YOUR CONSTITUTION TEST IS YOUR CITIZENSHIP TEST
LIBERTY, SECURITY & THE CONSTITUTION
I think we show the bolded parts of the Koppel film. They seem to cover a lot of ground and really bring to the fore the reason why it is so important to know one's rights.
Seems like Guantanamo part allows kids to consider rights of the accused, but it is perhaps lacking in US involvement in international agreements and precedents, such as Geneva Conventions and Nuremberg Trials. I do not know if more sources are a good idea, though; perhaps simple reason through the Q of why any person would want to have these rights guaranteed to all, not excluding enemy combatants or even known terrorists.
We can certainly go into the Amendments that address these other rights, and their HW discussion of what an
"American citizen" can be described as having.
KOPPEL: PRICE OF SECURITY
1-16 introduction (from Sept 11 to the paradigm shift from “innocent until proven guilty” to suspicious
40-46 detainees at Guantanamo, definitions of torture
51-56 Guantanamo cmdr believes all detainees are guilty of something, Hamdan case and explanation of the authority of trying enemy combatants using military commissions (may not be advised of all evidence against him, Nov 2001 Bush issued authorization for these commissions,
June 06 SupCt ruled these were not authorized or required by military necessity—Koppel doesn’t mention that it gave Bush the roadmap he now is requesting since last week’s admission
& transfer of EC’s from foreign secret prisons to G.)—Koppel challenges Guittierez that it has been the last 5 yrs of relative freedom from terrorism that has led the public to feel it’s better to take care of civil liberties

1:14 Data mining: 5-6 millions Arabic citizens in the USA; do we begin there? –response is
“why would you trade the constitution for that?...I can’t imagine trading some security for that”…”I belive we are slipping into a security-industrial complex”
1:16 “Warrantless wiretaps” Dec 05 NYTimes published their information regarding this.
President’s plan was called unconstitutional in Aug06. –“Privacy and anonymity are a critical part of” personal liberty in this country.
Here is a related article from the Intern'l Herald Trib: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/18/news/wiretap.php
I think we could show a little bit of the clip, then ask students if THEY can defend the Pres. using the Constitution, AND if they could also determine which part of hte Constitution the wiretapping violates. It would be cool if they touched upon the suspension of habeas in security situations, and if they could find the search-and-seizure part of the 4th Am. Then we could show them the article, and they could feel smart that they understand it.
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
We can go here BRIEFLY next in order to get a sense for how a citizen may have the power to fight against the intrusiveness of the government—it is habeas for preaccusation period.
Kids might also get a kick out of this memo sent by one of the co-sponsors of the bill, then member of the HOR,
Donald Rumsfeld! http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB194/Doc ument%2041.pdf
***A NY federal judge ruled on January 23 (2006?) that the
Defense Department must release the identities of
Guantánamo Bay detainees in response to a Freedom of
Information Act request filed last year by the Associated
Press.
More recently, declassified powerpoint slides representing what the military thought the situation in Iraq would be nowadays http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/15/washington/15milita ry.html?hp&ex=1171602000&en=ad512b1b8c4bfb32&ei=5
094&partner=homepage
CAN THE CONSTITUTION HAVE CONTRADICTORY POWERS?
As we see with the above case, the fact that the Constitution is and can be interpreted sets the foundation for legal proceedings. Clearly, if there were only ONE meaning of the Constitution’s words and even its organization, there would be no need for the courts, only police officers and other enforcers.
Often the difference in opinion is based on whether a person believes that one should seek to understand what the Founders intended or that one should consider the “spirit, rather than the letter of the law.” The first is a strict interpretation of the Constitution, the other is a loose interpretation.
Members of the Supreme Court and other Federal Courts (Circuit Courts and District Courts) usually have one way of looking at it; this is one of the ways in which presidents choose their nominees.
At the heart of the question for judges is whether the Constitution’s integrity is maintained better by believing it is a “living” document that must be reinterpreted in each successive generation, or is its integrity maintained by trying to understand original meaning and intent?
One case in the past clearly indicates this conflict: Plessy v. Ferguson.

State of Louisiana argued that their law restricting anyone of color to a separate car did not deprive anyone of their rights or the protection of the laws, acc. to the 14 th Amendment, and that, therefore, it was within the State’s powers, guaranteed under the 10 th Amendment, to have such a law.
Plessy’s lawyers argued, of course, that this separating of people created a condition of inferiority, which violated the 13 th and 14 th Amendments. The majority opinion ruled, “The object of the [14 th ] amendment was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law, but in the nature of things it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political equality, or a commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to either.” These judges were examining what they thought was original intent. They do not see the 14 th Am as being more powerful than the state’s right to enforce social distinctions. We saw how, bu the 1954 Brown decision, the composition of the Court had changed so dramatically as to completely & unanimously denounce the earlier Plessy finding.
DOES IT MATTER, therefore, WHO IS ON THE COURT?
Clearly. That is why the Presidential Power to Appoint these justices for life is a significant power.
(go to Appoint vs. Advise/Consent explanation)
ANOTHER EX that takes us full circle: 2000 Election
democracy & the rule of law – not always compatible
(see last year’s document on the Electoral Process; I highlighted an important point)
The Unconstitutional Patriot Act: First of Serveral illegal provisions struck down by federal court
David Rozenzweig, LA Times Jan. 27, 2004
Of the "USA Patriot" Act that makes it illegal to give "expert advice or assistance" to foreign terrorist organizations has been declared unconstitutional by a Los Angeles federal judge.
In a ruling issued late Friday and made public Monday, U.S. District Judge Audrey B. Collins said the language in the law was so vague that "it could be construed to include unequivocally pure speech and advocacy protected by the 1st Amendment."
The Washington, D.C.-based Center for Constitutional Rights, which brought the legal challenge, said it was the first time that any part of the post-9/11 anti-terrorism law had been declared unconstitutional.

(Caption: Patriot Act Bill of Rights)