Pull out your white wigs and your gavels, it's time to play 'You be the Judge.' (Think I am kidding... I even have a cute stamp I put on the kids papers...) My final stab at reading and writing skills AND interpreting the Constitution is a whopper. I assign the kids to play Supreme Court Justice. They get to decide issues of constitutional interpretation, judicial philosophy, precedent, and politics. All in one nice, neat little two page paper. I guide the students through two of them (it makes for a great class discussion!) and leave them to their own devices on the last one. Per the student's request, our first of four papers is Sebelius v Hobby Lobby. My students are asked to tackle two plain-english derivations of the case before the SCOTUS, as well as two, more technical discussions. I lead them through the various questions on the assignment, and take time to tackle some of the more complex legal maneouvering. In this case, the question before the court requires application of strict scrutiny. I find strict scrutiny, as well as all judicial tests, to be a problem for most students. This little video is super helpful. Once I get through this video, I take care to explain the different tests, including intermediate scrutiny (the lesser used due to VMI.) Point here is whether or not the federal government has to treat Hobby Lobby as a "person," as it is not explicitly stated in the 1st Amendment, and "person" is loosely defined in the Federal Dictionary Act. Hmph. Pesky little boogers. So, if they, meaning Hobby Lobby and the Green family who owns this chain of stores, are a person, then the government will have to employ a strict scrutiny test... and that requires the federal government to show: -A compelling (or necessary and.or crucial) interest If Hobby Lobby can show that their fundamental constitutional right to free exercise has been compromised, the then the government has to argue through evidence that Hobby Lobby's free exercise rights are NOT being infringed. But that is if the courts agree first that Hobby Lobby is a person. And if Hobby Lobby finds the Court seeing them as a person, then the government has about a 60% chance that the Courts will find in their favor. (That whole 'strict in theory, fatal in fact' argument is not as fatal as previously advertised.) And below, because I have to 'make life impossible' for my students, are my notes on the case. If they find it, great. Key is you found it.
0 Comments
|
Jen's bookshelf: nerdcation
I want to start by thanking Mr. Snowden and Mr. Greenwald for their uncompromising dedication to giving the NSA violations air time and transparency.
I wanted to share some of the most important things I have learned from this book bef...
tagged:
nerdcation
tagged:
nerdcation and to-read
tagged:
nerdcation and to-read
tagged:
nerdcation and to-read
AuthorI lovgov. LOVE IT! I love teaching government, learning about it, debating, discussing, asking questions about government. And not the standard boiler plate questions, but the hard ones that are NOT in the books. Archives
August 2018
Categories
All
|