Our latest eLesson is now available.  Sign up to have our eLessons emailed directly to you!

“The land flourished because it was fed from so many sources–because it was nourished by so many cultures and traditions and peoples.”
― Lyndon B. Johnson

The United States of America is a nation of immigrants. From its colonial origins to the present day there has been a steady stream of would-be Americans; however, the laws pertaining to immigrants have changed and evolved over time.

Learn more here!

Our latest eLesson is now available.  Sign up to have our eLessons emailed directly to you!

Though James Madison has been given the title, “Father of the Constitution,” a case could be made that Gouverneur Morris was second in importance only to the Virginian in shaping the final version of the document. Morris spoke more often (173 times) than any other delegate at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Though he was often on the losing side of issues and was not a political theorist on the level of Madison, Morris was a leader of the nationalist bloc at the Convention that ultimately carried the day. In addition, it was the native New Yorker who actually crafted much of the language of the United States Constitution.  Download the complete lesson.

Happy Tax Day! The celebratory tone might be a bit out of place, but from a constitutional perspective tax day, and the 16th Amendment which created it, are fascinating examples of politics in action.

The 16th Amendment, which authorized the Federal Government to levy an income tax, was passed on February 3rd, 1913. Prior to the 16th Amendment, the Federal Government was funded almost exclusively through tariff and excise taxes. Direct taxes, stipulated by Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution, had to be apportioned among the states by population, which prevented a singular federal income tax.

In the Supreme Court case, Pollock v. Farmers’ Land & Trust Co. (1894), the Supreme Court held that certain taxes on property passed at the end of the Civil War were indeed unconstitutional. This helped fuel the drive for an official constitutional amendement to permit the federal government to establish an income tax. Different groups were interested in an income tax for different reasons. Some feared that the growing concentration of wealth in the hands of a few individuals was dangerous to a democracy, while Republicans were eyeing the growing navies of other powers like Britain and Japan and calling for a stronger response. That call was answered when President Taft proposed the 16th Amendment, which upon ratification nullified the Pollock ruling.

It originally called for March 15th to be tax day, but in 1955 the date was moved forward a month to April 15th, to give the IRS more time to process the income tax returns, and, at the time, to let the federal government hold on to your money a little bit longer!

More Resources:

Infographic on the History of Tax Day

Additional Amendments to the Constitution

Pollock v. Farmer’s Land & Trust Co. (1894) – Oyez Project

Love the Bill of Rights Institutes’ resources and workshops? Want to help other teachers expand their knowledge of the Constitution and Founding documents? Join the Institute team today! We are looking for an entrepreneurial, creative, and driven educator who can help us plan and implement new teacher-related programs. Interested? Find out more and apply today!

Bring the people, places, and history of the Prohibition Era alive with these new interactive lessons. In “The Rise and Fall of Prohibition,” your students will learn about the background of the 18th Amendment, the individuals who fought for and against Prohibition, and its eventual repeal. They will use their new knowledge as well as their drawing skills to get classmates to identify and define key terms in a game of Prohibition Pictionary. Finally, they will learn about the roles of historical figures from the era by taking on their identities for a dinner party. Use any or all of these hands-on, modular activities to teach this important part of our history.  Download these three lessons here.

If there’s one gadget nearly impossible to live without in the 21st century, it’s the cellphone. Most of us keep one on us at all times, and a recent survey showed that, for a majority of 18-34 year olds, the hardest possession to live without would be the smartphone. But is it really YOUR smartphone?

A recent decision by the Librarian of Congress, under authority granted by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), made it illegal to unlock your smartphone, aka use the hardware and software in ways not approved by cellphone carriers. Critics contend  this undermines traditional notions of property rights, namely the right to use your property as you see fit, and over 100,000 people have signed a petition on the White House website advocating overturning this policy. Meanwhile, supporters maintain that the restriction is necessary to combat digital piracy, and many major industry groups argue that it is an appropriate legal guarantee of their own property rights.

Property rights have always been a tricky subject, but as property increasingly becomes virtual it is getting even harder to define “what’s mine and what’s yours.”  In this week’s eLesson we’ll explore property rights in the context of smartphones, and evaluate where we should be setting the line.

Learn more here.

Celebrate Black History month with materials on two landmark Supreme Court cases on the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. How could the same words have been interpreted so differently in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) and sixty years later in Brown v. Board of Education (1954)? Read some background on the cases, excerpts from the rulings, and thought-provoking discussion questions.

See the complete lesson.

Discussion Questions

1. What Supreme Court decision established the doctrine of “separate but equal”?
2. What Kansas law did the Brown plaintiffs want struck down?
3. How did the Court rule, and what was the constitutional reasoning?
4. What was the Brown II ruling?
5. What role was there for other branches and levels of government in enforcing Brown II?
6. Why might it have taken nearly sixty years to the Supreme Court to get to its current interpretation of the 14^th Amendment?
7. What might this suggest about the importance of looking at the historical context of Supreme Court rulings?

Do you use document-based questions in your classroom?

This winter the Bill of Rights Institute is blogging a document-based question on the Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education (1954). Each weekly post will feature an excerpted document related to the case, along with some questions to guide your thinking on it. Each document should be used to address the question: “Assess the role played by the Court as the protector of individual rights against the tyranny of the majority in Brown v. Board of Education.”

Check out our previous posts for Document A, an excerpt from the Virginia criminal code; Document B, a section of the Fourteenth Amendment; Document C, an excerpt from the majority opinion of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896); Document D, an excerpt from the dissenting opinion in Plessy; Document E, a photo of a Washington, DC public school classroom; Document F, a picture of African American schoolgirls in a classroom; Document G, a photo of a segregated classroom; Document H, a map of the US by segregation laws; Document I, an excerpt from the unanimous opinion in Brown v. Board of Education; and Document J, an excerpt from the majority opinion in Brown II.

In the wake of recent tragic shootings, there has been a significant revival of the debate over the Second Amendment and gun control. The debate, in broad generalities, is split between two sides. On one side are gun control advocates who believe that stricter regulation of guns would reduce violence. On the other side are gun rights advocates, who believe that the right to own a gun is fundamental and that more restrictions on gun ownership do not decrease violence. This divide is animated by different interpretations of the Constitution: specifically the Second Amendment, its meaning, and it’s applicability in 21st century America. In this eLesson your students will explore some of the constitutional issues and policy proposals that make up the gun control/gun rights debate.

Student Handout (PDF)

Articles 

Obama takes gun control push to law enforcement, American people
Date: 2/04/13
Source: Washington Post

From State to State, Varied Responses to the Issue of Gun Violence
Date: 2/03/13
Source: NY Times

Gun Control Divides County Sheriffs
Date: 2/04/13
Source: NPR

Debate Over Gun Control Is One-Sided in Idaho
Date: 2/04/13
Source: NY Times

Questions

1. What right does the Second Amendment protect?
2. Some commentators have suggested heavily taxing / regulating bullets to limit gun violence – do you think that would be constitutional?
3. Limiting the availability of high-capacity magazines and restricting semi-automatic weapons has been forwarded as a means to prevent mass shootings. From a constitutional standpoint, is there a line that separates the type of weaponry that may be owned by government officials and law enforcement but not by the public?
4. Some regulations have been criticized as criminalizing the behavior of millions of law-abiding Americans because of the criminal acts of others. Should laws be based on harm/intended harm, or does the potential to do harm come into play?
5. Different states have very different conceptions of the scope and limitations of the second amendment; how much authority should local and state governments have to regulate firearms? How, if at all, does this relate to the Constitutional principle of Federalism?
6. Some studies have shown a correlation between handgun bans and a decrease in the suicide rate – is it appropriate to base limitations of the Second Amendment on the prevention of self-inflicted harm?
7. Almost all individual rights are subject to “reasonable” restrictions. For example, there is no individual right to shout “fire!” in a crowded theater if there is no fire. Your right to speak does not include the right to force others to listen. What are reasonable restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms?