2. In the 1980s, the Supreme Court ruled that it is legal for protesters to burn the American flag.
This activity counts as free speech under the Constitution. If the Court hears a new flag-burning case in this decade, should it consider changing its ruling, or should it follow precedent? Is following past precedent something that seems sensible to you: always, usually, sometimes, rarely, or never?
3. When should a business be held legally responsible for customer safety? Consider the following statements, and consider the degree to which you agree or disagree: • A business should keep customers safe from its own employees. • A business should keep customers safe from other customers. • A business should keep customers safe from themselves. (Example: an intoxicated customer who can no longer walk straight.) • A business should keep people outside its own establishment safe if it is reasonable to do so. 4. In his most famous novel, The Red and the Black, the French author Stendhal (1783–1842) wrote: “There is no such thing as ‘natural law’: this expression is nothing but old nonsense. Prior to laws, what is natural is only the strength of the lion,
or the need of the creature suffering from hunger or cold, in short, need.” What do you think? Does legal positivism or legal realism seem more sensible to you? 5. At the time of this writing, voters are particularly disgruntled. A good many people seem to be disgusted with government. For this question, we intentionally avoid distinguishing between Democrats and Republicans, and we intentionally do not name any particular President. Consider the following statements, and consider the degree to which you agree or disagree: • I believe that members of Congress usually try to do the right thing for America. • I believe that Presidents usually try to do the right thing for America. • I believe that Supreme Court justices usually try to do the right thing for America.