Name: __________________________________________________
PD: _______
Project 1: Bill of Rights Superhero
DC and Marvel Comics are quickly running out of money and storylines for their superheroes. Each company
has decided to ask kids to help them create the next hero that all children can look up to for guidance and as a
role model. Your job is to participate in the DC and Marvel Comics “Hero Search”.
After careful consideration they have decided on a very important topic for their new hero:
The Bill of Rights
As an individual, you will select one amendment from the Bill of Rights and create a hero based on it. For your
new comic book hero you will be asked to design a costume, a comic cover, a famous quote in relation to your
amendment/ Bill of Rights overall, and an in-depth look at the powers of your hero (detailed example of the
powers your hero gives to citizens).
The idea behind the project is to give you time to examine an amendment of your choice in-depth and creatively.
Schedule- Extra help is available during STAR and After School
Part 1: A) Select any amendment from the Bill of Rights 2) Create a name for your superhero in relation to your
amendment 3) Make a list of the powers (rights) your superhero has to help fight off an oppressive, restrictive
government
Due Tuesday December 11, 2012
Part 2: A) Using the pieces provided create a costume for your hero and place your hero on your comic cover
B) Write the name of your hero on the cover C) Create a famous quote for your superhero on the cover that
relates to your amendment/ Bill of Rights overall E) On the cover explain the amendment in your own words
Due Friday December 14, 2012
Part 3: Using a Supreme Court case, explain the “powers” of your superhero. The “power” signifies the rights
this amendment gives to citizens, that is why he/she/it is a superhero.
Due Thursday December 20, 2012
Part 4: Superhero Convention during class on Thursday December 20, 2012
Part 1: A) Select any amendment from the Bill of Rights 2) Create a name for your
superhero in relation to your amendment 3) Make a list of the powers (rights) your
superhero has to help fight off an oppressive, restrictive government Due Tuesday
December 11, 2012
A) Amendment # ______
B) Superhero Names: Brainstorm at least 3 *Need to relate to the amendment/
Bill of Rights
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
C) List Three Powers: These are rights (a.k.a super powers) that your superhero
possesses. Use your specific amendment and be creative!
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Part 2: A) Create a costume for your hero and place your hero on your comic cover B) Write the name of your
hero on the cover C) Create a famous quote for your superhero on the cover that relates to your amendment/
Bill of Rights overall D) On the cover explain the amendment in your own words
December 14, 2012 – Must include color!
Due Friday
1. Use the provided cutout on the first or second page to create a costume for your hero
2. Place your hero with her/his/its costume on a piece of construction paper or computer paper for your
comic cover
3. Creatively write the name of your hero on the cover of your comic
4. Create and write your famous quote for your superhero on your cover *Remember it must relate to your
amendment, Bill of Rights, Constitution, History, etc.
5. On the cover of your comic, in 5-7 sentences, describe your selected amendment and its’ importance in
your own words *Use your comic strip and accompanying reading; If you need further information visit the
following website- http://tinyurl.com/cm6c4v6
For your costume try to include:
Boots, Pants, Shirts, Gloves, Masks, Capes
Part 3: Using a Supreme Court case, explain where the power of your superhero originated. The “power”
signifies the rights this court case gives to citizens, which your hero helps protects.
Due Thursday December 20, 2012
1. Read the provided Supreme Court Case. As you read, annotate (take notes on the reading) the text.
To annotate a text you want to highlight/ underline what you feel is answers the questions below. Then
above, below, or on the side of the text answer the questions below in your own words for that highlighted
section.
2. Questions to Answer when Annotating:
-
What is the issue or right discussed in this case?
-
What was the problem that arose between the plaintiff and defendant?
-
How was the court’s decision important to protecting your selected amendment’s rights?
3. After annotating the text by answering the provided questions complete the following:
4. On the back of your comic, write a one-paragraph (7 sentences or more) explanation of your court case
and how it protected the rights of your citizens. Remember the purpose of this is to show where your
hero’s powers originated.
Amendment 1-
Tinker v. Des Moines 1969
The December morning air was chilly as students John and Mary Beth Tinker were getting ready for school. As they
got dressed, they tied black armbands around their sleeves. It was 1965, and John and Mary Beth were opposed to
American involvement in the Vietnam War. They had decided to wear the armbands to school as a symbolic protest.
The school district, having learned of their plan to wear the armbands, had adopted a new policy to suspend students
who came to school wearing them. John and Mary Beth knew about the policy but they kept their armbands on as
they walked into their classrooms in their Des Moines, Iowa public schools. It was not long before school officials
asked John and Mary Beth to remove their armbands, but they both refused and were suspended.
The school district maintained that it had banned armbands because of their potential to distract students and disrupt
class. However, other forms of potentially controversial speech had been permitted in school, including campaign
buttons.
The Court had to consider two questions: were the armbands a form of symbolic speech protected by the First
Amendment? And if so, did the school district have the power to restrict that speech in the interest of maintaining
order in the school? In a 7-2 decision, the Court found that the armbands were basically “pure speech” and that the
school’s action was unconstitutional.
The Court found that the school had not demonstrated that the armbands caused “a material and substantial
interference with schoolwork or discipline ” and, rather, had acted merely to avoid the “discomfort and
unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint.” The Court noted that the school district had not
banned all political symbols, but had instead “singled out” the armbands for prohibition.
The Tinker case remains a landmark in upholding the rights of students in schools to express their views in a peaceful
and orderly way.
Amendment 2-
D.C. v. Heller
When the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, it applied only at the national level. States did not have to abide by the
limits it placed on the federal government. When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, it placed limits on
the kinds of laws states could pass. Originally meant to protect the civil rights of newly-freed slaves, the Fourteenth
Amendment says that states cannot deprive people of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” In the
late 19th century, the Supreme Court began interpreting the word “liberty” in the Fourteenth Amendment to include
some of the rights protected in the Bill of Rights. By the mid-20th century, state and local governments were required
to protect most rights in the Bill of Rights.
By the 21st century, the Second Amendment was one of the few remaining rights that had not been applied to the
states by the Court. The Second Amendment reads, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” In the 2008 case of District of Columbia v.
Heller, the Supreme Court heard its first Second Amendment case in more than 60 years. The Court ruled (5-4) that
the Second Amendment protected the individual right to keep handguns at home for self-defense.
Two years later, a case challenging the handgun law in the cities of Chicago and Oak Park, Illinois, reached the Court.
The laws, similar to the D.C. law, effectively banned handgun possession by almost all private citizens. The Court
faced the question of whether to incorporate the Second Amendment. In the ruling in McDonald, the Court asked if
that right to keep arms for self-defense was fundamental or, deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition. The
Court held (5-4), “Heller points unmistakably to the answer. Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal
systems from ancient times to the present, and the Heller Court held that individual self-defense is ‘the central
component’ of the Second Amendment right.” The Chicago and Oak Park handguns bans were
unconstitutional.
Amendment 3-
Engblom vs. Carey
The Third Amendment is one of the least cited parts of the Constitution in legal cases. It has never been addressed by
the Supreme Court in over 200 years, but it has been referred to by the Court a few times. The reason it has been cited
so few times is that there have been so few wars fought on American territory, especially since the Civil War. Another
reason is that the American army now has substantial military bases to house its soldiers.
The only significant case involving the Third Amendment to be addressed by any court was called Engblom vs.
Carey, that was decided in 1982. In this case, several New York corrections officials were evicted from their homes
on the prison grounds during a strike. National Guard members were brought in to act as prison guards during the
strike and some of them were housed in the homes of the missing officials.
The officials sued claiming that the Third Amendment protected them from having military personnel living in
their homes. The state's position was that the officials did not own the homes so they were not the private property of
these officials and, consequently, the Third Amendment could not be applied to them.
The officials lost their case originally on the grounds that they were not the owners of the homes, but on
appeal, the 2nd Circuit Court agreed with them that their Third Amendment rights had been violated, saying
that they had a reasonable right to call the prison property their own since they were the current occupants
and controllers of the property. (Essentially this is saying that the military personal did not have the right to be
placed in the homes of the prison guards- Mr. Litz)
Amendment 4-
Mapp vs. Ohio
The police pushed open the door of Dollree Mapp’s home, despite her protests. They believed a bombing suspect was
hiding in her home. She demanded to see their search warrant, and they waved a piece of paper at her, claiming it was
a warrant. It was not. Police did not find the suspect they were looking for. They did, however, finding obscene books
and photographs. Mapp was charged with violating Ohio state law prohibiting “lewd, lascivious, or obscene
material.” She was convicted and sentenced to one to seven years in prison.
Mapp appealed her conviction. She based her claim on First Amendment grounds, saying that she had a right to
possess the materials. When the case reached the Supreme Court, however, it did not address her First Amendment
claim and instead threw out her conviction on other grounds, saying that the evidence against her should never
have been used because it was seized without a warrant—in violation of the Fourth Amendment. This is called
the exclusionary rule.
The exclusionary rule already applied to federal cases. In Mapp, the Court held that the exclusionary rule was an
“essential part” of the Fourth Amendment, and that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, which says that
“No state shall…deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” meant that the federal
exclusionary rule now applied to the states.
The exclusionary rule is controversial. Critics argue that if the police act improperly they should face punishment, but
evidence should not be excluded. On the other hand, the Court reasoned, “The criminal goes free, if he must, but it
is the law that sets him free. Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than failure to observe its own
laws, or worse, disregard the charter of its own existence.”
Amendment 5-
Miranda v. Arizona
The victim stood up and looked at each of the people in the police lineup. She turned to the officers and identified
Ernesto Miranda as the man who had kidnapped her. The Mexican immigrant was arrested and, after being questioned
for two hours, Miranda confessed to the crimes in writing. He also acknowledged that he was aware of his right not to
incriminate himself. His conviction, however, was overturned by the Supreme Court in this landmark case, Miranda
v. Arizona (1966), as the police had not directly informed Miranda of the rights protected by the Fifth and Sixth
Amendments.
The Fifth Amendment states that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. .
. .” Further, the Sixth Amendment states that, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to
have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”
Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the majority, saying “The Fifth Amendment privilege is so fundamental to our
system of constitutional rule….[that] an individual held for interrogation must be clearly informed that he has the
right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation. . .”
The Miranda Warnings, as they have come to be known, are: “ You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say
can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to have an attorney present before any
questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to represent you before any questioning. Do you
understand these rights?”
Amendment 6-
Gideon v. Wainwright
At the time the Constitution was adopted, British courts denied lawyers to individuals charged with treason or
felonies. People accused of criminal misdemeanors, however, were provided lawyers. The American colonies (and,
later, the states) rejected this practice. Most of the original thirteen states allowed defendants in all cases to have
lawyers. The Sixth Amendment, ratified in 1791, states, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right
to…have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” Through the years, the Supreme Court has heard several cases
about whether poor criminal defendants had a right to a lawyer.
In 1961, Clarence Earl Gideon was arrested in Florida for breaking into a Panama City pool hall with the intent to
steal money from the vending machines. This was a felony. When Gideon appeared in court, his request for a courtappointed lawyer was denied. Florida law only required lawyers for defendants charged with capital offenses. Gideon
had no choice but to defend himself at his trial. He was found guilty, and sentenced to five years in prison.
While in prison, Gideon made frequent use of the prison library. With the knowledge he gained there, along with the
help of a fellow inmate with a legal background, he submitted a hand-written petition to the Supreme Court. In his
petition, he challenged the constitutionality of his conviction, as he had not been able to have the assistance of counsel
The Supreme Court agreed with Gideon that he had not been given a fair trial, and overturned his conviction. The
Court’s vote was unanimous. The Court reasoned that the right to counsel was “fundamental.” The Court continued,
“in our…system of justice, any person…too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is
provided for him. Lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries.”
Amendment 7- Requirements for the 7th Amendment
There are generally two requirements that must be met in order for the 7th Amendment's trial by jury guarantee to
apply.
First, the lawsuit must be for a claim of more than $20.
Second, in order for the 7th Amendment to apply, a legal case must assert a claim that is legal in nature, verses a case
that is in equity or in admiralty. An admiralty case is a case regarding something that happens at sea. Admiralty cases
have their own courts and trials by jury are not allowed there. But what is the difference between a legal case and an
equity case?
Generally speaking, a legal case is a case where money damages are sought by the plaintiff from the defendant. An
equity case, or an equitable case, generally has to do with fairness, or where money damages are not appropriate.
Additionally, courts usually consider "witness tampering" as a violation of the defendant's right to trial by jury. If jury
members have contact with outside sources such as relatives or media, they may be persuaded for or against the
defendant unfairly. If it is found out that this has happened, jury decisions can be thrown out and a retrial ordered.
People can waive their right to a jury trial, even if one is allowed by law. In America today, most civil cases are
decided before they ever reach trial. Generally, if one or the other party demands a jury trial it will be granted. If a
jury trial actually occurs, it is because one of the parties believes it is in their best interest to do so.
Amendment 8-
Furman v. Georgia
In Furman v. Georgia (1972), the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty systems currently in place were
unconstitutional violations of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on “cruel and unusual” punishments. The Court
noted that there were no rational, objective standards for when the death penalty would be given. Justice Potter
Stewart described the death penalty system at the time as “ cruel and unusual in the same way that being struck by
lightning is cruel and unusual.” In other words, it was not the death penalty itself that was unconstitional, but rather,
the random way it was applied made it cruel and unusual.
Four years later the case of Gregg v. Georgia (1976) reached the Court. Troy Gregg had been found guilty of murder
and armed robbery and sentenced to death. He asked the Court to go further than it had in the Furman case, and rule
the death penalty itself unconstitutional. The Court refused to do so. The Court found that Georgia’s system for
applying the death penalty was “judicious” and “careful.” Gregg had gone through two trials – one to determine guilt
and one for sentencing. Further, specific jury findings of “aggravating circumstances” were necessary to impose the
death penalty. There was therefore no Eighth Amendment violation, and the death penalty was constitutional.
The Court ruled, “ The imposition of the death penalty for the crime of murder has a long history of acceptance both
in the United States and in England…. At the time the Eighth Amendment was ratified, capital punishment was a
common sanction in every State…” Finally, the Court said it could not overrule the judgment of Georgia’s legislature
as to the usefulness of the death penalty. (As long as it quick and painless it does not become cruel or unusual- Mr.
Litz)
Amendment 9-
Roe v. Wade (Focus on the right to privacy and the ability to make decisions in regards to
your own body)
The Constitution does not list a right to privacy. The Court has held, however, that Bill of Rights protections of free
speech, assembly, and religious exercise (First Amendment), along with freedom from forced quartering of troops
(Third), unreasonable searches and seizures (Fourth), and forced self-incrimination (Fifth) create “zones of privacy.”
Further, the Ninth Amendment’s protection of rights that are not expressly mentioned in the written text of the
constitution but instead are inferred from the language, history, and structure of the constitution are used to protect
privacy. These “zones,” the Court held, are places into which the government cannot unreasonably intrude. In the case
of Roe v. Wade, Roe claimed that this new law robbed her of her right to privacy in regards to her child.
The Court agreed with Roe and held that “the right to privacy includes the decision to not have her baby.” States
could not stop a woman from making this decision in her first trimester, but as pregnancy progressed, the Court held,
the state’s interest in protecting life could begin to outweigh the woman’s liberty. Therefore states could restrict the
procedure later in pregnancy.
The decision in Roe v. Wade continues to be one of the most controversial the Court has ever issued. Demonstrations
are frequently held on the anniversary of the decision—some in protest and some in support. In subsequent cases, the
Court has upheld laws requiring waiting periods and other similar restrictions on women having the decision to not
have their baby, even within the first trimester.
Amendment 10-
Printz vs. United States
Question
Using the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I as justification, can Congress temporarily require state CLEOs to
regulate handgun purchases by performing those duties called for by the Brady Bill's handgun applicant backgroundchecks?
The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Bill) required "local chief law enforcement officers" (CLEOs)
to perform background-checks on prospective handgun purchasers, until such time as the Attorney General
establishes a federal system for this purpose. County sheriffs Jay Printz and Richard Mack, separately challenged the
constitutionality of this interim provision of the Brady Bill on behalf of CLEOs. In both cases District Courts found
the background-checks unconstitutional.
No. The Court constructed its opinion on the old principle that state legislatures are not subject to federal direction
(meaning powers not given to the national government are given to the states). The Court explained that Congress, by
performing background-checks on applicants for handgun ownership, cannot ask state employees to fulfill its federal
tasks - even temporarily.
(Essentially the national government cannot overtake the rights provided to states, specifically when it comes to
monitoring hand gun purchases)