Tuesday April 28, 2015
Mr. Goblirsch – American Government
OBJECTIVE – Students Will Be Able To – SWBAT:
- Analyze an assigned 1st Amendment Supreme Court case.
AGENDA:
1) WARM-UP: Chrome Book Distribution
2) DIRECTIONS: 1st Amendment Presentation
3) TASK: Create 1st Amendment Presentation
*****PARTNERS: Amendment Flyer – DUE THURSDAY
***HW DUE TODAY – Jury Duty Interviews***
Chrome Book Distribution WARM-UP:
(Follow the directions below)
***5 minutes***
 Chrome Books will be distributed. DO NOT OPEN UP OR
LOG-IN TO YOUR CHROME BOOK YET!!!
1st AMENDMENT
“Congress shall make no law:
(1a.) respecting an establishment of religion, or
(1b.) prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or
(2.) abridging the freedom of speech, or
(3.) of the press; or
(4.) the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
and
(5.) to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances.”
st
1
AMENDMENT
COURT CASES
1st Amendment Freedoms
DIRECTIONS: Create a brief PowerPoint
presentation about your assigned Supreme Court
case. Use the template below.
Slide 1 – TITLE SLIDE - Freedom of ______
– “Quote from Constitution
Slide 2 – Case Background/Summary &
Issue
Slide 3 – Case Court Decision/Impact &
Your Opinion
Slide #1
Freedom of ________
Case : ___________ v. ____________
“Quote from 1st Amendment”
Picture(s)
Slide #2
Background/Summary:
Issue:
PICTURE
Slide #3
Court’s Decision/Impact:
Your Opinion:
PICTURE
Possible Websites to Use
•
•
•
•
•
•
Supremecourt.gov
Justia.com
Oyez.org
Law.cornell.edu
FirstAmendmentSchools.org
UScourts.gov
st
1
AMENDMENT
COURT CASE
TOPIC: Religion – Establishment
CASE: Everson v. Board of Ed. (1947)
st
1
AMENDMENT
COURT CASE
TOPIC: Religion – Establishment
CASE: Engel v. Vitale (1962)
st
1
AMENDMENT
COURT CASE
TOPIC: Religion – Establishment
CASE: Santa Fe Independent School
District v. Doe (2000)
st
1
AMENDMENT
COURT CASE
TOPIC: Religion – Establishment
CASE: Good News Club v. Milford Central
School (2001)
st
1
AMENDMENT
COURT CASE
TOPIC: Religion – Establishment
CASE: Epperson v. Arkansas (1968)
st
1
AMENDMENT
COURT CASE
TOPIC: Religion – Establishment
CASE: Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)
st
1
AMENDMENT
COURT CASE
TOPIC: Religion – Establishment
CASE: Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
st
1
AMENDMENT
COURT CASE
TOPIC: Religion – Establishment
CASE: Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002)
st
1
AMENDMENT
COURT CASE
TOPIC: Religion – Free Exercise
CASE: Reynolds v. U.S. (1879)
st
1
AMENDMENT
COURT CASE
TOPIC: Religion – Free Exercise
CASE: Oregon v. Smith (1990)
st
1
AMENDMENT
COURT CASE
TOPIC: Religion – Free Exercise
CASE: West Virginia State Board of Ed. v.
Barnette (1943)
st
1
AMENDMENT
COURT CASE
TOPIC: Speech
CASE: Schenck v. U.S. (1919)
st
1
AMENDMENT
COURT CASE
TOPIC: Speech
CASE: U.S. v. Eichman (1990)
st
1
AMENDMENT
COURT CASE
TOPIC: Speech
CASE: U.S. v. O’Brien (1968)
st
1
AMENDMENT
COURT CASE
TOPIC: Speech
CASE: Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)
st
1
AMENDMENT
COURT CASE
TOPIC: Speech
CASE: Bethel School District v. Fraser
(1986)
st
1
AMENDMENT
COURT CASE
TOPIC: Speech
CASE: Yates v. U.S. (1957)
st
1
AMENDMENT
COURT CASE
TOPIC: Speech
CASE: Gitlow v. New York (1925)
st
1
AMENDMENT
COURT CASE
TOPIC: Speech
CASE: Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
st
1
AMENDMENT
COURT CASE
TOPIC: Press
CASE: Near v. Minnesota (1931)
st
1
AMENDMENT
COURT CASE
TOPIC: Press
CASE: NY Times v. U.S. (1971)
st
1
AMENDMENT
COURT CASE
TOPIC: Press
CASE: Sheppard v. Maxwell (1966)
st
1
AMENDMENT
COURT CASE
TOPIC: Press
CASE: Hazelwood School District v.
Kuhlmeier (1988)
st
1
AMENDMENT
COURT CASE
TOPIC: Press
CASE: Branzburg v. Hayes (1972)
st
1
AMENDMENT
COURT CASE
TOPIC: Press
CASE: National Broadcasting Co. v. U.S.
(1943)
st
1
AMENDMENT
COURT CASE
TOPIC: Press
CASE: Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC
(1969)
st
1
AMENDMENT
COURT CASE
TOPIC: Press
CASE: Miller v. California (1973)
st
1
AMENDMENT
COURT CASE
TOPIC: Assembly
CASE: Hill v. Colorado (2000)
st
1
AMENDMENT
COURT CASE
TOPIC: Assembly
CASE: Gregory v. Colorado (1969)
st
1
AMENDMENT
COURT CASE
TOPIC: Assembly
CASE: Lloyd Corporation v. Tanner (1972)
st
1
AMENDMENT
COURT CASE
TOPIC: Assembly
CASE: Feiner v. New York (1951)
st
1
AMENDMENT
COURT CASE
TOPIC: Assembly
CASE: Cox v. New Hampshire (1941)
st
1
AMENDMENT
COURT CASE
TOPIC: Speech
CASE: Morse v. Frederick (2007)
st
1
AMENDMENT
COURT CASE
TOPIC: Assembly
CASE: Madsen v. Women’s Health Services
Inc. (1994)
Group #1
Religion – Establishment – Prayer
1. Engel v. Vitale (1962)
2. Abington School District v. Schemp (1963)
3. Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe
(2000)
4. Westside Community Schools v. Mergens
Vocab terms – Establishment Clause, precedent
Group #2
Religion – Establishment – Parochial Schools
1.
2.
3.
4.
Everson v. Board of Ed. (1947)
Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
Mueller v. Allen (1983)
Mitchell v. Helms (2000)
Vocab terms – Parochial school, secular
Group #3
Religion – Establishment – Evolution
1.
2.
3.
4.
Epperson v. Arkansas (1968)
Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)
Lynch v. Donnelly (1984)
County of Allegheny v. ACLU (1989)
Vocab terms – N/A
Group #4
Religion – Free Exercise
1. Reynolds v. U.S. (1879)
2. Oregon v. Smith (1990)
3. City of Boerne, Texas v. Flores (1997)
4. Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940)
5. West Virginia State Board of Ed. v. Barnette
(1943)
Vocab terms – Free exercise clause, abridge
Group #5
Speech - Symbolic
1.
2.
3.
4.
U.S. v. O’Brien (1968)
Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)
U.S. v. Eichman (1990)
Hill v. Colorado (2000)
Vocab terms – Pure Speech, Symbolic speech
Group #6
Speech – Limits
1.
2.
3.
4.
Schenck v. U.S. (1919)
Gitlow v. N.Y. (1925)
Yates v. U.S. (1957)
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
Vocab terms – Seditious speech, Bad tendency
doctrine (P. 368), Preferred position doctrine
(P. 368)
Group #7
Speech – Not Protected
1.
2.
3.
4.
NY Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964)
Chapinsky v. New Hampshire (1942)
Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986)
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
Vocab terms – Defamatory speech, slander, libel
Group #8
Press
1.
2.
3.
4.
Neal v. Minnesota (1931)
NY Times Co. v. U.S. (1971)
Sheppard v. Maxwell (1966)
Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart (1976)
Vocab terms – prior restraint, sequestered, gag
order, shield laws
Group #9
Press - TV
1. Turner Broadcasting System Inc. v. FCC
(1997)
2. U.S. v. Playboy (2000)
3. Burstyn v. Wilson (1952)
Vocab terms – Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) (P. 374)
Group #10
Press
1. Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997)
2. Miller v. California (1973)
3. Bigelow v. Virginia (1975)
Vocab terms – N/A
Group #11
Assembly
1.
2.
3.
4.
DeJonge v. Oregon (1937)
Cox v. New Hampshire (1941)
Grayned v. City of Rockford (1972)
Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley
(1972)
Vocab terms – assembly, picketing
Group #12
Assembly
1.
2.
3.
4.
Feiner v. New York (1950)
Gregory v. City of Chicago (1969)
Lloyd Corporation v. Tanner (1972)
Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western
New York (1997)
Vocab terms – N/A
Group #13
Assembly
1.
2.
3.
4.
Thornhill v. Alabama (1940)
Hughes v. Superior Court (1950)
Whitney v. California (1927)
Dennis v. U.S. (1951)
Vocab terms – Association, Clear and Present
danger doctrine (P. 382)
1st
Amendment Supreme Court Cases
NAME:
DATE:
PERIOD:
Case: Schenck v. United States (1919)
Plaintiff’s Issue:
Schenck, prints Anti-war pamphlets and
sends to drafted war soldiers
Case: Feiner v. New York (1951)
Plaintiff’s Issue:
Denounces government officials and “urged
blacks to rise up in arms”
Court’s Decision / Impact:
Congress can enact a law to limit free
speech if it protects the citizens & the
national security. “clear & present danger”
Court’s Decision / Impact:
Upheld his conviction, when “clear and
present danger” of riot, the state can
prevent and punish
Case: Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
Plaintiff’s Issue:
KKK leader makes a statement on TV,
threatened President, Congress, and
Supreme Court w/ revenge
Case: Gregory v. Chicago (1969)
Plaintiff’s Issue:
Gregory organizes a protest march in an
all-white neighborhood. Crowd becomes
hostile
Court’s Decision / Impact:
Ohio’s law was unconstitutional, statement
can’t be considered as enticing action, he
acted w/in his 1st Amendment Right.
Court’s Decision / Impact:
Protesters had been deprived of their 1st
amendment right. No evidence of
disorderly conduct
1st
Amendment Supreme Court Cases
Case: NY Times v. United States (1971)
Plaintiff’s Issue:
Copied “pentagon papers” and gave to NY
times to print. Federal government
temporarily halted printing of papers
NAME:
DATE:
PERIOD:
Case: Bethel School District v. Fraser
(1986)
Plaintiff’s Issue:
Student gave speech including explicit
sexual metaphors. Crowd began
simulating sexual activites.
Court’s Decision / Impact:
Court’s Decision / Impact:
School has authority to discipline students
Court found that actions fell under prior
restraint and therefore unconstitutional. NY for lewd or indecent speech. School is
responsible for preparing responsible
times allowed to print.
citizens
rd
3
Period FINAL PROJECT
PRESENATION SCHEDULE
WEDNESDAY
May 27th
THURSDAY
May 28th
FRIDAY
May 29th
1st – Brett & Zach
1st – Ashley & Angelina
1st – Maria & Stephanie C.
2nd – Justina & Maria
2nd – Toni & Sylvia
2nd - Andrea
3rd – Lilly & Kim
3rd – Stephanie W. & Ivan
3rd – Christian H. & Lupe
4th – Raul & Jonathan
4th – Juan & Brian
4th - Caitlyn
5th -
5th - Ramon
5th – Jose & Armando
6th -
6th – Kristian W.
6th – Juli
7th – Hector & Alicia
7th -
7th – Julian & Jasmien
th
4
Period FINAL PROJECT
PRESENATION SCHEDULE
WEDNESDAY
May 27th
THURSDAY
May 28th
FRIDAY
May 29th
1st - Jonathan
1st -
1st – Ramon & Jesus
2nd – Jasmine A. & Illene
2nd – Jennifer & Chris
2nd – Lili & Casidy
3rd - Vanessa
3rd – Tino & Ashley
3rd – Savannah & Perla
4th – Lucy & Jennifer L.
4th - Alicia
4th - Maite
5th – Jasmine N. & Diana
5th – Cristian & John
5th – Elizabeth & Arvinder
6th – Ricky & Jaskaran
6th – Brandon & Jose
6th - Susana
7th - Lesley
7th - Rafael
7th -
th
5
Period FINAL PROJECT
PRESENATION SCHEDULE
WEDNESDAY
May 27th
THURSDAY
May 28th
FRIDAY
May 29th
1st -
1st – Andrew & Gabby
1st – Leo & Tristan
2nd – Rafael R.
2nd – Esai & Caleb
2nd – Jose & Ernesto P.
3rd - Rudy
3rd – Victor & Elizabeth
3rd – Miranda & Hilsa
4th - David
4th - Alexis
4th – Fatima & Genesis
5th - Hailey
5th – Manuel & Maria
5th – Erasmo & Ernesto G.
6th – Kyndall & Chris
6th – Christian & Rafael A.
6th – Alex & Jesus
7th – Cynthia & Kime
7th – Izaiah & Oscar
7th – Eduardo
th
6
Period FINAL PROJECT
PRESENATION SCHEDULE
WEDNESDAY
May 27th
THURSDAY
May 28th
FRIDAY
May 29th
1st – Gabby & Stephanie
1st – Julio P. & Jose
1st - Sam
2nd – Josh & Leo
2nd -
2nd – Jennifer & Priscilla
3rd - Andrea
3rd – Brayan & Fatima
3rd – Ricardo & Efren
4th – Cecilia & Megan
4th – Jonathan & Denice
4th – Julio O. & Hannah
5th -
5th - Kim
5th - Carrie
6th -
6th – Giovanna, Edgar &
Mariela
6th – Prez & VP
7th – Jorge & Alvaro
7th - Marco
7th – Rolando & Mario
CLASS RANKINGS
CLASS AVERAGE
4)
3)
2)
1)
5th – 71%
6th – 74%
4th – 77.52%
3rd – 77.85%
PURCHASED FINAL
4)
3)
2)
1)
5th – 74%
6th – 88%
3rd – 97%
4th – 100%