypes, fuzzy boundaries)? Make sure to explain how it relates to the concept(s) you selected (from the list above). Note that only some of the concepts are relevant to the case. Discuss only those you think are relevant.
How did the Supreme Court rule on the case and on what basis did they make the ruling?
Do you agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling? Why or why not? Give support for your response. In answering this question consider other questions such as these: Does a literal reading of the law lead you to conclude that the defendant violated this statute? What was the likely intent of the framers of this statute? Do you think legislative intention even matters (the intention of lawmakers)?Read the Supreme Court Opinion for: Muscarello v. United States
Note that the majority opinion in this case was not unanimously agreed upon. You should read the full opinion written by Justice Breyer as well as the comments made by the dissenters (after the majority opinion).
After you have read the Supreme Court opinion and have understood the circumstances of the case, respond to the questions in a-f that follow. In your assignment, you should number your responses as they are numbered below.
In your responses, summarize in your own words as much as possible. You may use quotes from the opinion when necessary to capture an important idea/argument, but you should do so sparingly and make sure to describe the significance of a quote to your response after you use it.
Describe the legally relevant language issue at hand. What is the disagreement over the word “carry” or “carry a firearm” in the case? This is basically provided in the facts of the case.
From your perspective, what is a prototypical meaning of “carry a firearm?” In other words, if a person said that someone “used a firearm” what would you be most likely to think that meant? Be specific in your description.
Discuss arguments on each side of the case (from the perspective that Muscarello carried a firearm and from the perspective he didn’t carry a firearm). These arguments are discussed in the opinion. Be specific in your response—cite specific arguments from the opinion (the comments made in the dissenting opinion should also help with this question).
How does the language issue of the case relate to linguistic concepts that we have been discussing in the course (e.g., lexical ambiguity, syntactic ambiguity, vagueness, indeterminacy, prototypes, fuzzy boundaries)? Make sure to explain how it relates to the concept(s) you selected (from the list above). Note that only some of the concepts are relevant to the case. Discuss only those you think are relevant.
How did the Supreme Court rule on the case and on what basis did they make the ruling?
Do you agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling? Why or why not? Give support for your response. In answering this question consider other questions such as these: Does a literal reading of the law lead you to conclude that the defendant violated this statute? What was the likely intent of the framers of this statute? Do you think legislative intention even matters (the intention of lawmakers)?Read the Supreme Court Opinion for: Muscarello v. United States
Note that the majority opinion in this case was not unanimously agreed upon. You should read the full opinion written by Justice Breyer as well as the comments made by the dissenters (after the majority opinion).
After you have read the Supreme Court opinion and have understood the circumstances of the case, respond to the questions in a-f that follow. In your assignment, you should number your responses as they are numbered below.
In your responses, summarize in your own words as much as possible. You may use quotes from the opinion when necessary to capture an important idea/argument, but you should do so sparingly and make sure to describe the significance of a quote to your response after you use it.
Describe the legally relevant language issue at hand. What is the disagreement over the word “carry” or “carry a firearm” in the case? This is basically provided in the facts of the case.
From your perspective, what is a prototypical meaning of “carry a firearm?” In other words, if a person said that someone “used a firearm” what would you be most likely to think that meant? Be specific in your description.
Discuss arguments on each side of the case (from the perspective that Muscarello carried a firearm and from the perspective he didn’t carry a firearm). These arguments are discussed in the opinion. Be specific in your response—cite specific arguments from the opinion (the comments made in the dissenting opinion should also help with this question).
How does the language issue of the case relate to linguistic concepts that we have been discussing in the course (e.g., lexical ambiguity, syntactic ambiguity, vagueness, indeterminacy, prototypes, fuzzy boundaries)? Make sure to explain how it relates to the concept(s) you selected (from the list above). Note that only some of the concepts are relevant to the case. Discuss only those you think are relevant.
How did the Supreme Court rule on the case and on what basis did they make the ruling?
Do you agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling? Why or why not? Give support for your response. In answering this question consider other questions such as these: Does a literal reading of the law lead you to conclude that the defendant violated this statute? What was the likely intent of the framers of this statute? Do you think legislative intention even matters (the intention of lawmakers)?
