Supreme+Court

[|Ms. Pember] =Day 1 - Monday July 12, 2010= Students will be able to: -Connect last week's unit on immigration to this week's unit on the Supreme Court -Identify prior knowledge about the Supreme Court -Create a list of questions students still have about the Supreme Court

What is the history of the current Chief Justice? - our group question The above document contains discussion on the Arizona Law's connection with the Supreme Court, vocabulary, and student generated questions.

=Day 2 - Tuesday July 13th, 2010= Objectives __** Students will be able to - research a topic of personal interest on the Supreme Court - evaluate a variety of internet resources for research - organize research findings on to a Mind Map using the program Inspiration - present research findings within the classroom and virtually using video chat =Activities/Lessons= Delicious
 * __ Title: Continuation of Day 1 project

=Closing Reflections=

From my video chat buddy, I learned about conservatives and liberals and there roles in the Surpeme Court. People holding these viewpoints, especially Justices, are likely to make different interpretations of the law and the Constitution based on whether they are more inclined to conservative views or liberal views. I like video chat. It was neat and kind of fun. Although we used it for short distance, using it for long distance communication is a viable tool. I feel that face-to-face contact is an important part of communication and definitely useful in school to improve inter-student relations.

=Day 3 - Wednesday July 14, 2010= __ Title: Focus on one famous case and begin final project **//Either for Marbury v Madison//** -- Ms. Pember Students will be able to: - summarize researched and shared information on the Supreme Court by creating a Glog - research current trends/decisions of the US Supreme Court - analyze and annotate court documents (majority/minority opinions) and expert analysis reports
 * Objectives **__
 * the role of the Supreme Court in interpreting the Constitution;
 * the significance of Marbury v. Madison;
 * the concept of judicial review and how //Marbury v. Madison// solidified it;
 * Both classes: **

__**Do Now:**__
Copy and paste the following in your virtual notebook on your Supreme Court page. You will fill in the answers in another color/font.

“You have been elected the new Mayor of Malden. Before leaving office, the old mayor gave jobs to several of his political friends but the paperwork hasn’t made it to the personnel office yet.

I'd give the jobs. Negatives - old mayor would get pretty mad at me, the guys that lost a potential job might try and kill me. Positivies - I get to hire my own friends for these jobs instead of dealing with strangers. Yes. In that case, I would most definitely deny them their jobs and keep the oppossite side scum away from my administration.
 * A.** Should you 1) honor the jobs promised by the old mayor, or 2) cancel the jobs since they aren’t “officially” in the system yet?
 * B.** What are the possible negatives to denying these people their jobs? What are the possible positives to allowing them to take these jobs?
 * C.** Would it make a difference if the perspective employees had worked against you in the mayoral elections?

Document of the Marbury v Madison trial with personal commentary mark-ups.

I see it means involving an image that's trying to imply what the judicial branch's role in government is.

Objectives Students will be able to: - summarize researched and shared information on the Supreme Court by creating a Glog

- Embed your Glogster link here as well as upload a Snippet or Print Screen format picture of your Glog



[|Glog]

For my Glog, I tried for something to the effect of a collage. I mashed a bunch of supreme court related images together. There isn;t much material to work with, so I added some abstract elements too, namely the tree, representing the Supreme Court as the "branch of wisdom" within the government. It turned out better than expected.

= **__Day 4 - Thursday July 15__** =
 * __ Title: Podcast/Video of a Political Talkshow on a recent Supreme Court decision __**


 * Guided Questions: **
 * What are the key components to a political debate?
 * How do bipartisan politics get involved in Supreme Court Case decisions and the Justice Nomination process?

After the lesson, students will be able to:
 * Objectives: **
 * research current trends/decisions of the US Supreme Court
 * analyze and annotate court documents (majority/minority opinions) and expert analysis reports
 * discuss the details and ramifications of recent court cases and justice nominations
 * create a podcast that incorporates students' knowledge and various viewpoints about the situation

=Article Summary= Our article was a conservative viewpoint on the McDonald vs Chicago case. The author was satisfied by the results, but brings up the notion that this may have been a conflict of interest between state and federal government more than anything else. Even so, the ones with real power, the true, inherent, rights, are the citizens of the United States and the 14th amendment is protecting this. Whether it be state or national government, no one has the power to deprive the citizen of his rights, as so forcefully implied by the Constitution.

=Group Project Reflection=

We studied McDonald v Chicago. The issue was over Chicago's plan to ban guns in the state. However, there was plenty of resentment for this plan and Otis McDonald of Chicago sued over it. He thought the law would render him defenseless and subject to criminal activity and maybe even death in his own home. He won the case, invoking the 2nd amendment and 14th amendment. My opinion is that the decision was correct. It adhered to the Constitution and I believe that is all that matters. This case might effect Malden, in my opinion, only if it turned out that the law passed. An impression that the Constitution can be broken would make it seem weak and no longer supreme. As a result, a domino effect of chaos and anarchy would occur...but since this did not happen, Malden would never experience that. Order will remain supreme.

Marked up Article: The article is from the Canadia Free Press and emphasizes that the case may infact be bigger than just one person versus his state - its a matter between state law versus national law.

Here we have a podcast based on the McDonald v Chicago case:

media type="custom" key="6585925"