Scenarios, Simulations, and Activities for Understanding and Evaluating 14 Landmark Court Cases (Grades 7-12)
Jeffrey D. Stocks
This is a test
This is a test
Buch teilen
112 Seiten
English
ePUB (handyfreundlich)
Ăber iOS und Android verfĂŒgbar
eBook - ePub
Supreme Court Decisions
Scenarios, Simulations, and Activities for Understanding and Evaluating 14 Landmark Court Cases (Grades 7-12)
Jeffrey D. Stocks
Angaben zum Buch
Buchvorschau
Inhaltsverzeichnis
Quellenangaben
Ăber dieses Buch
The rich history of the U.S. Supreme Court affects everyoneâso why just lecture about the landmark court decisions when you can engage students in the cases that changed the course of history? In Supreme Court Decisions, students will make predictions, use their knowledge of the Constitution, gain the perspective of people living during a historic period of time, and judge a case for themselves.The book takes students through 14 landmark cases including Dred Scott v. Sanford, Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown v. Board of Education, Mapp v. Ohio, Miranda v. Arizona, and more. Students will find cases such as New Jersey v. T.L.O. particularly interesting because of their continuing effect on and relevance to students in school today.Because these cases are sure to evoke different emotions and spark lively discussions among your students, the book also includes activities that will help you direct this energy into meaningful learning experiences. Your students will find the lessons in Supreme Court Decisions interesting, enjoyable, and engaging. Grades 7-12
HĂ€ufig gestellte Fragen
Wie kann ich mein Abo kĂŒndigen?
Gehe einfach zum Kontobereich in den Einstellungen und klicke auf âAbo kĂŒndigenâ â ganz einfach. Nachdem du gekĂŒndigt hast, bleibt deine Mitgliedschaft fĂŒr den verbleibenden Abozeitraum, den du bereits bezahlt hast, aktiv. Mehr Informationen hier.
(Wie) Kann ich BĂŒcher herunterladen?
Derzeit stehen all unsere auf MobilgerĂ€te reagierenden ePub-BĂŒcher zum Download ĂŒber die App zur VerfĂŒgung. Die meisten unserer PDFs stehen ebenfalls zum Download bereit; wir arbeiten daran, auch die ĂŒbrigen PDFs zum Download anzubieten, bei denen dies aktuell noch nicht möglich ist. Weitere Informationen hier.
Welcher Unterschied besteht bei den Preisen zwischen den AboplÀnen?
Mit beiden AboplÀnen erhÀltst du vollen Zugang zur Bibliothek und allen Funktionen von Perlego. Die einzigen Unterschiede bestehen im Preis und dem Abozeitraum: Mit dem Jahresabo sparst du auf 12 Monate gerechnet im Vergleich zum Monatsabo rund 30 %.
Was ist Perlego?
Wir sind ein Online-Abodienst fĂŒr LehrbĂŒcher, bei dem du fĂŒr weniger als den Preis eines einzelnen Buches pro Monat Zugang zu einer ganzen Online-Bibliothek erhĂ€ltst. Mit ĂŒber 1 Million BĂŒchern zu ĂŒber 1.000 verschiedenen Themen haben wir bestimmt alles, was du brauchst! Weitere Informationen hier.
UnterstĂŒtzt Perlego Text-zu-Sprache?
Achte auf das Symbol zum Vorlesen in deinem nÀchsten Buch, um zu sehen, ob du es dir auch anhören kannst. Bei diesem Tool wird dir Text laut vorgelesen, wobei der Text beim Vorlesen auch grafisch hervorgehoben wird. Du kannst das Vorlesen jederzeit anhalten, beschleunigen und verlangsamen. Weitere Informationen hier.
Ist Supreme Court Decisions als Online-PDF/ePub verfĂŒgbar?
Ja, du hast Zugang zu Supreme Court Decisions von Jeffrey D. Stocks im PDF- und/oder ePub-Format sowie zu anderen beliebten BĂŒchern aus Education & Education General. Aus unserem Katalog stehen dir ĂŒber 1Â Million BĂŒcher zur VerfĂŒgung.
The Issue: Maryland state officials, unhappy with the existence of the U.S. bank, a competitor to their own chartered banks, levied a state tax against the federal bank. The bankâs cashier refused to pay the tax and was subsequently fined by the state of Maryland.
The Players:
James McCullochâcashier of the Baltimore branch of the Bank of the United States.
Daniel WebsterâMcCullochâs attorney.
John MarshallâChief Justice of the Supreme Court.
The Ruling: The court ruled in favor of McCulloch, with Marshall arguing that if a state is allowed to tax the federal government, then it is supreme over the federal government. Thus, it must not be allowed to do so. Or, as he wrote, â⊠the power to tax involves the power to destroy.â
Significance: This case firmly established the supremacy of the national government over the states.
Background
The early landmark cases of the Supreme Court were sweeping in nature and laid the foundation for the practical concept of the application of the U.S. Constitution. Marbury v. Madison (1803), for example, solidified the courtâs role in determining the constitutionality of law. That precedent having been set, the Supreme Court settled one constitutional dispute after another. McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) is important for several reasons. On its face, it established the dominance of the national government in the federalist system. In the courtâs ruling, Chief Justice John Marshall noted that a state could not tax a national entity because âthe power to tax involves the power to destroy.â
On another level, however, this case showcased the power wielded by the president through lifetime appointments to the federal bench. The Federalist Party idea of a strong national government found life not through the democratic process, but through judicial fiat (creating law instead of interpreting it). The Federalist Party was all but dead by 1819, but its ideas of a strong judiciary, powerful central government, and flexible constitution lived on through Supreme Court Justices like John Marshall. The court asserted its own power (not listed in the Constitution) to interpret the Constitution in Marbury v. Madison (1803). It solidified the supremacy of the national government over state governments in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). Finally, in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), the court validated the idea that the Constitution is not limited to what is specifically written, but that elements may be inferred by the court. Each of these ideas had been championed by the Federalist Party before its demise, and were at odds with the beliefs of the Democratic-Republicans who presided during this time.
SECTION 1 THE POWER TO DESTROY
June 21, 1819
Dear Robert,
It has been two years, brother, since our last correspondence and I pray this letter finds you healthy. Alas, I have not attended to my letter writing as I promised. I fear these many months have proven most stressful.
Please do not fret over the family, as Emma and Little John are healthy and causing much good-natured havoc around town. Baltimore is growing too, but I fear its havoc is not as good-natured.
Who would have known that my principal woes would have come in the form of assuming the duties of Cashier of the Baltimore branch of the Bank of the United States? I fear my illustrious rise in this institution has only caused me grief, for now I have attained the title Common Criminal! Indeed, I have been convicted by the state of Maryland and am to pay a fine in the sum of two thousand five hundred dollars. I will have to sell my house to pay such a hefty ransom!
And, what did I do to earn this debt to the state? What evil doing brought such woe upon me? Surely you guess that I have embezzled funds, defrauded depositors, or falsified audits. Certainly not! (These petty offenses donât summon the wrath of a $2,500 fine.) What I did was to endeavor to faithfully fulfill the requirements of my position. Thus, when the State of Maryland presented the bank with a tax bill of $15,000, I naturally refused to pay.
Mind you, Robert, this is the Bank of the United States chartered by Congress. The State of Maryland then has the audacity to tax the United States government! Maryland claims to be a sovereign state, but I suspect it is trying to eliminate the competition to its own state-chartered banks.
I tell you that I did not take my conviction and shunting to the criminal class lying down. I have appealed my conviction through the Maryland courts and now await my day before the Supreme Court of the United States! I shall inform you immediately upon news of the ruling.
Until then, I remain your humble brother and servant,
James
Discussion Questions:
What is the major issue to be settled by the case?
What are the facts relevant to the case?
Why do you think the state of Maryland taxed the bank?
How do you think the Supreme Court ruled?
You be the judge: Should James be forced to pay the fine? Why or why not?
SECTION 2: THE ACTUAL CASE MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND (1819)
The establishment of the Bank of the United States was a major source of controversy at the time of its charter in 1791. It was to serve as a place where the national government could deposit funds, issue currency, collect taxes, and so forth. Proponents of the bank, such as Alexander Hamilton, argued that even though the U.S. Constitution did not specifically state that such a bank could be created, it didnât state that a bank could not be created either. This argument is said to favor a loose interpretation of the Constitution.
Opponents of the bank, including Thomas Jefferson, argued that because the Constitution did not specifically give Congress the power to create a bank, then it was forbidden from doing so. This position requires a strict interpretation of the Constitution.
The matter came to a head in 1817 when Maryland (a state that opposed the creation of the Bank of the United States) levied a tax of $15,000 against the bankâs branch in Baltimore. James McCulloch, the cashier of the bank, refused to pay the tax and was convicted in state court and fined $2,500. McCulloch appealed the decision all the way to the Supreme Court (Mikula & Mabunda, 1999).
Marylandâs lawyers argued that, because the federal government had the authority to tax state banks, Maryland, as a sovereign state, had the authority to tax the federal bank. They also argued that because the Constitution did not specifically give Congress the power to charter a bank, then the bank itself was unconstitutional.
McCullochâs lawyers, one of whom was Daniel Webster, argued that Congressâ creation of a national bank was ânecessary and proper,â as is implied in the Constitution but not specifically stated. He also argued that Marylandâs tax hindered the function of federal government (Mikula & Mabunda, 1999).
THE RULING
First, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, struck a blow to those with a strict view of the Constitution. Marshall stated that the Constitution gives Congress the power to âlay and collect Taxes; ⊠to borrow Money; ⊠to regulate Commerce âŠâ among other things. (These are known as enumerated powers because they are specifically listed in the Constitution.) But, the Constitution also gives Congress the power to make âall Laws which shall be necessary and proper, for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers âŠâ So, even though the Constitution doesnât specifically mention a bank, Marshall argued that the creation of a bank was a necessary and proper function of Congress.
Second, he argued that the states had no authority to tax any institution or function of the federal government. He stated that âthe power to tax involves the power to destroy âŠâ and that the âAmerican people ⊠did not design to make their government dependent upon the states âŠâ (McCulloch v. Maryland [1819]).
THE AFTERMATH
Thus, the conviction of James McCulloch was overturned by the Supreme Court. Perhaps more important, however, the legitimacy of the implied powers became the law of the land and paved the way for a much more flexible, expanding Constitution. However, the argument didnât end here. Elements of this argument between strict and loose interpreters of the Constitution have found their way into the Nullification Crisis, the Civil War, and even into present-day political arguments regarding presidential power, illegal immigration, education, and most notably, reproductive rights.
MAKING IT CURRENT
In the structure of the U.S. military, the National Guard typically is under the command of the governor of the state. However, the U.S. President also has the authority to call National Guard troops to active duty. Do you think it would be legal for the governor of a state to order National Guard troops to resist the orders of a federal court? (This happened in 1957.) How would it be resolved? How does this apply to McCulloch v. Maryland?
CASE 2:
THE STEAMBOAT CONTROVERSY
GIBBONS V. OGDEN (1824)
DOI: 10.4324/9781003238379-2
FOR THE TEACHER
Quick Reference
The Issue: The state of New York required a state license to operate a ferryâin this case, to operate between New York and New Jersey. However, the federal government issued licenses to operate in interstate waters. This put the federal and state governments at odds as to which entity had the authority to grant such licenses.
The Players:
Thomas GibbonsâOperated a ferry licensed by the United States.
Aaron OgdenâOperated a ferry licensed by the s...