Do you use document-based questions in your classroom?

This summer the Bill of Rights Institute is blogging a document-based question on the Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison (1803). 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: “Argue whether or not the Supreme Court should have the power to overturn unconstitutional federal laws.”

Check out our previous posts for Document A, an excerpt from the Anti-Federalist Papers; Document B, Document C, and Document D, excerpts from Federalist no. 78; Document E, an excerpt from Federalist no. 81; Document F, an excerpt from Article III of the US Constitution; Document G, the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution; Document H, an excerpt from the Judiciary Act of 1789; Document I, the Kentucky Resolution; and Document J, an excerpt from Marbury v. Madison‘s unanimous opinion.

Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819

For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, [the Constitution] has given, according to this opinion [Marbury v. Madison], to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. …The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.

> How does Jefferson’s reaction 4 to the decision in Marbury v. Madison compare to Hamilton’s description of the judicial branch in Document B?

_________________________________________________________

Check back each week to see the next document and how it might change your thinking on this important question that affects all public school teachers and students in the U.S.! If you are enjoying this DBQ – be sure to check out our curriculum Supreme Court DBQs: Exploring the Cases the Changed History.

Do you use document-based questions in your classroom?

This summer the Bill of Rights Institute is blogging a document-based question on the Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison (1803). 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: “Argue whether or not the Supreme Court should have the power to overturn unconstitutional federal laws.”

Check out our previous posts for Document A, an excerpt from the Anti-Federalist Papers; Document B, Document C, and Document D, excerpts from Federalist no. 78; Document E, an excerpt from Federalist no. 81; Document F, an excerpt from Article III of the US Constitution; Document G, the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution; and Document H, an excerpt from Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789.

The Kentucky Resolution, Thomas Jefferson (1798)

That the several states who formed that instrument [the Constitution], being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all authorized acts done under colour of that instrument, is a rightful remedy.

>Who or what does Thomas Jefferson assert has the authority to judge the constitutionality of federal laws?

_________________________________________________________

Check back each week to see the next document and how it might change your thinking on this important question that affects all public school teachers and students in the U.S.! If you are enjoying this DBQ – be sure to check out our curriculum Supreme Court DBQs: Exploring the Cases the Changed History.

As judicial review was seldom exercised prior to the 20th century, the case was cited exclusively for its discussion of the particular issues of the case for the first hundred years after it was handed down. Beginning in the early 20th Century, however, the Court began striking down federal laws more frequently. Proponents of judicial review pointed to Chief Justice John Marshall’s decision in Marbury as a source supporting the view that the Supreme Court has the final say on what the Constitution means.

The case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) was the first time the U.S. Supreme Court declared an act of Congress to be unconstitutional. (The case concerned a section of the Judiciary Act of 1789.) In his opinion, Chief Justice John Marshall relied almost exclusively on the specific language of the Constitution, saying that it was the “paramount law of the nation” and that it constrained the actions of all three branches of the national government. The whole point of a written Constitution, Marshall asserted, was to ensure that government stayed within its prescribed limits: “The powers of the Legislature are defined and limited; and [so] that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the Constitution is written.” In cases where a law conflicted with the Constitution, Marshall wrote, then “the very essence of judicial duty” was to follow the Constitution.

Marshall also asserted that the courts had the responsibility to understand and articulate what the Constitution means: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” The decision concluded “a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

The Supreme Court did not declare another act of Congress unconstitutional until it struck down the Missouri Compromise in Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857). The power of judicial review was used sparingly for the next several decades. Beginning in the early 20th Century, however, the Court began striking down federal laws more often than ever before. Proponents of judicial review pointed to Chief Justice John Marshall’s decision in Marbury as a source supporting the view that the Supreme Court has the final say on what the Constitution means.

Since then, as the powers of the national government have expanded and as more and more state laws became subject to federal review (as a result of the Fourteenth Amendment and the incorporation of the protections of the Bill of Rights against the states), the Supreme Court has had frequent opportunities to exercise its power of judicial review.

What do you think? Does the power to strike laws that are judged by nine justices to be unconstitutional establish the Supreme Court as a co-equal branch of government alongside Congress and the President? Who should have the final say on what the Constitution means?

Get a free copy of the Marbury v. Madison (1803) lesson plan from our curriculum Supreme Court DBQs .

This summer the Bill of Rights Institute is blogging a document-based question on the Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines (1969). 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: “Evaluate the extent to which the First Amendment should protect symbolic speech, and the degree to which that protection should be guaranteed to students in public school.”

Check out our previous posts for a case background and document #1, document #2, West Virginia v. Barnette, document #3, a picture of Vietnam War protestors outside the White House, document #4, a collection of “Hate Mail” received by the Tinker Family, document #5 and document #6, parts of the Oral Arguments for the case, document #7, the Majority Opinion, document #8, the Concurring Opinion, and document #9, the Dissenting Opinion (Hugo Black), document #10, the Dissenting Opinion (John Marshall Harlan), document #11, a picture of Lorena, Paul, and Mary Beth Tinker, and document #12, a Dissenting Opinion, Street v. New York.

Today’s document is a picture: “A Symbolic Protest Mounted by Vietnam Veterans Against the War,” 1976

Think about it:

Compare this example of a symbolic protest of the Vietnam War with the Tinkers’ actions.

Should the First Amendment protect this kind of symbolic speech?

How does this impact your answer to the DBQ question: “Evaluate the extent to which the First Amendment should protect symbolic speech, and the degree to which that protection should be guaranteed to students in public school”?

_____________________________________________________________________

Check back each week to see the next document and how it might change your thinking on this important question that affects all public school teachers and students in the U.S.!

If you are enjoying this DBQ – be sure to check out our curriculum Supreme Court DBQs: Exploring the Cases the Changed History.

]]> http://billofrightsinstitute.org/blog/2011/08/25/tinkervdesmoinesdbqdocument13/feed/ 0 http://billofrightsinstitute.org/blog/2011/08/19/tinker-v-des-moines-document-12/ http://billofrightsinstitute.org/blog/2011/08/19/tinker-v-des-moines-document-12/#comments Fri, 19 Aug 2011 23:30:32 +0000 maria santos http://blog.billofrightsinstitute.org/?p=1512 Read more...]]> Do you use document-based questions in your classroom?

This summer the Bill of Rights Institute is blogging a document-based question on the Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines (1969). 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: “Evaluate the extent to which the First Amendment should protect symbolic speech, and the degree to which that protection should be guaranteed to students in public school.”

Check out our previous posts for a case background and document #1, document #2, West Virginia v. Barnette, document #3, a picture of Vietnam War protestors outside the White House, document #4, a collection of “Hate Mail” received by the Tinker Family, document #5 and document #6, parts of the Oral Arguments for the case, document #7, the Majority Opinion, document #8, the Concurring Opinion, and document #9, the Dissenting Opinion (Hugo Black), document #10, the Dissenting Opinion (John Marshall Harlan), and document #11, a picture of Lorena, Paul, and Mary Beth Tinker.

Today’s document is a Dissenting Opinion, Street v. New York, 1969

…Action, even if clearly for serious protest purposes, is not entitled to the pervasive protection that is given to speech alone. …It may be subjected to reasonable regulation that appropriately takes into account the competing
interests involved.

Think about it:

Restate this document in your own words.

How does this impact your answer to the DBQ question: “Evaluate the extent to which the First Amendment should protect symbolic speech, and the degree to which that protection should be guaranteed to students in public school”?

_____________________________________________________________________

Check back each week to see the next document and how it might change your thinking on this important question that affects all public school teachers and students in the U.S.!

If you are enjoying this DBQ – be sure to check out our curriculum Supreme Court DBQs: Exploring the Cases the Changed History.

This summer the Bill of Rights Institute is blogging a document-based question on the Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines (1969). 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: “Evaluate the extent to which the First Amendment should protect symbolic speech, and the degree to which that protection should be guaranteed to students in public school.”

Check out our previous posts for a case background and document #1, document #2, West Virginia v. Barnette, document #3, a picture of Vietnam War protestors outside the White House, document #4, a collection of “Hate Mail” received by the Tinker Family, document #5 and document #6, parts of the Oral Arguments for the case, document #7, the Majority Opinion, document #8, the Concurring Opinion, and document #9, the Dissenting Opinion (Hugo Black), and document #10.

Today’s document is a picture: “Lorena, Paul, and Mary Beth Tinker,” 1969

Think about it:

Do the armbands look the way you expected them to?

Do you agree with the majority of Justices that these armbands would
not cause disruption?

How does this impact your answer to the DBQ question: “Evaluate the extent to which the First Amendment should protect symbolic speech, and the degree to which that protection should be guaranteed to students in public school”?

_____________________________________________________________________

Check back each week to see the next document and how it might change your thinking on this important question that affects all public school teachers and students in the U.S.!

If you are enjoying this DBQ – be sure to check out our curriculum Supreme Court DBQs: Exploring the Cases the Changed History.

This summer the Bill of Rights Institute is blogging a document-based question on the Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines (1969). 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: “Evaluate the extent to which the First Amendment should protect symbolic speech, and the degree to which that protection should be guaranteed to students in public school.”

Check out our previous posts for a case background and document #1, document #2, West Virginia v. Barnette, document #3, a picture of Vietnam War protestors outside the White House, document #4, a collection of “Hate Mail” received by the Tinker Family, document #5 and document #6, parts of the Oral Arguments for the case, document #7, the Majority Opinion, document #8, the Concurring Opinion, and document #9.

Today’s document is the Dissenting Opinion (John Marshall Harlan), Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969.

[S]chool officials should be accorded the widest authority in maintaining discipline and good order in their institutions. To translate that proposition into a workable constitutional rule, I would, in cases like this, cast upon those complaining the burden of showing that a particular school measure was motivated by other than legitimate school concerns—for example, a desire to prohibit the expression of an unpopular point of view, while permitting expression of the dominant opinion.

Think about it:

What action by public school officials does Harlan assert would
violate the First Amendment rights of students?

How does this impact your answer to the DBQ question: “Evaluate the extent to which the First Amendment should protect symbolic speech, and the degree to which that protection should be guaranteed to students in public school”?

_____________________________________________________________________

Check back each week to see the next document and how it might change your thinking on this important question that affects all public school teachers and students in the U.S.!

If you are enjoying this DBQ – be sure to check out our curriculum Supreme Court DBQs: Exploring the Cases the Changed History.

This summer the Bill of Rights Institute is blogging a document-based question on the Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines (1969). 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: “Evaluate the extent to which the First Amendment should protect symbolic speech, and the degree to which that protection should be guaranteed to students in public school.”

Check out our previous posts for a case background and document #1, document #2, West Virginia v. Barnette, document #3, a picture of Vietnam War protestors outside the White House, document #4, a collection of “Hate Mail” received by the Tinker Family, document #5 and document #6, parts of the Oral Arguments for the case, document #7, the Majority Opinion, and document #8, the Concurring Opinion.

Today’s document is the Dissenting Opinion (Hugo Black), Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969 – Document 9:

…I have never believed that any person has a right to give speeches or engage in demonstrations where he pleases and when he pleases.

The truth is that a teacher of kindergarten, grammar school, or high school pupils no more carries into a school with him a complete right to freedom of speech and expression than an anti-Catholic or anti-Semite carries with him a complete freedom of speech and religion into a Catholic church or Jewish synagogue…[There is no] complete constitutional right to go into those places contrary to their rules and speak his mind on any subject he pleases….

Uncontrolled and uncontrollable liberty is an enemy to domestic peace. …School discipline, like parental discipline, is an integral and important part of training our children to be good citizens. …The Federal Constitution [does not] compel…teachers, parents, and elected school officials to surrender control of the American public school system to public school students. I dissent.

Think about it:

Summarize Black’s objections to the majority ruling.

How does this impact your answer to the DBQ question: “Evaluate the extent to which the First Amendment should protect symbolic speech, and the degree to which that protection should be guaranteed to students in public school”?

_____________________________________________________________________

Check back each week to see the next document and how it might change your thinking on this important question that affects all public school teachers and students in the U.S.!

If you are enjoying this DBQ – be sure to check out our curriculum Supreme Court DBQs: Exploring the Cases the Changed History.

This summer the Bill of Rights Institute is blogging a document-based question on the Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines (1969). 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: “Evaluate the extent to which the First Amendment should protect symbolic speech, and the degree to which that protection should be guaranteed to students in public school.”

Check out our previous posts for a case background and document #1, document #2, West Virginia v. Barnette, document #3, a picture of Vietnam War protestors outside the White House, document #4, a collection of “Hate Mail” received by the Tinker Family, document #5 and document #6, parts of the Oral Arguments for the case, and document #7, the Majority Opinion.

Today’s document is Concurring Opinion, Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969.

Although I agree with much of what is said in the Court’s opinion, and with its judgment in this case, I cannot share the Court’s uncritical assumption that, school discipline aside, the First Amendment rights of children are coextensive with those of adults.

Think about it:

What objection does the concurring opinion make about the majority opinion?

How does this impact your answer to the DBQ question: “Evaluate the extent to which the First Amendment should protect symbolic speech, and the degree to which that protection should be guaranteed to students in public school”?

_____________________________________________________________________

Check back each week to see the next document and how it might change your thinking on this important question that affects all public school teachers and students in the U.S.!

If you are enjoying this DBQ – be sure to check out our curriculum Supreme Court DBQs: Exploring the Cases the Changed History.

This summer the Bill of Rights Institute is blogging a document-based question on the Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines (1969). 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: “Evaluate the extent to which the First Amendment should protect symbolic speech, and the degree to which that protection should be guaranteed to students in public school.”

Check out our previous posts for a case background and document #1, document #2, West Virginia v. Barnette, document #3, a picture of Vietnam War protestors outside the White House, document #4, a collection of “Hate Mail” received by the Tinker Family, document #5 and document #6, parts of the Oral Arguments for the case.

Today’s document is the Majority Opinion (7-2), Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) – Document 7:

It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. …The problem posed by the present case does not relate to regulation of the length of skirts or the type of clothing, to hair style, or deportment. It does not concern aggressive, disruptive action or even group demonstrations. Our problem involves direct, primary First Amendment rights akin to “pure speech.”

If a regulation were adopted by school officials forbidding discussion of the Vietnam conflict, or the expression by any student of opposition to it anywhere on school property except as part of a prescribed classroom exercise, it would be obvious that the regulation would violate the constitutional rights of students, at least if it could not be justified by a showing that the students’ activities would materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school. In the circumstances of the present case, the prohibition of the silent, passive “witness of the armbands,” as one of the children called it, is no less offensive to the Constitution’s guarantees.

Think about it:

Why did the Court rule that the Tinkers’ armbands were protected speech?

What kind of expressive conduct in public school does the Court say should NOT be protected?

How does this impact your answer to the DBQ question: “Evaluate the extent to which the First Amendment should protect symbolic speech, and the degree to which that protection should be guaranteed to students in public school”?

_____________________________________________________________________

Check back each week to see the next document and how it might change your thinking on this important question that affects all public school teachers and students in the U.S.!

If you are enjoying this DBQ – be sure to check out our curriculum Supreme Court DBQs: Exploring the Cases the Changed History.