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%