Question #1:  Do you think the colonies emerged [in the 1600’s and 1700’s] as a cohesive, ‘united’ collection of governments? Or do you think the colonies emerged more like a grouping of semi-independent nations?

Question #2:  Whose side do you take (from a present day perspective) on the whole debate between the colonists and the British Government?

#3:  Give some examples of taxation without representation in today’s society.

#4:  Why did they have to ask? Why couldn’t they just tell the colonies to contribute war supplies and troops to the cause of fighting the British?

. . . bold face and a box like this.

Question #1:  In your opinion, what was meant by ‘Creator?’

#2: In your opinion, what was meant by unalienable Rights?

#3:  Would you have added anything to the list of unalienable rights? If so, what? If not, then please explain to me what all you believe to be encompassed by life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

#4: What does the above statement mean? (NOTE from Jacobson to Jacobson: I’ve got two words for you, social contract!) (NOTE from Jacobson to student: What are you doing reading my own notes to myself? Answer the original question!)

#5: What does the above statement mean?

#6: What does the above statement mean?

#7:  What does the above underlined statement mean?

#8: Do you agree or disagree with Jefferson on this point?

[NOTE:  Don’t forget #9 which is quite a ways down]

Teacher comment:  Below you will read a list of complaints regarding the King of England.  It’s long!  Try not to be distracted by not fully understanding all that’s being referred to along the way.  Take it in as a full list, not as a bunch of separate items.

Teacher comment:  Now the Declaration of Independence moves its focus from the King of England to Parliament and the people of Britain!  Again, try to take it in as a whole without being distracted by the specifics.

#9:  Note the three underlined references to the states/colonies.  In your opinion, was Jefferson referring to the colonies as united beyond the cause of fighting Britain? In other words, with a looming war with Britain, there was an obvious reason for the colonies to be united.  In your view, was this united setup a part of the plan for how the states would deal with one another after the war? Put yet another way, is Jefferson referring to the idea of a single nation? Or is he referring to a temporarily united collection of 13 nations who have come together for a common cause (fighting Britain)?

Essentially, the Declaration represented a claim of sovereignty by the colonies.

Sovereign: a nation that is independent and not answerable to another nation (not as a colony, etc.). An Independent nation. (Know this word, please!)

#1:  Why do you think the authors of the ‘Articles of Confederation’ made the national government so weak and the states (by comparison) so strong?

Teacher comment:  Article I, Section 1 is the U.S. Constitution’s first major ‘compromise.’  Let’s see if you can figure what I mean by that.

Question #1:  How long is a House member’s term of office?

Teacher comment:  Below (Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3) you’ll notice some strikethrough language.  That’s because it no longer applies.  Constitutional amendments (which you’ll look at later) rendered it useless. 

#2:  What factor determines how many House members a particular state gets?

#3:  What is the lowest number of House members a state can be given?

I’m wondering (in writing) if it’s clear from clause 3 that each member of the House is to come from within a specific district that is drawn within a state’s borders (unless, of course . . . . . ooops, don’t want to give away the answer to #3)?  This isn’t a formal question for you to ask, just a thought.

I discuss the idea of congressional ‘districts’ a little later.  Stay tuned.

#4:  Who gets to impeach the President of the United States?

#5:  The most powerful member of the House of Representatives is the Speaker of the House.  In your opinion, does the constitution mandate that this position exist?

#6:  What, in your opinion, is meant by ‘other officers?’

Question #1:  On election day, people across the country go and cast votes for the U.S. Senator of their choice.  Has it always been that way? Explain. 

#2:  How many members are there in the U.S. Senate? How did you arrive at that number?

#3:  How long is a senator’s term of office?

#4:  In your opinion, why did they do what they did in clause 2 (immediately above)?

Teacher’s comment:  You’re all a little more than halfway there! (I’m referring to your age, by the way)

Teacher’s comment: Clause 4 is an important item to note.

Teacher’s comment: President pro tempore means “temporary President of the U.S. Senate”

#5:  Please speculate for me on the different roles played by the House and Senate when it comes to the topic of impeachment.  In other words, how do the responsibilities of the House and Senate differ regarding the topic of impeachment?

#6:  OK, based on clause 7, explain to me if the following can happen:  I’m President.  I get impeached.  Two thirds of the Senate agrees to convict me.  Can I then immediately be sentenced to a prison term by the presiding judge of my impeachment trial (the Chief Justice)? Explain.

Teacher’s comment: Section 4, clause 1 has already been taken care of on a couple levels by the Congress.  By the way, when the U.S. Constitution refers to ‘the Congress,’ it’s actually talking about the House and the Senate.  So anyway, back to what I was about to get into.  The Congress has already passed a law that requires all federal government elections to be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November in even numbered years.  Congress has also required that, if you’re running for the House of Representatives, you must run within a certain district within a certain state (On rare occasions, if the state is really small, the House district for the state is the state itself).  You can’t run for the House to represent the entire state (unless, again, the entire state IS the actual House district). 

For example, there’s a member of the House who represents people who live in LaCrosse, Wisconsin.  Those LaCrosse people do not live in the same district as you do (I’m assuming that you all live in the greater Milwaukee area).  When you go to vote on election day, you will not see the LaCrosse House member’s name on the ballot because you don’t live in his/her district.  You would have to choose between candidates running for the House in the district that is local to the Milwaukee area.  (Wisconsin, suffice it to say, is NOT one of those really small states where the state is also the House district.  After the 2000 census, Wisconsin was deemed worthy of 8 House seats; thus, we have 8 districts for House elections.)

Senators, on the other hand, represent entire states.  Their districts are their entire states (regardless of the state’s population).  When it comes time to vote for a Senator in Wisconsin, you will see the same names on the ballot as the LaCrosse people see.

Finally, with respect to the forming of any type of ‘district’ for any type of elected office (not just the House of Representatives), you need to be familiar with a term known as ‘gerrymandering.’  Technically, gerrymandering is not legal.  In reality, it still happens (It’s very difficult to prove).   What is gerrymandering? Put simply, it’s the drawing of the borders of a district such that a particular political party has a definite advantage.  Can you think of how this might be achieved? (This is not an assignment question; rather, it’s just for class discussion purposes).

#7:  If there are 435 members of the House of Representatives, then how many House Districts  are there in the United States?

#8:  Is it possible for an entire state to also be a House District? Explain (in your own words)

#9:  Accepting that there are 435 House members and 100 Senators, how many House members do you need to have present in order to have a quorum? Senators? What is a quorum?

Teacher’s note I:  That underlined section above is HUGE.  Why???

Teacher’s note II:  Short of expulsion, the House and Senate have ‘censured’ their members.  To be ‘censured’ is to be formerly and publicly reprimanded.  In essence, you’re publicly scolded by your peers (House members or Senators).  Expulsion, on the other hand, is obviously more serious.  You’re kicked out if you’re expelled.  Here are some reasons why House members/Senators have been expelled in the past:  supporting the Confederacy during the  Civil War; bribery; advocating a socialist party revolution in America, and being sentenced to prison for 20 years (the expulsion was because of the prison sentence, not the other way around).

#10:  What’s your opinion of the ‘privileged from arrest’ language in clause 1 of section 6?

Teacher’s note:  First of all, the word emoluments means ‘salaries.’  So, what’s really being said here is this:  Congress can’t pass laws to benefit its members directly.  The other item of note here is this.  If you serve in the legislative branch (as either a House member or a Senator) then you can’t serve in either of the other two branches (Articles II and III of the U.S. Constitution—the executive and judicial branches respectively).

Clause 2 really helps to establish the idea of separation of powers. Separation of powers is the idea that the total power of our government must be split up into separate parts which, in turn, may ‘check’ and ‘balance’ one another (which is yet another concept known as ‘checks and balances.’)  Clause 2 mandates that if you serve in one branch, then you can’t simultaneously serve in another.  If we allowed people to serve in two branches at the same time, then the power they held would not be separated by branch.  In other words, one individual could wield power (conceivably) as a President (executive branch of government; see Article II) and a Senator (legislative branch of government).  The Founding Fathers (aka, the Framers; aka, the writers of the constitution) felt such an arrangement to be bad for the nation because it would lead to a possible situation where a single person could take on more power than one person ought to have.

Teacher’s note:  The most famous kind of revenue raising bill (aka, ‘money raising bill’) would be a bill that creates a tax.  Normal bills can originate in either the House or the Senate.  In other words, if a Senator wanted to submit an idea for a bill that would make it illegal for Americans to own military tanks as personal property, then said Senator could have the bill written up and propose it to the full U.S. Senate.  We would then say that the “No Military Tanks for Normal People” Bill originated in the Senate.  If the Senate passed this bill, then it would go to the House.  If the House passed the bill, then it would go to the President (who would either sign or veto it).  So a bill can go from Senate to House to President or it can go from House to Senate to President.  But if the bill involves raising revenue, it must go from House to Senate to President.

There’s another kind of bill that involves money:  the appropriations bill.  To appropriate money means that you spend money.  An appropriations bill must be passed in order for the federal government to spend money on a given program or set of programs.  Appropriations bills are more specific forms of revenue bills and also must start in the House.  Appropriations bills are usually the last bills passed in a Congressional session, typically in the form of gigantic, monstrous lists of money items that need to be shelled out in order to keep the government running, pay for previously passed legislation etc.  It’s rare to see a bill that calls for the spending of money to actually have the appropriation tied to it. 

For example, if a federal law is passed that calls for the creation of a new government agency, then the actual money required to operate that agency will be “appropriated” at a later date (along with a gazillion other appropriations . . . all in the same enormous appropriations bill).  The original bill (the one that created the new government agency) can set out what costs will be, but the actual money to cover those costs won’t be approved until a later (appropriations) bill is made law.

Question #1:  Why, in your opinion, did the Founding Fathers require revenue bills to originate in the House of Representatives?

Teacher’s note:  If the bill is ‘returned’ to Congress, it has been vetoed.  A vetoed bill IS NOT law.

Teacher’s note:  The process described immediately above is known as a veto override or ‘overridden veto.’

#2:  Veto overrides are rare.  Why is this so, in your opinion?

Teacher’s note:  There’s a catch to this.  A President may do something known as a ‘pocket veto,’ if given a bill from Congress with less than ten days (Sundays excepted) left in the Congressional term.  Congressional terms last two years (to coincide with our elections that take place every two years).  If Congress gives the President a bill with, say, eight days left in the entire two year term, then the President may choose to neither sign nor veto the bill.  The metaphor is that the President “pockets” the bill and leaves it in his pocket . . . . where it dies.  A pocketed bill is an unpassed bill which is the same as a vetoed bill.  The President didn’t have to actually veto it; rather, he just let it die on its own because he wasn’t given his constitutionally guaranteed ten days (excepting Sundays) to sign or veto.  Pocket vetoes are rare, but the lesson is clear---If you’re in Congress and you really want to make the President either sign or veto a bill, make sure the bill gets passed with at least eleven days left in the two year congressional term.

#3:  If a bill does not get passed and signed into law before the end of a congressional term, then that bill must go back to the very beginning of the process a few weeks later when the new term begins.  In other words, the bill must be redebated, revoted upon by both the Senate and the House . . . . . EVERYTHING must be redone.  Why is the system set up this way, in your opinion?

Teacher’s Note: I’d have to say that what you’re about to read is one of the more significant parts of the U.S. Constitution.  Section 8, clauses 1-18 are called the ‘enumerated powers.’  It’s a specific list of the powers that Congress holds (for the first 17 items) and a not so specific list of the ultimate (some say most significant) power Congress holds (the 18^th item).  Here we go . . . . .

Question #1:  Later on in this document, you’ll notice the 16^th Amendment which essentially permitted the federal government the authority to collect income taxes.  Section 8, clause 1 was not interpreted to mean “Congress can impose income taxes on people.”  Why not?

Teacher’s note:  Clause 3 is called the commerce clause, and it’s huge.  The whole thing is important, but the underlined ‘among the several states’ part is typically regarded as the most significant part.

#2:  Give a specific example of what, in your opinion, the commerce clause gives the Congress the authority to do regarding trade among the states (or, put in more common terms, interstate commerce).

Naturalization means the process by which a citizen of a foreign nation becomes a citizen of the U.S.

If you want yet another weakness of the Articles of Confederation, it’s spoken to here with clause 5.  “Back in the day” (of the Articles of Confederation) the individual states coined their own money.  Needless to say, it was a mess.  If I’m in Virginia and I go to Massachusetts, do my ‘Virginiabucks’ buy me a bowl of soup in Boston? Or do I have to trade my Virginiabucks for MassachusseDollars (or whatever they’re called)? Again, what a mess.  The U.S. Constitution makes it clear, right here, that there is to be one type of money and one type of money only.

You’ll read about the Supreme Court later.  What clause 9 did was allow Congress to make federal courts below the U.S. Supreme Court.  Today we have a vast array of federal courts that sit below the U.S. Supreme Court.  These federal courts were created by Congress.

#3:  Why would the Founding Fathers put a two year limit on army appropriations but not naval appropriations (in your opinion)?

#4:  Taken together, clauses 12-14 raise an interesting question.  Please answer it with your opinion.  Here’s the question:  Who really has control over the armed forces, the various officers in the army, navy, etc.---or the civilian (non-military) elected officials in the federal government? Explain.

The ‘militia’ means the National Guard.  Each state has a National Guard.  Each National Guard is under the command of its state governor; however, the President (as Commander in Chief of the armed forces) may ‘federalize’ any National Guard, thereby putting it under the command of the federal government.

#5:  The United States has fought in several wars since 1945 (the end of WWII), but has not actually declared a war since WWII.  Furthermore, Presidents have routinely ‘federalized’ the National Guard in various states.  In your opinion, do clauses 11 and 15 have the meaning that the Founding Fathers intended for them to have? Explain. (You could even throw clause 16 into the mix when answering this question if you’d like)

This allows Congress to make laws for Washington D.C. and military bases around the world.  It also gives Congress the authority to regulate our national parks.

#6:  Clause 18 is called the ‘elastic clause.’  Why do so many political scientists consider it to be the most important of the 18 enumerated powers?

#7:  Why is clause 18 called the ‘elastic’ clause? I’m really interested to get your response to the word elastic.

Question #1:  Want to really look at your nation’s history? OK, try your best here.  Read clause 1 carefully.  What exactly is it saying? Use common, modern day English please.

A writ of habeas corpus, issued by a judge, mandates that an actual law enforcement official must be the one to bring a prisoner before a court. Furthermore, it requires that some reasonable cause be demonstrated for actually holding the prisoner. 

#2:  Please give me an example or two of some bad things that could happen without clause 2.

Do note the second part of clause 2, please.  One President, in particular, used this clause (Several others have as well.)  In fact, this President suspended habeas corpus privileges for over half a million Americans.  Do you know who? Do you know why?

A bill of attainder is a law that punishes a person without a jury trial.  Such laws are unconstitutional.  An ex post facto law is a law that makes an act a crime AFTER it has been committed.  In other words (WARNING: This is kind of a silly example) if there’s no law against bank robbery on Sunday, I rob a bank on Monday, and a law is passed on Tuesday which makes bank robbery a crime, then I can’t be punished for Monday’s bank robbery.  Get it?

Here’s a specific reference to the ‘appropriations bills’ I was talking about earlier.

#3:  Does clause 7 say anything about drawing more money out of the treasury than is actually in the treasury? What does that imply to you?

#4:  Is clause 8 necessary in your opinion? Why or why not?

If ever you wondered about the history of the United States, section 10 would give you a big clue regarding the failure of our first attempt at a constitution (the Articles of Confederation).  I personally like to call section 10 the “Federal Government’s in charge” section.  Read on . . . . .

Now that you’ve read all three clauses, you see what I mean.  The Founding Fathers wanted to be certain that certain topics could not be confused when it came to a debate over who had the right (or didn’t have the right) to do certain things:  the federal government or the state governments. 

#5:  If section 10 had not been included in the U.S. Constitution, offer me an example of something really, really bad that could legally have occurred in a state under the direction of a state governor and a state legislature. (NOTE:  The President is the Chief Executive of the nation (the federal government).  A governor is the chief executive of a state (a state government).  A governor is NOT a part of the federal government.  Indeed, a governor is the head of a state government.  Similarly, the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives are the legislators (lawmakers) of the federal government.  A state legislature (names vary from state to state) does the same thing (makes laws, etc.) on the state level.  We have federal laws and we have state laws. Section 10 is concerned with making certain that states don’t make certain types of laws.  Not surprisingly, most of these ‘banned’ laws for the states are the same things that the federal government will not allow itself to do. )

#6:  If Wisconsin has a state law that requires schoolchildren to attend at least 188 days of school per year, do schoolchildren in Illinois have to attend 188 days of school per year because of the Wisconsin state law? Explain

Section 10 is also a good spot to explain the difference between three different types of democracies that exist. 

The first is a confederate system (or a confederacy).  In a confederate system, the states have more power than the national government.  In fact, the national government has only the power that the states are willing to give it.  The Articles of Confederation was arguably a confederacy.  It didn’t work for this country; however, there are some quasi-confederacies that have worked.  Some say that the current setup in the European Union is a version of a confederacy. 

The second type of democracy is a unitary system.  In a unitary system, the national government essentially dictates all power directly to the states.  States (or provinces) only have the powers that are specifically awarded to them by the national government.

As you’ll see later on, the United States is really more of a federal system.  In a federal system, there is a splitting up of powers between the national government and the state governments.  The national government claims a certain number of powers for itself.  The powers that aren’t claimed are ‘left’ to the states.  It’s subtle, but it differs significantly from a unitary system where the powers given to the states are directly handed to them by the national government.  In a federal system, the powers aren’t handed, they simply are left unclaimed by the national government.  For instance, going back to Wisconsin’s supposed 188 day school year that is dictated by Wisconsin state law.  Wisconsin took it upon itself to pass such a state law because there’s nothing in the U.S. Constitution or federal law that requires states to have minimum length school years.  The whole topic of school years is left unclaimed by the federal government; thus, the state governments take the topic of school years for themselves.  There are all sorts of things that are regulated at the state level, and they often differ from state to state.  Wisconsin has no death penalty.  Texas does have a death penalty.  Wisconsin may give you a speeding ticket for going 80 miles per hour on certain roads.  Montana, at one point, actually had an open ended ‘no daytime speed limit’ policy.  The list goes on and on. 

The important thing to keep in mind is this:  If you hear of a law, your first question should always be—Is it a federal law or a state law? If it’s a federal law, then you can bet that it will apply in all 50 states.  If, however, it’s a state law, it may not apply in all 50 states.

IMPORTANT:  This idea of the states having their say on certain things and the federal government having its say on the things that it claims for itself is known as FEDERALISM.  We practice federalism under the federal system.

#7:  Why do most political scientists argue that the United States could never have gone to a unitary system when the constitution was being written? Do you agree or disagree?

#8:  Which do you think is best for the United States—a confederacy, a unitary system, or a federal system? Explain.

Here are a couple of other government related vocabulary words:

democracy:  Rule by the people

oligarchy:  rule by a small group of unelected people

monarchy:  rule by a hereditarily determined  king or queen with total or near total power

autocracy:  rule by a dictator (not monarchic in nature)

#9:  Is it possible to make an argument that the 2^nd, 3^rd, or 4^th government type listed is ‘better’ than democracy? Why or why not? Explain.

Now that we’re done with Article I of the constitution, I think it’s appropriate to look more closely at how a bill becomes a law.  Here’s a brief rundown of the process (NOTE: When I write ‘legislator,’ I’m referring to either a member of the Senate or the House.  Other than revenue bills, as you know, a bill can start in either the Senate or the House):

a—A legislator introduces a bill

b—The bill goes to the correct committee [There are dozens and dozens of committees in the House and the Senate.  Most of them are standing committees.  A standing committee is a permanent committee that handles particular types of bills.  For instance, a bill introduced by a House member that would require farmers to report their use of a certain type of pesticide would likely go to the House Agriculture Committee]

c—The committee decides whether or not to even consider the bill.*

d—Assuming the committee decides to consider the bill, they hold public hearings on the bill in order to get as much information as possible regarding its potential impact, etc.

e—After the public hearings, the committee votes on whether or not to ‘report’ the bill to the full floor of the House/Senate.*

f—Assuming the bill gets ‘reported,’ it goes to the full floor for debate. *

g—Eventually, if the bill hasn’t died in the debate process, then the full floor (of either the House or Senate) votes on the bill. *

h—This is a big one: If the bill originated in the House, then repeat steps a-g for the Senate.  If the bill originated in the Senate, then repeat steps a-g for the House. (All the *’s above should be repeated)

i—Now, assuming the bill has passed the House and the Senate, it’s not likely that it passed in identical form.  In other words, riders, edits, slight changes may have occurred along the way.  Well, if the bill has been passed by both the Senate and House, but slightly different versions of it have been passed . . . . then you can’t send both versions to the President.  You have to get a few Senators and a few House members  back together in a room to negotiate a common bill.  This little meeting is called a conference committee.  The negotiated common (identical) bill is called a compromise bill.*

j—Both the Senate and the House vote on the compromise bill.*

k—The bill goes to the President who either signs it into law or vetoes* it (or lets it become a law after 10 days of not signing it . . . . or pocket vetoes* it).

l—If the president vetoes the bill, then the House and Senate may hold separate votes on whether or not to override the veto.  Again, they need a 2/3 majority (in both the Senate and the House respectively) in order to override the veto.  Most of the time, there isn’t even an attempt to override a veto.  But if there is an attempt, the 2/3 rule applies.  If there is a veto override attempt and either the House or the Senate fail to get the 2/3 majority to override, then the bill dies*

[NOTE:  At any time, the bill can have a ‘rider’ attached to it.  Be sure to ask me what a rider is.  If you don’t ask, then I’ll assume you know.  Either way, you’re responsible for knowing.  Also, I have a great ‘rider’ story that involves bridges and squirrels.  I’ll give you a hint that may not even be a hint (it may just qualify as me telling you what a rider is):  A rider is a bill attached to a bill.  Some people use the word ‘amendment’ when referring to a rider.   I don’t like the word “amendment” because it suggests that a rider somehow relates to the bill that it’s attached to.  This is not so.  In fact, most riders have nothing to do with the original bill to which they are attached.  They don’t have to have anything to do with the original (aka, ‘surface’) bill.  But the key thing to keep in mind is this:  No matter how many riders you have attached to a bill . . . no matter how many different, totally unrelated subjects are covered by those riders . . . . the full package=The main surface bill plus all the riders attached to it=One bill.  In other words, when it comes time to vote for or against . . . when it comes time to sign or veto . . . if it comes time to override a veto or not override a veto . . . you are making those decisions based on the whole package= The main surface bill plus all the riders . . . which, again = ONE bill.  Got it?]

For the Senate side of things, a filibuster* could break out at any time.  The House has time limits on its debates.  The Senate does not.  This reality has opened up the loophole (which many scholars believe was intentional) to provide for the filibuster*.  Essentially, once a Senator gets the podium (aka, ‘speaking time’) he or she doesn’t have to give it up at all.  In fact, after talking about the actual bill for a period of time, the Senator can move on to discuss anything he/she wants.  Some Senators have read from cookbooks, phonebooks, etc. while filibustering.  This is a stall tactic.

*=Denotes a point where the bill could simply die.  Fewer than 10% of all drafted bills become law.

Question #1:  Is the process involved in a bill becoming a law too long and complicated in your opinion? Explain your answer.

#2:  What is the point of allowing riders?

#3:  What is the point of allowing filibusters?

Major activity:

The Bill Game-----Mr. Jacobson---Point value TBD

Note: Heavy emphasis on the class participation grade is weighed during this game; hence, in reality, it’s worth more than the point value TBD.  Please be aware.

For the purposes of this activity, we will role play as if we are members of the House of Representatives. Specifically, we will be members of a given House committee. The activity itself lasts 3.5 days.

Day One

Step One: In class, declare yourself to be either a Democrat or a Republican. It doesn’t matter if you’re really a democrat or a republican. It’s a game. NOTE: If the balance of the class should be such that we have most students declaring to be members of the minority party in the current House of Representatives then I alone shall represent the appropriate number of majority party members in order to make the game accurate. I will do the same if the minority party is under-represented. I will only serve as Chairperson of the given Committee if absolutely no one else in the room has declared to be a member of the majority party. Example: Lets hypothetically say that the current House is majority Republican with 55% of the seats and that 13 of the 22 people in the American Government class decide to be Democrats. I would then count as 7 Republican members of the House of Representatives. That would give the class 13 students playing Democrats, 9 actual students playing Republicans, and me alone playing 7 Republicans.   The speaker routinely gives his/her own political party a 2 to 3 seat advantage on each and every committee. 

Step Two: In class, declare what state you represent. Only one House member per state please (I may allow two per state for some of the bigger states). We’ll do this by random draw. If your name is drawn earlier then you have more choices.

Step Three: Choose a chairperson for our ‘given’ Committee. To mimic the seniority rule, this title will go to the oldest majority party student in the room unless he or she doesn’t want the job. We just go down the list of students, according to age, until someone takes the job. If no one in the majority party takes the job, then I’ll appoint someone.

Step Four: Begin drafting bills. What types of bills will you be drafting? That’s the beauty of the game.  Draft whatever you want.  You must make absolutely certain that your bill is clear in terms of what it stands for.  You must make absolutely certain that your bill is grammatically correct with perfect spelling.  You must make absolutely certain that your bill could not be interpreted to make law some reality other than what you fully intend.  I know you’re not lawyers.  I know you’re doing this from scratch.  Part of the process in this activity is to embrace how difficult the entire endeavor really can be.

Day Two

Step Five: The entire second day of this game is spent working on developing bills. You may work alone, with a single partner, or with a group. Each individual will be required to turn in a draft of the bill and is strongly encouraged to turn in personal notes which were made in the development of the bill and in playing the game proper. Also, during this time, the chairperson should be talked to about the basic idea behind the bill. You will have to compete for the chairperson’s attention if you want your bill to be considered. If you’re associated with a bill that’s passed into law, you will receive a share of the extra credit points. The extra credit points can be split up however you please. It might not be a bad idea to kick some of them to the chairperson if you want to make a deal. I determine whether or not you’re associated with a bill that’s passed into law.

Day Three

Step Six: The Chairperson will award specified amounts of podium speaking time to anyone who wishes to promote a bill to the rest of the committee. After 15 minutes of this, the Chairperson will choose a bill to be considered. All drafts of bills are due on this day.  For this particular activity you should have a hard copy of your bill with you on this day along with an emailed copy already at my email account prior to the start of class.

How do I grade your bills.  I use the following guidelines:

1-Is the draft typed? (5%)

2-Does the draft clearly state what the law is? what it does (if necessary)?  Put another way, is the draft appropriately thorough and self explanatory? (95%) [NOTE:  If there is ANY shortcoming in terms of grammar, spelling, appropriate sentence structure, etcetera, then the author may receive a penalty from 0 to 100% of this activity’s value.  Please take me seriously on this.  If we’re going to learn about the art form of writing legislation, then we’re going to be true to the following code:  Write exactly what you mean!  Perfection, for this activity, is a requirement.  Let me put that clearly one more time:  You are expected to be perfect.  There is no length requirement for your bill.

Step Seven: The Chairperson (perhaps with my help) will split our class (which, again, is a ‘given’ House Committee) into subcommittees with the following task: "Are there any revisions you would propose to this bill?" Subcommittees will be permitted up to 15 minutes to work on this task.

Step Eight: The remainder of the class (approximately 18 minutes) is spent going over any proposed revisions. The Chairperson has final say on whether or not revisions are included.

Day Four

Step Nine: We debate whether or not to recommend our bill to the full House of Representatives for debate and vote. The Chairperson has full control over the debate. I need your answer no later than 25 minutes into the class. Your participation grade is weighed heavily throughout this activity (all four days). If you haven’t been particularly verbal, be certain to give me any and all notes you made during the game so that I may weigh them in considering where your participation grade stands after this activity has concluded.

If, in my estimation, the actual House of Representatives would pass your bill, the class (given Committee) gets 20% of game value for extra credit points to split up however the Chairperson pleases. Twenty percent of game value for extra credit points will be added if, in my estimation, the Senate would pass a similar version of the bill (which could be worked out in conference committee). Five percent of game value for extra credit points would be added if I felt a conference committee wouldn’t be necessary. Ten percent of game value for extra credit points would be added if, in my estimation, the President would sign the bill. The Chairperson allocates these extra credit points  however he or she sees fit.  So, to summarize, the class could get 55% of the game value in extra credit points from this activity.

Helpful Hints for the Game:

1--Be political. Wheel and deal. That’s the point of the game. A lot of the rules aren’t scripted because that’s how committees often work. Think creatively on how to get things done.

2--"Riders" or Amendments to bills happen all the time, especially with appropriations bills. It’s possible to attach a completely different spending bill on the end of a bill (A spending bill for a new federal building in a particular state once included a rider which appropriated money for research to be done on the sexual behavior of squirrels in another state which was over 1500 miles away from the state where the federal building was to be built). If you can get it to happen, it might help you to be associated with a bill that’s passed (into law). Achieving this means potential extra credit. The danger of having too many riders is that it becomes more difficult to pass the bill into law as it becomes more burdened with extra spending (or what might appear to be an underhanded way to sneak legislation through the system)---so you have to be careful.  In particular, you want to avoid bills that get the political slang moniker, ‘icebergs.’  These are bills where most of the potential cost is tucked beneath the surface (in the form of riders).  In other words, I wouldn’t rider a multi-billion dollar highway reconstruction bill to a surface bill that aims to rebuild a swingset at some national park.  Get what I mean?

3--I will play the role of a House member (or, in all likelihood, House members) in this game. But I will also be a source of information on various pieces of information. Don’t be afraid to consult me as teacher about anything at all. The worst thing that can happen is that I don’t know the answer to what you’re asking.

4—Resist the temptation of getting hung up on the fact that you don’t know specifically how to write actual legislation.  This activity is about using language to create code to state a rule (law) by which you expect a society to live.  If you can do that, then you’ve taken a huge step toward being able to write actual law.

Final Note: Keep in mind that this game only scratches the surface of what it takes to turn a bill into a law. All we’re doing here is going through the process of what needs to happen in order to propose a bill to the larger House of Representatives for debate and vote. The Senate has to pass a similar bill (going through many of the same steps). Assuming the House and the Senate pass similar bills, then you have to have a conference committee to iron out the differences. Then you have to vote again on the bill that’s come out of conference committee. Then the President has to sign it! It’s a long and complex process.

NOTE: Congress can put you under oath. You can be found in contempt of congress just as you can be found in contempt of court. If you lie under oath in Congress, then it carries the same legal (felonious) weight as if you lied on the stand in a courtroom. It's perjury either way.   As you will see in upcoming chapters, the enforcement of law is assigned as an executive branch authority. 

#4: Can you show me where the constitution gives Congress the power to put a person under oath and question that person?

#5:  Should Congress have this power? Why or why not?

OK, Article I is now complete.  Time to move to Article II which deals with the executive branch (Article I dealt with the legislative branch).

Please note that there was no original limit on the number of terms that a President could serve.  (See Franklin Delano Roosevelt Administration and 22^nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution)

All of clause 3 was rendered useless by the 12^th Amendment.  When you look at the original language (above) you can see where the Founding Fathers really didn’t expect this country to develop a strong political party system based on the existence of two political parties (Republican and Democrat).  The original idea was that the House of Representatives would be choosing a lot of our Presidents.  The actual history of our country has been quite different.  The actual ‘electoral college’ chooses our Presidents.  Since the two party system developed, it seemed kind of silly to let the 2^nd place finisher in the electoral college be the Vice President since he/she would likely be from a totally different party.  Therefore, the constitution was changed.  For the sake of continuity, we’ll look now at the 12^th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  This change came about in 1804.  Here’s the language [My comments will be in brackets in bold font.  The actual text of the 12^th Amendment will be in regular font]:

[But first, a little vocabulary:]

[Majority=More than half.  (Often times, when people say ‘majority’ they really mean ‘plurality.’  Here’s the difference, a majority means you received the most votes and also received more than half the votes.  A plurality means you received the most votes but didn’t receive more than half.  How could you get the most votes without getting more than half? I’ve got four words for you: More than two candidates! (i.e.  Sally, Seymour, and Seth run for Class President.  Sally gets 40% of the vote, Seymour gets 39%  of the vote, and Seth gets 21% of the vote.  Sally wins, but she didn’t get a majority of the vote.  She got a plurality of the vote.  So when the constitution uses the word majority, it really means majority= More than half!]

[Electors=First of all, see clause 2 above. OK, let’s start by stating what electors AREN’T.  Electors AREN’T normal every day voters like you and me.  Electors are people from each state that represent a particular candidate for President.  In each state (and the District of Columbia) a candidate has a pre-chosen group of electors ready to cast their votes in the electoral college.  The catch is this:  Only one group of electors from a state gets to go cast its votes in the electoral college.  How do we determine which candidate gets to send his/her electors to the electoral college?? Answer=The candidate that gets the most votes from the people on election day gets to send his/her electors to the electoral college!  You and me, we’re the people.  We vote on the normal election day.  Let’s say we choose Mickey Mouse to be President (Let’s also say that Mickey Mouse is an actual person).  Let’s also say that Mickey Mouse gets the most votes for President in the state of Wisconsin.  Mickey Mouse would get to send his electors to the electoral college.  Mickey Mouse would expect that all of his chosen electors would, in fact, cast their electoral college votes for him, Mickey Mouse; however, there have been a few times in U.S. history when single electors or small blocks of electors have gone their own way and voted against the candidate that chose them.  In fact, it happened in 1988.  It also happened in 1976.  So, what I’m saying is this:  The electoral college is based on trust.  If you’re a candidate for President and you choose your electors in all 50 states and the District of Columbia then you TRUST that they will, in fact, vote for you at the electoral college in the event that you get to send them (aka, win the state in which they live, etc.)]

OK, here’s the language in the 12^th Amendment.  The 12^th Amendment is read at this point in our class because it makes it easier to see why all of clause 3 is wiped out.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same State with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

[Question #1:  Why do you think there is a requirement that the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates be from different states?]

The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. 

[Teacher’s note:  Here’s a translation of the above:  With 538 total electoral votes, a candidate for President must get a majority of that number = 270.  If no one gets a majority, then we take the top three electoral vote getters and give their names to the House of Representatives.  The House’s job is to choose a President from these three names]

But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each State having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the States, and a majority of all the States shall be necessary to a choice.

[Except it’s not quite as simple as having the House vote.  First of all, each state gets one vote.  That means that California’s 50+ House members get a single vote.  North Dakota’s one House member gets a single vote.  You need at least one House member from at least 2/3 of the states present in order to have a quorum.  And a candidate needs a majority (=26) of the states to be chosen President.  It almost makes you think that they might not be able to make a choice right away.  Hey! Look at the next part of the 12^th Amendment!]

 And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following,  then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such numbers be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

[#2:  Does the 12^th Amendment offer a full proof plan for assuring the nation that a given election WILL produce a President and a Vice President? Explain (thoroughly).  Please base your answer on the language immediately above.]

If the 12^th Amendment was motivated in part by the formation of political parties, then it stands to reason that we should look a little more closely at the topic of political parties.  Here’s some background information . . .

Often times, a political party will hold a primary election--which is the “election before the election” where you choose your candidates.

Caucus  is a politics word that gets used in a lot of ways.  In this class, when we refer to a caucus, we’re referring to a private meeting of party members

Our two major parties are Democrat and Republican.

A “third party” is any party other than Democrat and Republican.

a single issue party is a type of third party (that’s pretty much self explanatory). One of the most famous single issue parties ever was the Liberty Party which was concerned with abolishing slavery in the U.S.  (The Republican Party took their single issue under its wing and, for all practical purposes, there was no more Liberty Party).  If you think about it, the ultimate goal of a single issue party is to no longer exist.  Do you know what I mean by that????

Here’s some politics jargon! (Some politics hip-speak)

If you’re ‘on the left’ then we often might refer to you as a liberal.  It’s most likely that you belong to the Democratic Party (but there are people who are Republicans and also kind of on the left, for the record).  If you’re ‘on the right’ then we often might refer to you as a conservative.  It’s most likely that you belong to the Republican Party (but there are people who are Democrats and also kind of on the right, for the record).

If you’re kind of in the middle, we call you a moderate.  You’re conservative on some issues and liberal on others.  In reality, most people are moderates.

Very important: A party platform is a statement of the party’s principles, beliefs, and positions on vital issues. The individual components of the platform are called planks.  

OK, so now that you have some of the political party lexicon down, let’s play the Political Party Game!

American Government ---The Political Party Game –Point value TBD

Mr. Jacobson

This is a difficult activity to describe because its basis is supposed to be the chaos and randomness inherent in forming a political party. Anyway, I’ll give it a try.

Your task is to form a political party platform with at least 20 planks.  So, you’re not forming a single issue party or anything like that. You’re also not forming your own political party just for yourself and nobody else. Your platform is not necessarily a manifesto of your personal beliefs. In fact, it’s likely that the political party you form will have a few planks that you don’t actually believe but are willing to accept in order to get larger numbers.

The trick is this, the room may not have more than two political parties. So, here’s a checklist for you to consider (since I’ll be using it for grading purposes.  All references to percent [%] have to do with ‘percent of total point value for the activity.’).

1--Were there more than two political parties in the room at the end of the game? (If the answer is “yes” then everyone in the room is docked 20%  except for those who belong to a political party which is composed of at least half the current class roster.)

2--Did the political party have enough members to equal at least one fourth of the current class roster? (If the answer is “no” then every member of this party is docked 20%). Hypothetical situation: A class has 20 people on its roster. One party of ten forms and then a party of 6 forms as well as a party of 4. After these first two checklist items, the party of 6 would be docked 20% and the party of 4 would be docked 40%.

3--Did the political party have a platform with at least 20 clearly written planks? (There is a 2.5%  penalty for all party members for every plank short of 20 that a platform contains. By the end of the game, each declared member of the political party should have the planks clearly written. It doesn’t have to be, and probably shouldn’t be, typed [since this is primarily done in class]. I will collect one of these written plank lists, at random, at the end of the game. The list I collect will be evaluated for the entire group. So, it’s a good idea to not let anyone fall asleep while you’re forming your platform. Ideally, I’ll only be collecting two lists from the class)

4--Does the party platform have any planks supported by only one person in the party? (All members of the party will be penalized 5% for every plank which meets this condition. I’ll randomly sample people to test for this. This is yet another reason to not belong to a small party; however, if you have a big party, don’t leave individuals out in the cold on certain issues. One solution on something like this is to just leave the plank off the official party platform. If doing so really upsets the one person, then you might have a problem. Maybe you should kick that person out of the party.).

5--Do the planks in the platform pass the “credibility test?” (The “credibility test” is simple, your planks have to be actual statements of beliefs, principles, and positions on vital issues. I’m the person who determines if your issue is vital. If you have a concern about a plank being vital, just ask. For example, a plank which reads, “We the people of the Sweet Party believe that the federal government should provide each American with one chocolate bar per day,” would not pass the credibility test. All members of a declared party are docked 10% for each plank which fails my credibility test. Just avoid the BS or the “get a laugh from my classmates” silliness and you shouldn’t have anything to worry about on this one.)

6--Does the political party have a name? (All party members get a one percent penalty if the party doesn’t have a name. The name should also pass a lesser version of a credibility test. In other words, don’t call yourselves the Crazed Rabid Hyena Party or anything like that.)

Now, how do you form these political parties? However you want. That’s the random, chaos part of it. Go around the room and start gathering people and then start putting together a platform. I don’t know. Don’t ask me. I’m just an American Government teacher. You’re on your own (I’m serious). I’ll be milling about to offer help where I can. Just ask if you need anything. When the time is up, I start looking at the above checklist for all of you.

Good luck and have fun.

JDJ

PS—If you’re absent for any part of this activity then you must write your own platform. I’ll be the judge of how your platform would have faired with the checklist. You’ll be held to the same standards as the rest of the class but cannot get a grade higher than the highest grade in the class. Your written platform is due no later than one class day after the conclusion of this activity.

OK, we’re done with the 12^th Amendment.  I now return you to the regular U.S. Constitution.  We’re presently in the middle of Article II, Section 1.  Let’s now look at clause 4 of section 1. [NOTE:  When we get to the 12^th Amendment later on, we’ll just say, “Oh, hi there 12^th Amendment.  We already studied you!  See ya!” . . . or something like that.

Teacher’s note:  Those Congressionally determined dates are as follows:

Normal election day for people like you and me (aka, NOT electors to the electoral college)= The first Tuesday after the first Monday in November

Electoral college election day=The first Monday after the Second Wednesday in December.

#3:  Let’s see how you handle this.  If I’m born in France, explain to me how I can still be President of the United States.  Do your best.  Guess, if necessary.  I’m telling you right now:  It is possible!  The valid explanation exists.

It’s just a big old debate between political science teachers as to whether or not clause 6 should have a strikethrough.  Generally a strikethrough   implies that the language is no longer meaningful due to an Amendment to the constitution.  The Amendment in question here is the 25^th.  Let’s do the same thing here that we did with the 12^th Amendment.  Let’s jump ahead and look at the 25^th Amendment.  Here’s the language for the 25^th Amendment:

Section 1.

In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

[#4:  Does section 1 of the 25^th Amendment really change clause 6? Explain.]

Section 2.

Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take the office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both houses of Congress.

[#5:  Does section 2 of the 25^th Amendment really change clause 6? Explain.]

 Section 3.

Whenever the President transmits to the President Pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

[#6:  Give me a realistic hypothetical scenario where a President might feel the need to do what is described in section 3.]

Section 4.

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmits to the President Pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

[#7:  Give me a realistic hypothetical scenario where the situation above (the first part of section 4 of the 25^th Amendment) might be necessary.]

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President Pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmits within four days to the President Pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

[#8:  Did they leave anything out? Think about it for a while before you answer.]

Teacher’s note:  In 1947, Congress passed the Presidential Succession Act.  It set out a list of people who would ascend to the Presidency in the event that that the President and Vice President could not hold down the office.  The list has well over a dozen titles on it.  Here are the first few . . .

a—Vice President; b—Speaker of the House of Representatives; c—President pro-tempore of the Senate; d—Secretary of State* . . . . . . . (and so on)

*=See Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 (Chapter 12 in our book)

Teacher’s note:  The present salary for a U.S. President is $400,000 per year.

Teacher’s Note:  The executive branch is filled with all sorts of departments.  The ‘principal officers’ of these departments are frequently referred to as members of the President’s Cabinet.  Clause 1 of Section 2 is the only reference to the Cabinet in the entire Constitution.  This is odd, because the Cabinet level departments are huge . . . . with hundreds of thousands of employees.  The President appoints all Cabinet secretaries.  A majority of the Senate must approve each and every cabinet secretary appointment.  Here are several of the cabinet level departments:

Department: State

‘Principal Officer’:  Secretary of State

Basic information:  In charge of the country’s foreign policy.

Department:  Treasury

‘Principal Officer’:  Secretary of Treasury

Basic information:  In charge of the printing of currency, the general management of the country’s money supply, etc.

Department:  Defense

‘Principal Officer’:  Secretary of  Defense

Basic information:  This department is the administrative structure for our armed forces.  It’s headquarters is the Pentagon.

Department:  Homeland Security

‘Principal Officer’:  Secretary of  Homeland Security

Basic information:  In charge of the nation’s homeland security (Go figure!).  This department is quite young.  It only came into being after September 11, 2001.

Department:  Justice

‘Principal Officer’:  Attorney General (Although, personally, I think the title should be Secretary of Justice.)

Basic information:  This is the law enforcement wing of our federal government.  The FBI can be found here as well.  (Speaking of ‘law enforcement,’ I’m going to assume that you understand the President’s power of pardon.  Ask me if you don’t.  It’s fair game).

Question #1:  Identify two other cabinet level departments and offer a one or two sentence explanation for what each one does.

Teacher’s note:  In the 1930’s, it was determined that the President’s job had become so big that he needed a personal staff.  A federal law was passed which created the ‘Executive Office of the President,’ or the EOP.  This created a budget for the President so that he could staff himself to better do the job that needed doing.  Here are some typical staff positions in the EOP (NOTE:  If you’re President, you can create whatever positions you want)

a—White House Chief of Staff

b—White House Communications Director

c—White House Press Secretary

d—Senior Policy Adviser to the President

e—Special Counsel to the President

f—Deputy Chief of Staff

g—Deputy Communications Director

#2:  What, in your opinion, is meant by ‘advice and consent?’

#3:  How, in your opinion, does ‘advice and consent’ differ from the requirement for approving a treaty?

#4:  In your opinion, does clause 2 effectively make it clear that the President must have the advice and consent of the Senate for Cabinet appointments?

Teacher’s note:  There’s a lot to Section 3.  It requires the President to give a State of the Union Address (which hasn’t always been given as a speech, by the way).  It also allows the President to call special sessions of Congress in order to address them regarding particular issues.  The part about ambassadors is actually huge.  The President gets the power to determine if our country is going to ‘recognize’ another country.  The best way to recognize a country is to receive an ambassador on its behalf (and, presumably, we’d expect one of our ambassadors to be received in their country).  Implied in this language, though, is the notion that a President may choose NOT to receive an ambassador from another country. 

What does that mean?

Well, there are two ways to look at it.  Let’s first assume that country A already has an ambassador in our country.  The ambassador would carry on her affairs at Country A’s embassy to the U.S.  We can assume that the U.S. has an ambassador carrying on his affairs in the U.S. embassy to Country A (which would be located in country A).  If a President chooses to no longer receive the ambassador of country A, then, for the most part, the ambassador is being told to vacate her country’s embassy and leave our country.  We call this ‘breaking diplomatic relations.’  This wouldn’t be a good sign for the relationship between country A and the U.S.  We don’t break diplomatic relations if we’re getting ready to become more friendly with you.  Indeed, breaking diplomatic relations is frequently (but not always) a sign that we’re about to go to war with you.

Here’s another scenario where we might not receive an ambassador.  Let’s say a new country is formed.  We’ll call it country B!  Let’s also say that the President doesn’t approve of how country B was formed.  The President can choose not to ‘recognize’ country B.  In other words, we’re essentially saying that we don’t see country B as an actual country.  It pretty much goes without saying that country B won’t have an embassy in the U.S.  It sounds crazy, but it’s happened a number of times.  The People’s Republic of China, the most populous country on the planet, was not recognized by the U.S. government from the late 1940’s until the early 1970’s.

I’ll mention the last bit of language next.  If you’re to become an officer in the U.S. military, the President must sign your official documentation which ‘commissions’ you as such.

#5: Section 3 says “he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”  Most political scientists believe that these are the most significant words of Article II.  If Congress ‘makes’ laws, then the President does what with laws? Use your own words (not the words of the Founding Fathers).

#6:  What, in your opinion, did the Founding Fathers mean by ‘misdemeanors’?

#7:  Can I still be President if I’m impeached? Explain.

Question #1:  If I’m a federal judge (note that section one refers to all federal judges {who populate the ‘inferior’ courts}, not just the U.S. Supreme Court), and I get to hold my office during ‘good behaviour,’ and I behave . . . ummmm . . . ‘good’ all the time . . . how long do I get to be judge?

#2:  What is your opinion about the answer to #1?

#3: Why do you think the Founding Fathers set it up so that the answer to #1 is what it is?

Clause 1 has a whole bunch of stuff in it:

“in law and equity” refers to (1) Common law which refers to the centuries and centuries of judicial decisions made in Great Britain and (2) equity which refers to special situations in the British judicial system where common law didn’t apply---Equity also refers to the idea that special judicial decisions might need to be made to prevent an injustice from being done.   Regardless, the words “in law and equity” show just how dependent the Constitution is on the British system.

In reality, our courts deal with statutory law.  Statutory law is what you think of when you think of law.  A statute is a law passed by a legislative body and signed by a chief executive (on the federal level, that would be the House and Senate doing the passing and the President--the 'Chief Executive’---doing the signing-------on the state level, it’s the state legislature doing the passing and the governor doing the signing------Get it?)

When you read a law that is ‘on the books,’ then you are reading a statute.  But there is a common law element to our judicial system.  If a court has made a decision, that decision may have the effect of law. 

Try this on for size.  The famous Brown vs. Board of Education decision by the Supreme Court made it so that public schools could not segregate students according to race.  Yet, in 1955 (the year after the decision was made) there were nearly 35 states in the union that did NOT have statutes preventing racial segregation.

#4:  In your opinion, would such statutes (as described in the paragraph immediately above) have been necessary? Why or why not?

#5: What, in your opinion, is the difference between ‘original’ jurisdiction and ‘appellate’ jurisdiction? [Original jurisdiction essentially means that a court has the authority to be the first to hear a given case.  Most of the time, ‘original jurisdiction’ belongs to a regular court with a regular judge and a regular jury, etc.  Appellate jurisdiction means that a particular court has the authority to hear an appeal of the decision which came out of the court of original jurisdiction (or a slightly lower appellate court)]  Wait? Did I just answer the question? Oh no!

#6:  When an appellate court agrees to hear an appeal, what implication does that agreement potentially make about the way in which the case may have been handled by the lower court?

#7:  If the Supreme Court is the ultimate appellate court (or, as I like to call it, Le Courto Grandioso), does that mean that they have to hear a case whenever they’re asked? Explain.

#8:  Can the Supreme Court go and rule on a case without being asked to hear an appeal? Explain.

Teacher’s note:  When we get to the Bill of Rights, you’ll see that the jury trial guarantee is strengthened quite a bit.

Section 3 is all about covering up all the loopholes that were exploited by the monarchy in England.  If ever there was a place in the constitution that helped to explain how much the Founding Fathers wanted to make sure that what happened in England couldn’t happen in the U.S., Section 3 is that place.  Actually, there are several places.  But section 3 is a darned good one!

#9:  OK, so the words ‘judicial review’ mean: The ability to rule upon the constitutionality of a law or laws.  Put another way, if you have the power of judicial review, then you have the power to rule that a given law is a violation of the constitution, thus rendering the law meaningless.  Think back a little earlier in this chapter when I mentioned Brown v. Board of Education.  When the Supreme Court made it’s ruling, all the state laws that permitted public schools to segregate their students according to race became meaningless.  In other words, the common law effect of the Supreme Court’s decision (aka, the Supreme Court’s ‘judicial review’) killed all the school segregation statutes.  So here’s the question.  Where in Article III does it say that the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review?

Note:  When an appellate court rules upon a case, it also publishes an explanation for why the ruling occurred.  This written explanation is called an ‘opinion.’  Legal ‘opinions’ are frequently referred to in future cases for future legal arguments.

#10:  Use context to determine meaning:  What is a ‘concurring’ opinion?

#11:  What’s a ‘dissenting’ opinion?

#12:  Now that you’ve read the first 3 articles of the U.S. Constitution, give me one specific example for how each branch checks and balances the power of the other two branches.  You’ll be giving me a total of 6 examples:

Executive checks and balances legislative

Executive checks and balances judicial

Legislative checks and balances judicial

Legislative checks and balances executive

Judicial checks and balances executive

Judicial checks and balances legislative

Question #1:  Explain the constitutional concept of full faith and credit to me.

Question #2:  Explain the constitutional concept of privileges and immunities to me.

#3:  So all I have to do after robbing the shop in Wisconsin is make it to the Illinois state line, correct? Explain.

Teacher’s note:  A little later on you’ll see the 13^th Amendment.  At that point, you’ll understand why this clause is no longer on the books, as it were.

#4:  So, can the U.S. Congress force Shorewood to break away and become the nation’s 51^st state? Explain.

#5:  Speaking of the nation’s 51^st state, when do you think that will happen? And who do you think it will be?

#6:  In simple, everyday language, tell me what the U.S. government is guaranteeing to all of its states with section 4.

#7:  Doesn’t it seem awfully difficult to amend the Constitution? Why do you think that is?

#8:  If you could amend the constitution, what amendment would you include?

#9:  Should amendments rise to a different standard of importance as compared to ‘normal’ statutes? Why or why not?

#10:  Let’s say we take your answer to #8 and want to see it become an actual constitutional amendment.  Describe for me, in basic terms, how we get from your idea to a constitutional amendment.

#11:  This question requires that you think back to an earlier discussion in this book (Chapter 9).  Article VI, section 2 establishes something known as the ‘supremacy clause.’  If we accept that there is no such thing as the perfectly unitary or the perfectly confederate system, then we should also logically accept that there is no such thing as the perfectly balanced federal system.  Basing your answer on Article VI, section 2, is the United States slightly more confederate than unitary or slightly more unitary than confederate? Explain. (NOTE:  If my use of the word ‘slightly’ offends, I apologize.  To be sure, there is a separate debate over the appropriateness of the word ‘slightly’ when referring to the effect of the supremacy clause)

Teacher’s note:  The first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution (Or, as I like to call them, “The unfinished business of the Constitutional Convention”) were proposed by Congress on September 25, 1789 and ratified December 15, 1791.  The U.S. constitution has been amended 27 times, but that’s not entirely accurate.  For starters, the first ten amendments came all at once.  Secondly, we have one amendment in place (the 21^st) in order to tell us that an earlier amendment (the 18^th) is no longer needed as an amendment.  

So, in effect, I’d say that there are actually 17 effective changes to the U.S. Constitution.  Wanna argue with me? Come on! Let’s go! Swingset, 3:30 PM!

PS—Just kidding.  The only kind of fighting that should happen at the swingset is a good old fashioned verbal debate

PPS—Does Shorewood High School even have a swingset?

The 1^st Amendment is this entire chapter.  That’s how big of an amendment it is.  In fact, I’ll bet you that more than half the time someone says something like, “Isn’t that against the constitution?” they’re referring to the 1^st Amendment.

Question #1:  Let’s take the first part of the 1^st Amendment= “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”------We say that ‘freedom of religion’ is guaranteed by the 1^st Amendment’s establishment and free exercise clauses.  What does the establishment clause guarantee (Use common, everyday English please)? What does the free exercise clause guarantee?

Teacher’s notes: ‘Free exercise’ may be limited if it violates criminal laws (i.e. Human sacrifice, etc.)

Here are some Supreme Court rulings that have further defined the establishment and free exercise clauses:

I—State money may go to parochial schools provided that the money passes a three pronged test.  The state aid must:

a—avoid ‘excessive government entanglement with religion.’

b—have a clear, non-religious purpose

c—in it’s main effect, neither advance nor inhibit a religion

Question #2:  Does the Tommy Thompson Gymnasium (or whatever it’s called) down the street at Messmer High School pass this three pronged test?

II—If the teaching of evolution offends someone on religious grounds, then that’s tough luck.  The Court has ruled that a state does not have the responsibility to protect someone from topics that are deemed to be religiously offensive if said topics do not present themselves as religious in nature.  Therefore, when a science teacher teaches evolution as a function of science (and not religion), he/she is not engaging intentionally in a religious endeavor.  If evolution offends someone who subscribes to creationism then said subscriber (to creationism) is just going to have to live with being offended.

III—Religious classes may be taught in public schools outside of regular class time.

Question #3:  Do you agree or disagree with III? Explain.

Question #4:  How come we never have school on December 25^th? How come we always always have school during Yom Kippur? Ramadan?

OK, the next 1^st Amendment item on the agenda is based on the following words, “Congress shall make no law  . . .  abridging the freedom of speech . . .”

Here are some Supreme Court rulings that have allowed us to further define the constitutional guarantee to ‘freedom of speech.’

I—If your speech can cause physical harm, then laws may limit your ability to use that kind of speech.

#5:  Give me an example of how speech could cause physical harm.

II—Although to a lesser extent, limitations may be put on speech that causes financial and/or emotional harm.

#6:  Same as #5,  give me an example of how speech could cause financial and/or emotional harm.

III—Commercial speech (advertising) can be limited.

#7:  Why do we limit commercial speech? In other words, why can’t advertisers just say whatever they want?

IV—Political speech cannot be limited.

#8:  Why don’t we limit what politicians can say when they’re running for office?

V—“Seditious speech” is speech that urges people to take an action.  Depending on the action, seditious speech is typically seen as fully protected by the constitution.  In other words, you can use seditious speech.

#9:  Can you give me an example of a type of seditious speech that can be limited by law?

VI—Student speech may be limited

VII—Speech which demonstrably causes harm to reputation (which, in turn, often causes harm to financial well being) may be limited.  You may have heard the words ‘slander’ and ‘libel.’  These are examples.  NOTE:  The speech has to be found to be false.  Slander and libel are much more difficult to achieve in a legal sense if the speech which is harming someone’s reputation is, in fact, provably true.

VIII—Most people get this wrong.  Burning an American Flag is protected speech.

#10:  If VIII is true (and it is true, trust me) then why do so many people who burn the American Flag get arrested while they’re burning the American Flag?

IV—With two exceptions, the following speech is protected.  I’ll just quote the Supreme Court opinion:  “Advocating the use of force where such advocacy is not directed to producing imminent lawless action and where such advocacy is not likely to produce the advocated use of force,” is protected speech.  In other words, so long as you meet the criteria just described, you can joke around.

EXAMPLE:

Clyde and Gertrude are sitting at a booth in a restaurant.  Here is a casual conversation they have . . .

Clyde: Hey Gertrude, can you buy my sandwich for me?

Gertrude:  No Clyde.  Buy your own sandwich.

Clyde:  But, you see, I have very little money.

Gertrude: You should attempt to discover means by which you could acquire more money, Clyde.

Clyde:  I know (giggles lightly), come now and assist me as I go rob the local bank!

Gertrude: {laughing at Clyde’s humorous manner} Oh, Clyde, you are indeed a jokester.  I quite enjoy your brevity whilst we dine.

Clyde was joking.  Gertrude never would have taken him seriously.  Clyde’s speech is protected.  If, on the other hand, your joking is ‘too effective,’ and people begin to take you seriously, the Court has held that it is you, the jokester, who can be held legally accountable.

The two exceptions? Never ‘joke’ about doing something to a plane when you’re in an airport (unlike my friend, Marty . . . . have me tell you that story) and never joke about harming the President of the United States.  There are other exceptions as well, but always keep those two in mind.

I’m going to just reprint the text of the first amendment right here so that you don’t have to flip back and forth: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Let’s now look at the following part of the 1^st Amendment:  “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom . . . of the press.”  We’ve already mentioned libel.  Don’t publish a story if it’s not true and it hurts the person (or organization) that is the subject of the story.  That person or organization can sue you and get a lot of money from you if he/she/it can  prove that the story caused harm.

#11:  What is ‘censorship?’  What is your expectation of what the Supreme Court has said about censorship? (NOTE:  Censorship is often called ‘prior restraint.’)

Shield laws are an interesting component of the 1^st Amendment.  About 30 or so states have such laws.  In effect, they ‘shield’ journalists from having to testify under oath regarding the identity of a source used for a story.

Congress shall make no law  . . . abridging  . . . the right of the people  . . . to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.:  This is actually the most commonly misunderstood part of the 1^st Amendment.  What’s odd about this is that it’s likely the easiest one to understand once it’s translated into common, everyday English.  The right to petition simply means that you have the right to complain to your GOVERNMENT about the things that are bothering you.  Your government officials don’t have to listen to your complaints.  Then again, you don’t have to vote for them when they run for re-election! How do you like them apples!?

Congress shall make no law  . . . abridging  . .  . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble:  This is the last part of the 1^st Amendment we’ll analyze here (principally because we’re all out of stuff to analyze).  Here are some Supreme Court rulings regarding the right to peacefully assemble:

I—Communities can require permits for parades on public property

II—Labor picketing may be limited (Primarily, you can’t have your union’s picket line go wherever it wants to go . . . . like company property!

III—I love this one, but it’s been ruled upon= If you’re having a peaceful demonstration that is being used to prepare people to take physical action in an attempt to overthrow the government, that demonstration can be broken up!

IV—Demonstrations may be limited if they might interfere with someone’s right to a fair trial.  (In other words, the right to a fair trial is greater than the right to peacefully assemble if it is impossible to have both going on at the same time in approximately the same place)

#12:  Can you give me an example of how something like IV could occur? Sure you can! Be creative.  Give me a hypothetical situation.

V—Abortion clinics may have movable and/or permanent buffer zones wherein no peaceful assemblies may take place.

#13:  Regardless of whether we’re talking about abortion or another topic, why would there be a need for a ‘movable buffer zone?’

Question #1:  You tell me---Give me YOUR Supreme Court opinion of what this means? I’d like you to comment on some of the following (aka, Can I have one of each item on the list---Why or why not?

-a knife, a pistol, a hunting rifle, an assault rifle, a machine gun, a canon, a tank, a grenade, a nuclear bomb

Teacher comment:  Here’s another one of those items in the constitution that reveals a little bit of your nation’s history.  Anyone worried about the U.S. Military showing up tomorrow expecting ‘three hots and a cot?’ Me neither.  But it was a big deal in the late 1700’s.  You better believe it!

#2: I rob a bank.  My best friend videotapes the whole thing so that I can have the memory preserved for my grandkids.  The next day, a super zealous police officer sees me and thinks, ‘That guy just seems like he’d be a bankrobber.’  So, without getting a search warrant, the overzealous police officer busts down my door, cuffs me, finds the tape (which, by the way, shows where I stashed all the money . . . . out by ‘Old Man Jones’ place up a couple miles past the dead oak tree on I-75):

--At my trial, should the jury be permitted to view the tape?

#3--At my trial, should the prosecution be permitted to admit the bags of money (with my fingerprints all over them) found out by ‘Old Man Jones’ place?

#4:  How should the 4^th Amendment be applied to an electronic listening device planted in my home by the FBI?

#5:  Should the 4^th Amendment be applied to the police department’s ability to review my phone records?

#6:  Come up with at least two other scenarios that you think would provide for good debate with respect to the 4^th Amendment.  They can involve situations already mentioned in this chapter, or they can be new situations.

Let’s take this huge amendment one piece at a time:

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury . . . “

#1:  Look up ‘grand jury’ in the dictionary, on the web . . . . somewhere.  What is it? (NOTE for future reference:  Sometimes, the function of a Grand Jury is performed by a single judge in a setting known as a pre-trial hearing)

“nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb”

#2:  This is the ‘double jeopardy’ clause.  What does it mean? Please use common, everyday English.

“nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”

#3: What does this mean?

#4: If I’m on trial, do I have to take the stand to testify? Why or why not?

“nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”

#5:  What does this mean? Have you ever heard of ‘eminent domain?’

“nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”

#6:  This is the due process clause.  In common, everyday English, tell me what it means.

For questions #7 through #16, please give me your interpretation of the following aspects of the 6^th Amendment:

#7: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy . . . trial . .”

#8: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to . . . a public trial . .”

#9:  “ . . . by an impartial jury . .”

#10:  “of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law”

#11:  Can you think of any way in which an exception to the language cited in #10 could be interpreted from the constitution? There is a way, just for the record (otherwise, I wouldn’t ask)

#12: “and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;”

#13:  “to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor,” (You can interpret both items separately)

#14:  “and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”

#15:  Assuming that you interpreted the language in #14 to mean what it presently means in our legal system, give me the alternative interpretation.  Put another way, give me the interpretation that was used in this country up until the early 1960’s.

#16:  Does it literally say that we have the right to a “fair” trial anywhere in this document? Why do we always refer to the idea of the ‘constitutionally guaranteed right to a fair trial,” then?

Teacher’s note:  Again, common law refers to the law established by previous court decisions.  Much of our focus on law via our study of the Constitution has been on criminal law.  Amendment VII helps us to see the other area of law= civil law.

Criminal law:  The best way to think of criminal law is this:  It involves the committing of a crime.  The result of a criminal trial would be either guilt or innocence.  If found guilty, the ‘defendant’ could face jail time, prison time, a fine, or a combination of incarceration and a fine.  Also, you have double jeopardy protection in criminal law (see the 5^th Amendment).

In criminal law, the government (District Attorney’s office, Attorney General, etc.) is always the prosecution.  The ‘defendant’ is the person on trial.

Civil law:  The best way to keep this straight when comparing it to criminal law is this—If a civil trial does not go your way (aka, you ‘lose’), you will NOT have a criminal record at the end of the day. (Sorry for the rhyme).  Civil law involves the settling of disputes.  “Lawsuits” are a form of civil law.  Disputes may be between two people, two organizations, a person and a government, etc. (You can also create combinations of the above---i.e. a person vs. an organization, etc.)  At the end of a civil case, someone may be forced to forfeit a lot of money.  A person could also be forced to stop taking a particular action.  There are a lot of things involved in civil law.  Please bring it up in class if you’d care to discuss it some more.  NOTE: Double jeopardy protection does not exist in civil law because there’s no way for it to exist.  One cannot be found ‘guilty’ in a civil trial.

In civil law, the ‘defendant’ is the side that is being sued.  The ‘plaintiff’ is the side that is doing the suing.

Teacher’s Notes: Let’s just dive into the law some more now that we’ve gotten through the 8^th Amendment.

The idea that all people, regardless of individual differences, are entitled to full protection of laws is known as equal justice under the law. Ideally, the law is supposed to apply to all of us in the same way.  In fact, people often confuse the word justice with the word treatment.  Indeed, sometimes it is just to treat people the exact same way according to the law.

Question #1:  Create a hypothetical example of where two people who commit the same crime should be treated differently by the law in order for each to receive justice.

Our court system is based on the adversary system. It’s competitive. Each side is expected to do whatever is legally allowable in order to win. As an attorney, you can’t “dumb down” your efforts if you suspect your client to be guilty. As a prosecutor, you must also try your hardest to convict, even if you believe the accused person to be innocent.

#2:  Is the adversary system a reasonably acceptable method of ensuring the constitutional guarantee to a fair trial (in your opinion)? Explain.

Presumption of innocence is the basis of our adversary system in the courts. The “burden of proof” is upon the prosecution, not the defense. The prosecution has to prove its case. The defense doesn’t have to prove a thing if it doesn’t want to.

#3:  Should our courts have the option to presume guilt for certain cases? Why or why not?

One thing you’ll definitely learn about in law school is contracts. The elements of a valid contract are as follows:

1--a promise must be made by one party

2--the promise must be accepted by a second party

3--the promise must involve the exchange of something of value between the two parties

#4:  In your opinion, can a handshake agreement that meets the above criteria be legally binding? Why or why not?

Property is another popular topic in law school!

1--real property is land and whatever is attached to it or growing on it.

2--personal property is anything that can be owned (cars, stocks, calculators, cans of soda, etc.) that isn’t real property

#5:  Should I be able to have the same rights over my real property as I enjoy over my personal property? Why or why not?

Here are some more items related to law:

an injunction is a court order which forbids a defendant from taking or continuing to take a particular action

in preparation for a trial, both sides of the case go through an evidence gathering phase called pre-trial discovery  [Heads up! Ask me about this if you don’t understand it.  It’s very important that you understand the idea of discovery]

an affidavit is written witness testimony which is signed under oath and accepted as a form of evidence in a trial

#6:  What’s the point of having an affidavit? Why not just have the person come in and testify when the trial happens?

misdemeanors usually involve a fine or jail time of less than a year.  You want to stay away from these, but it’s not the end of the world if you don’t.  I have a few misdemeanor convictions to my name.

felonies are serious crimes!!! Prison is a likely destination for someone found guilty of this type of crime.   None of these for Mr. Jacobson!  Yayyyy!

Plea bargaining is a legal process (frequently controversial) where a defense lawyer, prosecutor, police, and perhaps a judge work out an agreement to have the defendant plead guilty to a lesser crime (or fewer crimes) in exchange for the prosecution not going to trial with more serious criminal accusation(s).

#7:  What’s good about plea bargaining? What’s bad about it?

A decision handed down by a jury of one’s peers is called a verdict.

#8:  Give me a hypothetical scenario that, in your opinion, would constitute a violation of the 8^th Amendment.  It can be anything you want so long as it would be appropriate to read it out loud to a room full of parents.  In other words, you can be ‘graphic’ but you must also be tasteful.

Let’s look at some legal scenarios: (Please be certain to offer a thorough explanation for all answers)

#1: Suppose I break into some guy’s home to rob him. While sneaking down his hallway in the dark, I trip on a rollerskate someone left on the floor. I fall and break my arm. I sue him for my medical costs and for negligence. The guy hires you as his attorney. Describe your argument(s) in defending him in this lawsuit.

#2: I buy a cup of coffee at Crazy Willy’s Coffee Experience. I’m driving down the street with my cup of coffee (it has a lid on it) when I hit a bump. This causes me to turn the coffee upside down, thus spilling it on my lap and giving me 2^nd and 3^rd degree burns on my legs (I was wearing shorts, but not a skirt or anything like that). I sue Crazy Willy’s Coffee Experience for my medical costs and for negligence (making the coffee hot enough to cause such burns). Willy hires you as his attorney. Describe the argument(s) you’ll use in defending his business in this lawsuit.

#3: You are an attorney for a major tobacco company. I’m suing your company because I’ve developed lung cancer after having used your product (cigarettes) for over 50 years. I began smoking prior to the federal government’s requirement that all packs of cigarettes have health warnings printed on them. Describe the argument(s) you’ll use in defending this business in this lawsuit.

#4: You are an attorney for a major tobacco company. I’m suing your company because I’ve developed lung cancer after having used your product (cigarettes) for over 10 years. I began smoking after the federal government’s requirement that all packs of cigarettes have health warnings printed on them. In other words, when I started smoking, packs of cigarettes had a warning printed on them which advised me that smoking could cause lung cancer. Describe the argument(s) you’ll use in defending this business in this lawsuit.

#5: There was a snowstorm. Some lady was sick with the flu and didn’t get up to go shovel her sidewalk in front of her house. I walked on her unshoveled sidewalk later that day and tripped. I broke my collarbone when I fell. I was on my way to a job interview at the time. As a result of my injury, I’ve incurred medical costs and have lost the job for which I was going to interview. I sue the lady for my medical costs and for the estimated salary I would have received if I had worked in the aforementioned job until my 60^th birthday (I’m a long way from 60). The lady hires you as her attorney. Describe your argument(s) in defending her in this lawsuit.

#6: The guy I robbed and the lady whose sidewalk wasn’t shoveled hook up and decide to get married. They buy a new house and invite me to a party at their new house (They actually like me, because they wouldn’t have met without me). While at the party, I get drunk and climb a tree in their yard. I fall out of the tree and break my hip. I sue them for medical costs and negligence. They hire you as their attorney, presumably because you were successful in the previous cases involving me. Describe your argument(s) in defending them in this lawsuit.

#7: Do you believe a society without any written laws is possible?

#8: Would you defend someone charged with a felony if you knew that person to be guilty of the felony?

#9: Should there be a law which caps or limits monetary damages which can be awarded to a plaintiff who wins a lawsuit?

NOTE:  When a grand jury (or a judge, in the event that there is a pre-trial hearing in place of a grand jury hearing) decides that there is enough evidence to have a trial, they hand down an indictment.  An indictment is a formal charge brought against a defendant.  The defendant may plead guilty, not guilty, not guilty by reason of insanity, or—in some cases, ‘no contest.’ 

#10:  Does there need to be a trial if the defendant pleads guilty?

#11:  In your best estimation, what is meant by the ‘no contest’ plea?

#12:  What is your opinion about the ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’ plea?

#13: What’s your view of the 5^th Amendment right to not testify if you’re the defendant in a criminal trial?

#14: Should jury decisions in criminal trials have to be unanimous?

#15: Someone is convicted of robbing a bank. No one was physically hurt and all the money was recovered. The person who did it has no prior criminal record. You are the judge. What do you believe is a fair sentence in this case?

Wow! OK, let’s get back to the U.S. Constitution.  We left off with Amendment 8 {cruel and unusual punishment}.  That means it’s time to look at Amendment 9!

Question #1:  This is huge.  What does it mean?

Note:  You may want to review the last part of chapter 9 which described ‘federalism.’  In case you wondered where ‘federalism’ came from, I give you the 10^th Amendment.

The Bill of Rights is now complete (in terms of our study of it!).  Now we move on to the remaining amendments.

Passed by Congress March 4, 1794. Ratified February 7, 1795.

Note:  This amendment guarantees that a lawsuit brought against a state will be tried in a state court, not a federal court. 

Question #2:  Many believe that the 11^th Amendment is an important part of the constitution, asserting that it protects the power of the states.  Do you agree or disagree? Explain

Passed by Congress December 9, 1803. Ratified July 27, 1804.

Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.

Note:  Although many state legislatures had already freed slaves after the Civil War (The Emancipation Proclamation, in theory, ought to have freed them all), the 13^th Amendment gave the end of slavery its constitutional validation.  I’ve always said that you can learn a lot about a country’s history simply be reading its constitution.  The U.S. Constitution is no different.

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868

#3:  Is it possible to be a citizen of the U.S. and not be a citizen of a state in the U.S.? Explain.

Note:  This reinforces the assumption that a state cannot make itself into some sort of little totalitarian dictatorship in the middle of our federal democracy.

#4:  What does this mean?  I’m particularly concerned with your analysis of the “due process of law” part of the amendment.

#5:  Same as question #3, only now I’m particularly concerned with the “equal protection of the laws” part of the amendment.

Note:  Now that we’re through the 14^th Amendment, we can look at a concept known as “fundamental rights.”  Fundamental rights are those rights that are, for lack of a better way of putting it, the most important rights we enjoy under the constitution.  Most fundamental rights (which are defined by the Supreme Court) can be read verbatim right out of the constitution.  The 14^th Amendment even has a couple of them.

#6:  In your opinion, do you have a fundamental (constitutionally guaranteed) right to privacy? Explain.

#7:  List at least three other rights that you believe are considered to be ‘fundamental’ or ought to be considered fundamental.

Note:  Section 2 intended to penalize states if they did not permit their citizens to vote.  The penalty would essentially be that the state would not get as much representation in the House of Representatives (which, again, bases its state membership distribution on the size of the state).  In reality, this section never truly was implemented.  The 15^th Amendment, various civil rights laws, the 19^th Amendment, the 24^th Amendment, and the 26^th Amendment . . . . taken together . . . . sort of made this section irrelevant. (A weak approach to section 5 of this amendment also helped)

#8:  Sections 3 and 4 are cleaning up the ‘mess’ that we otherwise refer to as what?

Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870.

Question #9:  Is the 15^th Amendment redundant? Nooooooooo! I’m not being racist.  I’m just being a teacher.  What I’m getting at is this:  After you look at the 14^th Amendment, section 1, what is the purpose of the 15th amendment? Explain.

Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.

Question #1:  Why do you think it took so long for the the 16^th Amendment to be a part of the U.S. Constitution? [Hint:  Article I, Section 9, Clause 4]

Question #2: Is the 16^th Amendment a necessary part of the U.S. Constitution? [Hint:  In 1895 the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled that a federal income tax was unconstitutional due to Article I, Section 9, Clause 4]

FUN FACT FOR FSTUDENTS!—Many states already had income taxes before it became permissible on the federal level via the 16^th Amendment.  In need of a complete tax code, the federal government went looking to the states for help (aka, the federal government wanted to do some plagiarizing!).  Which state’s tax code was lifted, almost word for word, into the federal tax code? Wisconsin!!!

Passed by Congress May 13, 1912. Ratified April 8, 1913.

#3:  Is this a good or a bad amendment in your view? Explain.

Passed by Congress December 18, 1917. Ratified January 16, 1919.{Altered by Amendment 21}

#4:  Isn’t the 18^th amendment a really stupid amendment? Explain.  Show your work.

Passed by Congress June 4, 1919. Ratified August 18, 1920.

#5:  By the way, do not confuse my comments here with my comments regarding the 18^th amendment.  OK, here we go: Is the 19^th Amendment redundant? Nooooooooo! I’m not being sexist.  I’m just being a teacher.  What I’m getting at is this:  After you look at the 14^th Amendment, section 1, what is the purpose of the 19th amendment? Explain.  Hey, does this question sound familiar? Explain.

Ratified in 1933

#6:  Presidents and Vice Presidents used to be sworn in on March 4^th.  Why could this date change be made by 1933? Was this a good or a bad thing in your view?

#7:  Prior to the 20^th Amendment, the new Congress wouldn’t be sworn in and begin work until around March. Why could this date change be made by 1933? Was this a good or a bad thing in your view? [Feel free to put “See my answer to #6”]

#8:  Yessssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss! OK, tell me what all that section 3 stuff means!

#9:  Don’t you love this amendment? What does all that section 4 stuff mean?

Passed by Congress February 20, 1933. Ratified December 5, 1933.

Note:  The 18^th amendment . . . . so stupid that we needed another amendment to point out how stupid it was!!!

NOTE:  However, it was still illegal to transport alcoholic beverages into any state that forbade the use of alcoholic beverages.  This remains the case today, by the way.

Passed by Congress March 21, 1947. Ratified February 27, 1951.

#10:  OK, so according to the 22^nd Amendment, what is the longest possible time a person can be President of the United States? Explain how you got to your answer. 

Passed by Congress June 16, 1960. Ratified March 29, 1961.

#11:  So, did we have a little ‘taxation without representation’ going on into the early 1960’s? Explain.

Passed by Congress August 27, 1962. Ratified January 23, 1964.

#12:  What negative aspect of this nation’s history is being undone by the 24^th Amendment.  You can say, “slavery,” but I’d accuse you of not thinking through a thorough answer.  What is the better fit for answering this question? (HINT:  Look at when it was ratified)

Passed by Congress July 6, 1965. Ratified February 10, 1967.

Passed by Congress March 23, 1971. Ratified June 30, 1971.

Is the 26^th Amendment redundant? Nooooooooo! I’m not being age-ist.  I’m just being a teacher.  What I’m getting at is this:  After you look at the 14^th Amendment, section 1, what is the purpose of the 26th amendment? Explain.  Hey, does this question sound really, really familiar? Explain.

Ratified in 1992

Congratulations, you’re done reading the U.S. Constitutuion!

Type of government

Executive Branch

Legislative Branch

Judicial Branch

Federal Government

Headed by the President of the United States (4 year term; two term limit; ‘on’ year elections coincide with Olympic Summer Games calendar*= 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016, etc.)

--Presidentially appointed Cabinet Secretaries head up the various cabinet level departments (These appointments must come with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate)

--Executive Office of the President (EOP) Staff hired directly by the President (no advice and consent necessary)

House of Representatives elected to two year terms with no federally mandated term limits%%. There are 435 total members.  Each state gets at least one representative.  Distribution by state is according to state population.

U.S. Senate elected to 6 year terms.  There are no federally mandated term limits%%.  Each state gets exactly two Senators.  Approximately  one third of this body is up for election every two years.

A Supreme Court with 9 justices who serve for life after being appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate.

There are various lower courts, some of which deal with special areas of law, some of which are purely for appeals, and some of which are courts of ‘original jurisdiction.’  Regardless, all federal judges hold their appointments for life. They are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

Wisconsin State Government

Headed by the Governor of Wisconsin (4 year term; no term limits; ‘off year’ elections coincide with Olympic Winter Games calendar*=2002, 2006, 2010, 2014, 2018, etc.)

Other elected officials are . .

a—Lieutenant Governor#

b—Secretary of State#

c—State Treasurer#

d—Attorney General#

e—State Superintendent of Public Instruction @

What do these other elected officials do? See next page.

Various state level agencies are headed by governor appointed officials (There are too many agencies to mention).

33 State Senators elected to 4 year terms.  There are no term limits.  Approximately half of this body is up for election every two years. [Wisconsin is split up into 33 population-equal single representative State Senate Districts]

99 State Assemblypeople elected to 2 year terms.  There are no term limits. [Wisconsin is split up into 99 population-equal single representative State Assembly Districts] 

A State Supreme Court with 7 justices who serve 10 year terms with no term limits [after being elected by the people of Wisconsin]

Wisconsin also has 4 regional Appeals Courts (where 3 judge panels hear all appeals) with 16 total judges serving 6 year elected terms without term limits.  There are also 69 circuit courts to coincide with the state’s 69 counties.  These courts typically have original jurisdiction over state related court proceedings. Some of the bigger ‘circuits’ (counties) have circuit ‘branches’.  In all, there are 241 circuit branches in the state.  Each branch has a 6 year term (no term limit) elected judge.

Some villages have municipal courts with jurisdiction over municipal ordinance violations.  Most judges in these courts do not hold their positions as full time jobs.  At present, there are approximately 200 municipal courts in Wisconsin

There’s a lot more than just federal and state government.  There’s also local government.  Probably the best example around here would be Milwaukee City Government.  We’ll keep this short:

Chief executive=Mayor

Legislative branch=Common Council (from 15 aldermanic districts)

#7:  Please give me three other specific examples of local government that can be found in Southeastern Wisconsin.

The “state other than Wisconsin” project---Mr. Jacobson---Point Value TBD

Please take one of the 49 states in the country (which must be pre-approved by me) and answer the following questions:

20% per item.

a—How long is the governor’s term of office?

b—Is the gubernatorial election held in Summer Olympic Games years or Winter Olympic Games years? (Disregard if your state has 2 year terms for its governor).

c—What is the composure of the state’s leglislative branch? (Include names of houses, number of members in each, and length of terms)

d—How is the State Supreme Court organized (Appointed? Elected? Term length?)

e—Note one aspect of the state’s government that struck you as interesting.

Question #1:  Please list all the forms of mass media that exist.  You can do it!

#2:  It’s a typical Wednesday.  What two hour block of the day, in your view, should garner the best advertising rates? Explain.

#3:  Think about ratings as they pertain to forms of media other than broadcast.  Should a full page ad in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel cost more than, the same as, or less than a full page ad in the Shorewood Herald? Explain.

#4:  Whoa! That sure was an opinionated thing for a teacher to put in his own textbook.  Do you agree or disagree with the claim made about television? Explain.

#5:  In general terms, list at least three rules that you suspect the FCC has for NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, etc.

#6:  Why can cable TV and satellite radio get away with more than regular broadcast media?

#7:  Should the FCC have jurisdiction over the internet? Why or why not?