You will be seeing the film "Walkout," which is about a group of students in California organizing to achieve equal rights in education.
You will be asked to write a short summary of the film and note the following:
1. Which rights (according to the United States Constitution) are being violated (and by whom) in this film?
2. How do the students go about correcting the situation?
3. Who is right and who is wrong in this film--explain your opinion.
4. What happens to the students at the end?
5. What are the pros and cons for Paula in joining this movement? Would you join if you were in this situation?
We will be discussing rights, violation of rights, and the process of securing rights if you think that your cause is just. Remember poor Fred Koramatsu--he was right, too, and he did not have a very good outcome. We will discuss the issue of justice and how society responds when justice prevail--and when it doesn't.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Monday, November 17, 2008
Supreme Court Case and vocab
Today we discussed a Supreme Court case involving the Fourth Amendment, which can be found on pages 164-165 of your book.
Vocabulary and concepts:
warrant--permission to search a person or premises
en loco parentis-Latin for "in place of the parents." Please note that "loco" is the Latin root word for "place" or "location" and does not indicate insanity. This phrase means that school personnel are required to act in the place of parents in supervising students and keeping them safe.
Conservative interpretation of the Constitution--this means that whatever is written in the Constitution (or law) is what it means. This is not open to interpretation. If the Founding Fathers or Congress wanted to say something else, they'd have said it. A Constitutional conservative believes it is the job of Congress to make the laws, and we must follow and apply them as written exactly. The Constitution is to be taken literally.
Liberal interpretation of the Constitution--the Constitution must be interpreted using the intention of those who created the laws and the information available. It can be interpreted using information that was not available at the time.
Vocabulary and concepts:
warrant--permission to search a person or premises
en loco parentis-Latin for "in place of the parents." Please note that "loco" is the Latin root word for "place" or "location" and does not indicate insanity. This phrase means that school personnel are required to act in the place of parents in supervising students and keeping them safe.
Conservative interpretation of the Constitution--this means that whatever is written in the Constitution (or law) is what it means. This is not open to interpretation. If the Founding Fathers or Congress wanted to say something else, they'd have said it. A Constitutional conservative believes it is the job of Congress to make the laws, and we must follow and apply them as written exactly. The Constitution is to be taken literally.
Liberal interpretation of the Constitution--the Constitution must be interpreted using the intention of those who created the laws and the information available. It can be interpreted using information that was not available at the time.
The Constitution and the Amendments
We have gone through the sections of the Constitution a bit, but will be doing so more in detail when we cover each of the 3 branches of government. This will break up the joy and spread it out some.
Our Amendment projects are complete and presented.
For Review:
In your notebook, please make sure you either have your foldable which includes a BRIEF description of each of the articles and amendments. There is a class that did not do the foldable project. If you belong to this class, or did not do your foldable for another reason, then make sure that BEFORE THE MIDTERM EXAM you have included a short outline of the Constitution on your notebook.
Your summary should include:
-A short note about the purpose of each of the articles
-A short note about each amendment--this can be done as follows:
Article 1: Congress
-sets up the Senate and the House of Representatives, discusses qualifications and pay for each, and gives the powers.
Amendment 2:
-right to bear arms.
Our Amendment projects are complete and presented.
For Review:
In your notebook, please make sure you either have your foldable which includes a BRIEF description of each of the articles and amendments. There is a class that did not do the foldable project. If you belong to this class, or did not do your foldable for another reason, then make sure that BEFORE THE MIDTERM EXAM you have included a short outline of the Constitution on your notebook.
Your summary should include:
-A short note about the purpose of each of the articles
-A short note about each amendment--this can be done as follows:
Article 1: Congress
-sets up the Senate and the House of Representatives, discusses qualifications and pay for each, and gives the powers.
Amendment 2:
-right to bear arms.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Notes on the Founding Fathers and Creation of the Constitution
We discussed the Founding Fathers, which someone advised were "boring." I gave you some notes, which you did not have to copy--I am reposting them here.
Who Decided What to Put in the Constitution?
Some interesting notes…
We have agreed that the Articles of Confederation did not work. It was difficult for the Federal government to collect taxes, and the states had their own interests in mind. They were not inclined to give power to a federal government that would replace the King. Hence, we see an ideological split. The Federalists believed that the Articles of Confederation were so flawed that they needed to be replaced. The Anti-Federalists felt that all decisions should be left to the states and “the People.”
“The People,” Federalist James Madison argued, did not truly exist. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson (a staunch Anti-federalist), Madison explained that there were so many social classes and interests that it was almost impossible to define “the people.”
Madison felt that the best government should be a government where the interests of the people were fractured and different. The best government should have a balance of power contained between the three branches of government, but that in the end, the federal government should have veto power over the states. He did not get his exact wish—Anti-federalists were too afraid that this closely resembled the situation that had existed before under the King. The Colonies could make laws for themselves but the King had absolute veto power. They were not excited to vote for a Constitution that held similar power.
There were many options that could have happened during the Constitutional Convention:
1. The states could have broken up into individual regions or “confederations.” A confederation is a union of states united for some reason—perhaps defense or economic reasons.
2. The states could have stayed together under the Articles, which would probably have meant that the government would have continued to be disorganized and eventually dissolve.
3. The Articles could have been amended in some fashion.
4. The Articles could have been thrown away (and the Constitution created with regional compromises) [This is what happened]
5. The new Constitution could have been created containing the strongest Federalist language, in effect exactly reproducing the situation the colonists left under the King.
What did we get in the new Constitution?
• A balance of power—a bicameral (two-part) legislature. One part, the House of Representatives, would be based on population, and the other, the Senate, would allow each state the same number of votes. The federal government did not get to veto the state laws in the Congress.
o The Anti-federalists wanted the Congress to be purely population-based (ie, the voice of “the people”) and the Federalists wanted each state to have the same power but to be trumped by the federal government (the federal gov’t would have the final veto power).
• An Executive branch with a President and Vice-President who would make sure the laws were carried out.
• A loosely-defined Judicial branch without a clearly spelled out role. The Supreme Court was created, but at the time it was never really clear whether they would have absolute power to check laws. They asserted this power in the case Marbury v. Madison later, but at the time of the creation of the Constitution, it was unclear.
Key Compromises:
The Great Compromise: divided the Congress into two branches, providing checks and balances.
• The Virginia Plan divided Congress into two groups both of which had the number of members based on population.
• The New Jersey Plan was an amending of the Articles of Confederation and had the number of representatives in Congress the same for each state.
The Great Compromise took one element from each plan and made a compromise—the Senate would have the same number of representatives from each state and the House would have membership based on populations. Furthermore, each slave would count as 3/5 of a person toward House membership (The Three-Fifths’ Compromise).
A Brief cast of characters:
George Washington: Fought the Revolutionary War. Was upset that ineffective supply lines and confusion between states almost lost the war. Suffered a devastating winter in Valley Forge when Colonists persisted in selling supplies to the British because the British paid in reliable currency.
Alexander Hamilton: Aid to GW who also saw the tragedy unfold in Valley Forge. Upset because there was no strong gov’t to insure that the Colonists were united in supplying the soldiers.
Thomas Jefferson: Wrote the Declaration of Independence, which gave a long list of complaints against the excessive government of the King, where he could veto any laws or assert any power over the local Colonial government.
James Madison: Young revolutionary thinker—a lawyer, in fact. Thought that the bigger the government, the better it would operate. Small local governments were often victim to partisanship (inter-community drama and fighting) and unfairness. Big governments would operate better. The bigger the better—the best chance for the US Gov’t would be to have the federal government able to override state governments and also to have more land, more people, and more government.
William Patterson: supported the New Jersey Plan which gave states equal representation in the Congress.
Who Decided What to Put in the Constitution?
Some interesting notes…
We have agreed that the Articles of Confederation did not work. It was difficult for the Federal government to collect taxes, and the states had their own interests in mind. They were not inclined to give power to a federal government that would replace the King. Hence, we see an ideological split. The Federalists believed that the Articles of Confederation were so flawed that they needed to be replaced. The Anti-Federalists felt that all decisions should be left to the states and “the People.”
“The People,” Federalist James Madison argued, did not truly exist. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson (a staunch Anti-federalist), Madison explained that there were so many social classes and interests that it was almost impossible to define “the people.”
Madison felt that the best government should be a government where the interests of the people were fractured and different. The best government should have a balance of power contained between the three branches of government, but that in the end, the federal government should have veto power over the states. He did not get his exact wish—Anti-federalists were too afraid that this closely resembled the situation that had existed before under the King. The Colonies could make laws for themselves but the King had absolute veto power. They were not excited to vote for a Constitution that held similar power.
There were many options that could have happened during the Constitutional Convention:
1. The states could have broken up into individual regions or “confederations.” A confederation is a union of states united for some reason—perhaps defense or economic reasons.
2. The states could have stayed together under the Articles, which would probably have meant that the government would have continued to be disorganized and eventually dissolve.
3. The Articles could have been amended in some fashion.
4. The Articles could have been thrown away (and the Constitution created with regional compromises) [This is what happened]
5. The new Constitution could have been created containing the strongest Federalist language, in effect exactly reproducing the situation the colonists left under the King.
What did we get in the new Constitution?
• A balance of power—a bicameral (two-part) legislature. One part, the House of Representatives, would be based on population, and the other, the Senate, would allow each state the same number of votes. The federal government did not get to veto the state laws in the Congress.
o The Anti-federalists wanted the Congress to be purely population-based (ie, the voice of “the people”) and the Federalists wanted each state to have the same power but to be trumped by the federal government (the federal gov’t would have the final veto power).
• An Executive branch with a President and Vice-President who would make sure the laws were carried out.
• A loosely-defined Judicial branch without a clearly spelled out role. The Supreme Court was created, but at the time it was never really clear whether they would have absolute power to check laws. They asserted this power in the case Marbury v. Madison later, but at the time of the creation of the Constitution, it was unclear.
Key Compromises:
The Great Compromise: divided the Congress into two branches, providing checks and balances.
• The Virginia Plan divided Congress into two groups both of which had the number of members based on population.
• The New Jersey Plan was an amending of the Articles of Confederation and had the number of representatives in Congress the same for each state.
The Great Compromise took one element from each plan and made a compromise—the Senate would have the same number of representatives from each state and the House would have membership based on populations. Furthermore, each slave would count as 3/5 of a person toward House membership (The Three-Fifths’ Compromise).
A Brief cast of characters:
George Washington: Fought the Revolutionary War. Was upset that ineffective supply lines and confusion between states almost lost the war. Suffered a devastating winter in Valley Forge when Colonists persisted in selling supplies to the British because the British paid in reliable currency.
Alexander Hamilton: Aid to GW who also saw the tragedy unfold in Valley Forge. Upset because there was no strong gov’t to insure that the Colonists were united in supplying the soldiers.
Thomas Jefferson: Wrote the Declaration of Independence, which gave a long list of complaints against the excessive government of the King, where he could veto any laws or assert any power over the local Colonial government.
James Madison: Young revolutionary thinker—a lawyer, in fact. Thought that the bigger the government, the better it would operate. Small local governments were often victim to partisanship (inter-community drama and fighting) and unfairness. Big governments would operate better. The bigger the better—the best chance for the US Gov’t would be to have the federal government able to override state governments and also to have more land, more people, and more government.
William Patterson: supported the New Jersey Plan which gave states equal representation in the Congress.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Presidential History
It is official. Barack Obama will be the 44th President of the United States.
We will discuss this in class, but (A Week) your Amendment Projects are still due tomorrow.
We will discuss this in class, but (A Week) your Amendment Projects are still due tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)