Ripped From the Headlines--Incorporation and the 2nd Amendment

The Court, Incorporation, and the 2nd Amendment

Reference CNN Page: http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/30/scotus.state.guns/index.html?iref=allsearch

Reference Chicago Tribune: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/ct-news-chicago-gun-ban-20100129,0,3152673.story

Hippocampus: Lesson 6, Lesson 28, Lesson 30, Lesson 32

Sometimes news stories can really pull together many of the concepts we try to teach. This Tuesday the Supreme Court will be hearing the case of McDonald v. the City of Chicago, a 2nd Amendment issue. McDonald is asking the Court to strike down a city gun ban that would have far reaching effects on municipalities and states. In effect, the Court has been asked to incorporate the 2nd Amendment. No fewer than 49 amicus curiae have been filed in this case. The Supreme Court last year decided on a Washington, D.C. gun ordinance. Now many are wondering if the Court will reverse 140 years of precedent and open the door to new rights in gun ownership.

For teachers of APGOPO, this case offers a unique look at not only the Court, but also the concept of incorporation. There are several things one could do with this case. In my class, I will have the students do a short Internet research on the history of gun cases in the Supreme Court starting with the Presser case and ending with the Heller case. I will then have them present the findings of the Court in class in each of the cases that they find. We will then follow this case's oral arguments and see what basis the Court will use to determine if the 2nd Amendment is to be incorporated.

Historically, the 14th Amendment has been the justification for incorporation. Will that hold true in this case? When the Court releases its findings and the opinions are brought down, we will ultimately read the opinions and glean the Constitutional issues the Court used in its decisions. This is case will most likely produce not only a majority opinion, but also concurring and minority opinions. It should be a textbook in Constitutional reasoning and justification.

We seldom have an opportunity to watch the incorporation of a right. Since the Warren Court in the 1950s and 1960s, those few provisions of the original Bill of Rights not incorporated have been off limits to the Court. McDonald v. City of Chicago offers us a rare glimpse of incorporation of a right in the making. Some have even suggested that the Court could overturn the Slaughterhouse Case (Hippocampus Lesson 32), rendering the concept of selective incorporation obsolete and radically changing American jurisprudence.

This case can be used in several places within the Hippocampus curriculum. Early on in the year it can be used with Underpinnings Unit in Lesson 6. In Lesson 28 on the Court you could use this case to demonstrate how the Court finds and accepts cases as well as looking at the process of making decisions and rendering the opinions. Lesson 30 concerning judicial review could also benefit from using this case. In addition (and possibly most importantly), it can be used along with Lesson 32 on the concept of selective incorporation.

Depending on how the Court finds following the March 2nd oral arguments, McDonald v City of Chicago might become as important of a case as Mapp v. Ohio, Gideon v. Wainwright, or Miranda v. Arizona to those of us teaching APGOPO. Its probably a good time now to add it to your curriculum.

Teaching Freedom of Religion

Establishment and Prohibition

Last week I discussed the concept of incorporation, a very important concept for you students to get a handle on for the AP Exam. If you missed that discussion and are not sure what you need to know about the topic, you might want to scroll down and take a peak at what I had to say. This week I want to look at the 1st Amendment as it concerns the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. Have your students look at the hippocampus. org readings and lectures on these topics. They are first class and will really help with student understanding.

I would also direct you to the Oyez site if you are unaware of it. Here you can locate hundreds of Court cases and find summaries, opinions, information on the Justices and how they voted, and you can even hear audio of the oral arguments on selected cases. Findlaw is another site that will give you the opinions and link you to related cases and cases in which your case is cited.

Establishment Clause

The Establishment Clause is not hard to teach. The students get very interested in the history and the cases. Many of the cases involve students and therefore easy for the kids to relate to. I first start the discussion on the Establishment Clause by referencing Jefferson's famous letter to the Danbury Baptist Church where he makes the famous "wall of separation" statement. This can lead to a discussion of original intention of the Founders including Enlightenment ideals and the state of religion in America in the 18th century.

I move on pretty quickly to the Supreme Court decisions that have truly shaped this concept. Below I will list the cases I focus on. You may have others you enjoy teaching, but I would caution you not to overwhelm kids with too many cases. While we can love cases and case history and remember them from years of teaching, the kids get the confused very quickly (as I have seen on AP exams as a reader).

• Lemon vs. Kurtzman (three part standard set by the Court)
• Abington School District v Schempp (family pictured above at the time of the case on Bible reading)
• Engle v. Vitale and Wallace v. Jaffee (school prayer and moment of silence)
• Allegheny v. ACLU (holiday displays by towns and cities)

I hold the students responsible for these cases, especially Lemon. The students absolutely must know the 3 standards the Court established in this case. I like to throw out a couple of other cases such as Lee v. Weisman (prayer at graduation) , Lynch vs. Donnelly (the so called plastic reindeer doctrine), and Sante Fe School Dist. v. Doe (prayer at athletic events). Again, I caution to not get the kids too bogged down in cases...it can prove to be a disaster!

Free Exercise

I start this topic with a discussion concerning the difference between belief and action. The Court in Ballard v. US said it wasn't in the business of defining religion or saying what was a religion and what wasn't, so pretty much, anytime someone has a sincere faith, the Court allows it. However, the Court has made it plain that while faith is allowed, actions can be limited. Here are some of the main cases I hit on during our discussion of Free Exercise which can be found in Oyez:

• Reynolds v US (the polygamy case from the 1800s)
• Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah (animal sacrifice)
• Westside School District v. Mergens (equal access for Bible Clubs)
• Wisconsin v. Yoder (mandatory education and religion)
• West Virginia BOE v. Barnett (flag salute case)
• Employment Division v. Smith (the peyote case)
  

I like to discuss several other cases, but these are a pretty good group to focus on. Mergens is especially important as it was a case brought by a student. My students are always interested in the facts surrounding her case. Great discussion of some of the above cases are found on hippocampus.org. Be sure to have your students read the text, view the presentations, and check out the Explore boxes!!!

Next week I will share my thoughts on speech and assembly. Until then...

Welcome to the Hippocampus Government and Politics Blog

“Obama Spells Out Energy Policy”. “McCain Seeks West Coast Votes”. “Candidates Attack Each Other on Race”.

Wow!! What a way to start a school year. The biggest election of our young century! The first African American presidential candidate for a major party and a feisty senior citizen squaring off during a period of economic downturns, the Middle East war, and skyrocketing fuel costs. If we can’t get kids interested in politics this year, when could we? But for all of you that are veterans of teaching U.S. Government and Politics, you know that the hoopla of elections may get students hooked on the election horse race, but translating that enthusiasm into learning the details of day to day government is a big jump.

This Blog is all about that jump. The Hippocampus Government and Politics Blog is about a dialogue between all of us…sharing the best practices in a learning community of dedicated educators who happen to be in love with U.S. Government and Politics. Like any good blog, the value is not in the originator or the facilitator. The true value lies in the contributions of you, the readers. New teachers with fresh ideas and insights, veteran educators with tried and true methods, and every one between can become part of this blog with one goal…seeking collaboration that points the way to better instruction and solid educational practices.

Next week I want to get the ball rolling by talking about the “three big questions” that I start my year with. These are the questions that drive my first quarter and are the method behind the madness. In the mean time, check out the right side column. We will include some sites and resources you might want to visit as you are preparing for the new school term with Government and Politics. We would love to have you respond by suggesting some of your favorite sites!

About the Blogger

My name is Ric Vix, and I am the social studies chair at Wichita Heights High School, an urban school with a diverse demographic of about 1600 students. I have been teaching for 23 years and have focused the last 10 or so years on Advanced Placement Government and Politics. For six years I was an AP Grader for the US Government and Politics Exam and have taught an AP Institute for Government and Politics through Wichita State University. My wife Sandi and I celebrated our 25^th anniversary this year with our two adult children. My passions outside of government are camping and fishing, reading, woodworking and building, and travel.