Name:

Citizenship: Rights & Responsibilities

Unit Packet

1

American Citizenship and Naturalization

1. Define “citizen” (613).

2. What does the Constitution say about

3. Based on prior knowledge from life and govt. class, brainstorm the responsibilities and privileges of being a US citizen.

Responsibilities (jobs, requirements) Privileges (things citizens get from living here)Example: jury duty Example: Freedom of speech

4. Describe the group of people who make up citizens by jus soli (by birth) or by jus sanguinis (by blood) (613).

5. Define “naturalization” (614).

6. How can one become a citizen by naturalization (614 and see rules in chart on 614)?

7. Define “alien” (614).

8. Define “expatriation” (614). What does automatic expatriation mean? Does our policy on this issue seem fair?

2

Not like me!

Discussion Questions:

9. Is 18 a reasonable age minimum at which one can become naturalized? Why or why not? If not, which age would you suggest?

10. Legal immigrants, those lawfully admitted to the US for permanent residence, may choose to become naturalized citizens. Should illegal immigrants, those unlawfully living in the US, be permitted to apply for naturalization? Why or why not? If not, does one’s living in the US for say, 20 years, change your thinking? Why or why not?

11. What kind of proficiency of English would you require? How would you check to see if an applicant had achieved that proficiency?

12. How would you do on the naturalization test? The typical candidate for naturalization takes a multiple-choice test on the history and the government of the US. The candidate will also have to answer, orally, similar questions during an interview with a US Citizenship and Immigration Service officer. Here is a sample of some of the questions that might be asked. See how many you can answer. (You need 60% to pass, so at least 13 correct!)

1) Why do we celebrate the Fourth of July?2) Who was the first president of the US?3) Who is the president of the US today?4) What is the Constitution?5) What are the first amendments to the Constitution called?6) Who elects Congress?7) How many senators are there in Congress?8) For how long do we elect each senator?9) For how long do we elect the representatives in Congress?10) Who nominates judges to the Supreme Court?11) What are the three branches of government?12) What is the highest court in the US?13) Which major river running north to south divides the US?14) The Civil War was fought over which important issue?15) Name the two major political parties in the US today?16) What is the capital of the US?17) Who was Martin Luther King Jr.?18) What is the capital of your state?19) What is it called if the president refuses to sign a bill into law and returns it to Congress with objections?20) What two oceans bound the US?

3

21) What is the national anthem of the US?

Immigration Articles Discussion

Each person should have read one article for class today. You will talk in your small group about the MOST important points to share with another small group (who have NOT read your article!). Write down these key points in your box. This should include 5 BIG ideas as well as any tricky vocabulary. Then, after we switch to new groups, share what you know with others. You should take notes over what you learn as well.

Article #1: Article #2:

Article #3: Article #4:

Summary: Why do YOU think the issue of immigration is so controversial? (In other words, why do people care about it so much?)

4

Article #1: White House Stance on Immigration Policy

"We didn’t raise the Statue of Liberty with her back to the world, we did it with her light shining as a beacon to the world. And whether we were Irish or Italians or Germans crossing the Atlantic, or Japanese or Chinese crossing the Pacific; whether we crossed the Rio Grande or flew here from all over the world — generations of immigrants have made this country into what it is. It’s what makes us special."— President Obama, November 21, 2014

America’s immigration system is broken. Too many employers game the system by hiring undocumented workers, and there are 11 million people living in the shadows. Neither is good for the economy or the country. President Obama is eager to work with both the House and the Senate on a comprehensive solution to immigration reform, similar to the bipartisan legislation that passed the Senate in 2013.

President Obama’s push for legislation to fix our broken immigration system garnered broad bipartisan support both among the public and in the Senate and addressed all of the core problems our system faces. He spent over a year giving House Republicans room to act on the Senate bill or their own version of legislation to fix the system. Unfortunately, House Republicans refused to give the Senate bill an up-or-down vote.

That’s why the President took action to fix as much of the broken system as he could through his immigration accountability executive actions. These actions will help secure the border, prioritize felons, not families, and hold undocumented immigrants accountable by requiring them to pass a criminal background check and pay their fair share of taxes, and modernizes the legal immigration system. These are common-sense steps, but only Congress can finish the job.

Three critical elements of the President's executive actions are:

Cracking Down on Illegal Immigration at the Border: The President’s actions increase the chances that anyone attempting to cross the border illegally will be caught and sent back. Continuing the surge of resources that effectively reduced the number of unaccompanied children crossing the border illegally this summer, the President’s actions will also centralize border security command-and-control to continue to crack down on illegal immigration.

Deporting Felons, Not Families: The President’s actions focus on the deportation of people who threaten national security and public safety. He has directed immigration enforcement to place anyone suspected of terrorism, violent criminals, gang members, and recent border crossers at the top of the deportation priority list.

Accountability – Criminal Background Checks and Taxes: The President is also acting to hold accountable those undocumented immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for more than five years and are parents of U.S. citizens or Lawful Permanent Residents. By registering and passing criminal and national security background checks, millions of undocumented immigrants will start paying their fair share of taxes and temporarily stay in the U.S. without fear of deportation for three years at a time.

The President’s actions will also streamline legal immigration to boost our economy and will promote naturalization for those who qualify.

There are four principles to the President’s common-sense proposal:

CONTINUING TO STRENGTHEN BORDER SECURITY

The President’s proposal gives law enforcement the tools they need to make our communities safer from crime, enhances our infrastructure and technology, and strengthens our ability to remove criminals and apprehend and prosecute threats to our national security.

5

STREAMLINING LEGAL IMMIGRATION

Legal immigration should be simple and efficient. The President’s proposal provides visas to foreign entrepreneurs looking to start businesses here, helps the most promising foreign graduate students in science and math stay in this country after graduation, and reunites families in a timely and humane manner.

EARNED CITIZENSHIP

The President’s proposal provides undocumented immigrants with a legal way to earn citizenship so they can come out of the shadows. It holds them accountable by requiring they pass background checks, pay taxes and a penalty, go to the back of the line, and learn English. It requires everyone to play by the same rules.

CRACKING DOWN ON EMPLOYERS HIRING UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS

The President’s proposal is designed to stop businesses from exploiting the system by knowingly hiring undocumented workers. It holds these companies accountable, and gives employers who want to play by the rules a reliable way to verify that their employees are here legally.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/immigration

Article #2: Latino Support for Democrats Falls, but Democratic Advantage Remains

October 29, 2014

By Mark Hugo Lopez, Ana Gonzalez-Barrera and Jens Manuel Krogstad

After more than a year of inaction by Congress and President Obama on immigration reform, Democrats maintain a wide, but diminished, advantage among Hispanic registered voters, according to a new nationwide survey of 1,520 Hispanic adults, including 733 registered voters, by the Pew Research Center.

The survey also finds that for about half of Hispanic registered voters (54%), a candidate’s position on immigration is not a deal-breaker in determining their vote if that candidate shares their views on most other issues.

Overall, 57% of Latino registered voters support the Democratic candidate in their congressional district or lean Democratic, while 28% favor the Republican candidate or lean Republican, a greater than two-to-one advantage for Democrats. But support for congressional Democrats is down from 2010, when 65% of Latino registered voters backed the Democrat in their congressional district and 22% favored the Republican candidate (Lopez, 2010).

The survey reveals in other ways that Latino registered voters are somewhat less supportive of the Democratic Party now than in recent years. On political party identification, 63% today say they identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party, down from 70% who said the

6

same in 2012. And when asked which political party has more concern for Latinos, 50% say the Democrats, down from 61% who said the same in 2012.

Meanwhile, Republicans have made some progress among Hispanic voters. About one-quarter (27%) today say they identify with or lean toward the Republican Party. In 2012, 22% said the same.

But Republican Party gains among Hispanic registered voters in terms of party identification do not extend to Hispanic voters’ views of the party. Just 10% say the Republican Party has more concern than the Democratic Party for the Hispanic community, unchanged since 2012. Instead, the share of Hispanic registered voters who say there is no difference between the two parties is up, to 35% today from 23% in 2012.

The Latino vote has grown in importance in recent years and has played important roles in both of President Obama’s victories. In 2008, Obama won 67% of the Latino vote (Lopez, 2008). That share rose to 71% in 2012 (Lopez and Taylor, 2012). This year, a record 25.2 million Latinos are eligible to vote, though most live in states or congressional districts that do not have close races (Lopez, Krogstad, Patten and Gonzalez-Barrera, 2014).

Hispanics and the Immigration Issue

The past year has been characterized by inaction on immigration reform at the federal level. The U.S. House of Representatives did not take up a bi-partisan U.S. Senate immigration reform bill passed during the summer of 2013. And President Barack Obama’s summertime promise to use his executive powers to extend deportation relief to some of the nation’s 11.3 million unauthorized immigrants has been put on hold until after the November elections.1

Most Latino registered voters have heard about the president’s decision to delay any executive action on deportation relief for unauthorized immigrants, according to the survey. Two-thirds (68%) say they have heard either a lot (27%) or a little (41%) about it. But three-in-ten say they have heard nothing at all about the president’s decision.

Among those who have heard about the president’s decision, the survey shows that about a third (35%) of Latino voters are either disappointed (26%) or angry (9%) about the delay. But about a quarter (26%) say they are pleased (19%) or very happy (7%) about it.

The survey also shows that immigration reform is a priority for Hispanics. Two-thirds (66%) of Hispanic registered voters say it is extremely important (30%) or very important (36%) that the president and Congress pass significant new immigration legislation soon. Among all Hispanics, three-quarters (74%) say the same.2

When asked who is responsible for the lack of immigration reform this year, Latino registered voters place more blame on Republicans in

Congress (45%) than congressional Democrats (14%) or President Obama (20%). By contrast, among all Latinos, just as many blame Republicans (40%) as blame either congressional Democrats (15%) or President Obama (24%).

Yet the survey also shows that immigration is not a deal breaker issue for many Latino voters. Some 54% say they would vote for a candidate who disagrees with them on immigration policy if that candidate agrees with them on most other issues. Nonetheless, about one-third (36%) say they would not vote for a candidate if they disagreed with the candidate on immigration policy.

7

Overall, the issue of immigration does not rate as high as some other issues among Hispanic voters. Instead, when asked about five issues that might be discussed in this year’s congressional campaign, more say education (92%), jobs and the economy (91%) and health care (86%) are extremely important or very important to them. By comparison, 73% say the same about immigration. Following immigration, 66% of Hispanics voters say the issue of conflicts in the Middle East is extremely or very important to them.

Latino Voter Motivation in 2014 Unchanged from 2010

Hispanic registered voters are just as motivated to vote and are paying as close attention to this year’s midterm elections as they were in 2010, according to the survey. About half (53%) of Hispanic registered voters say they are absolutely certain they will vote this year, unchanged from the 51% who said the same in 2010. And today 35% say they have given this year’s election “quite a lot” of thought compared with 32% who said the same in 2010.

Even so, Latino registered voters are less motivated about voting than U.S. registered voters overall. A July Pew Research Center survey (2014c), found that 70% of all registered voters said they were absolutely certain they will vote this year. And an October Pew Research Center survey (2014e) found that 59% of all registered voters say they have given the election “quite a lot of thought.”

Despite record turnout among Latinos in recent elections, Latino voter turnout rates have been below those of other groups. In 2010, a record 6.6 million Latinos voted. But that represented just 31.2% of Latino eligible voters, a share that lagged behind blacks (44%) and whites (48.6%) (Lopez, Krogstad, Patten and Gonzalez-Barrera, 2014).3

This report is based on a nationally representative bilingual telephone survey of 1,520 Hispanic adults, including 733 registered voters, conducted from Sept. 11 through Oct. 9, 2014, by the Pew Research Center. The survey was fielded after President Obama’s decision to delay any executive action extending deportation relief to more of the country’s unauthorized immigrants. The margin of sampling error for the full sample is plus or minus 3.2 percentage points at the 95% confidence level; for registered voters, the margin of sampling error is plus or minus 4.8 percentage points.

Among the survey’s other findings:

The 2014 Congressional Vote

Democrats hold an advantage over Republicans among Hispanic voters in the congressional vote, with majority support among nearly all major demographic subgroups. But that advantage has eroded among most groups since 2010.

Half (49%) of Latino registered voters say they would like to see their congressional representative re-elected, while 30% say they would not like to see this.

About half (53%) of Hispanic registered voters say they would like to see most members of Congress lose their seats this year while about one-third (36%) say they would like to see most members of Congress re-elected.

The Nation’s Direction, President Obama and the Situation of Latinos

Some 41% of Latino registered voters say they are satisfied with the way things are going in the country today while 53% are dissatisfied. By comparison, all registered voters are more downbeat about the nation’s direction—just 29% say they are satisfied with the way things are going today, but 65% say they are dissatisfied with the country’s direction (Pew Research Center, 2014e).

8

Half (49%) of Latino registered voters say they approve of the way President Obama is handling his job as president. This compared with 43% among all registered voters nationwide (Pew Research Center, 2014e).

More than half (56%) of Hispanic registered voters say the situation of Hispanics in the U.S. today is about the same as it was a year ago, 22% say the situation is better and 20% say the situation of the community is worse.

The Political Parties and Issues

The Democratic Party has a strong advantage among Hispanics on the issue of immigration. Half (50%) of Hispanic registered voters say the Democratic Party is better at dealing with immigration compared with 27% that name the Republican Party.

When it comes to dealing with the economy, 44% of Latino registered voters say the Democratic Party is better on the issue while 36% say the Republican Party is better.

On foreign policy, 44% of Hispanic registered voters say the Democratic Party is the party better able to make wise decisions while 32% say the Republican Party is the better party.

Immigration Policy

When it comes to dealing with unauthorized immigration in the U.S., 46% of Hispanic registered voters say the priority should be a pathway to citizenship for those who meet certain requirements, 14% say the priority should be border security, and 38% say both should be given equal priority.

By 51% to 40%, Latino registered voters say that they think being able to live and work in the U.S. legally without the threat of deportation is more important for unauthorized immigrants than a pathway to citizenship. Among all Latinos, that margin is 56% to 35%, unchanged since 2013.

One-quarter (24%) of Hispanic registered voters say they know someone who has been deported or detained by the federal government for immigration reasons in the past 12 months. Among all Hispanics, 26% say the same.

More than half (55%) of Latino registered voters say they disapprove of the way the Obama administration has handled the issue of deportations. Among all Latinos, 63% say they disapprove.

Article #3Number of Illegal Immigrants in U.S. May Be on Rise Again, Estimates SayGregory Bull/Associated Press

A Border Patrol agent looking out at Tijuana, Mexico. About six million Mexican-born immigrants make up 52 percent of the unauthorized population in the United States, estimates said. By JULIA PRESTONPublished: September 23, 2013

About 11.7 million immigrants are living in the United States illegally, a population that has not varied much over the last three years but may recently be increasing again, according to new estimates published Monday by the Pew Research Center Hispanic Trends Project.

As lawmakers in Washington debate an immigration overhaul that could include a pathway to legal status or citizenship for millions of unauthorized immigrants, the figures from the nonpartisan Pew Center are regarded by many demographers as the most reliable estimates of the number of people who might be eligible for those programs.

The new estimates, which are based on the most recent census data and other official statistics, show that the population of immigrants here illegally did not decline significantly from 2009 to 2012, despite record numbers of about 400,000 deportations each year and stepped-up border enforcement by the Obama administration as well as laws to crack down on illegal immigration in states like Alabama, Arizona and Georgia.

9

Recent figures, including reports from the Border Patrol of illegal crossings at the southwest border, suggest that the numbers began to grow again last year. But Pew researchers said the increases in the 2012 census data — the latest available — were too small for them to conclusively confirm the recent rise.

“For Congress working on the demands of a potential legalization program, these are pretty solid numbers,” said Jeffrey S. Passel, senior demographer at Pew’s Hispanic Trends Project, who wrote the report with D’Vera Cohn and Ana Gonzalez-Barrera.

The Pew researchers, for the first time using larger census samples from past years, also went back to revise some of their previous estimates. The new figures, while only slightly different, show an even clearer picture of the surging growth in unauthorized immigrants to a peak of 12.2 million in 2007 from 3.5 million in 1990.

In 2008 and 2009, there was a steep drop, with the numbers falling to an estimated 11.3 million. After 2009, the population leveled off and by some measures might have been gradually growing. The Pew report does not point to any causes of the changes. But Mr. Passel noted that the dates of the decrease matched the deepest years of the economic slowdown, with its high unemployment.  

“We don’t know what caused that decline, but it certainly coincides with the recession,” Mr. Passel said. “And we can say that the current enforcement practices have not led to any measurable reduction beyond the 2009 period.”

Looking at Mexico, the report confirms “dramatic reductions in arrivals of new unauthorized immigrants” from there since 2007. The researchers cite Mexican census figures showing that the rate of migration to the United States dropped by two-thirds from 2007 to 2012. From 2007 to 2009, the report says, more undocumented Mexicans left the United States than came here illegally.

But about six million Mexican-born immigrants still make up 52 percent of the unauthorized population, according to the Pew estimates.

“I don’t see any sign of a return to mass undocumented migration from Mexico,” said Douglas Massey, a sociology professor at Princeton who has studied Mexican migration patterns for decades. “The Mexican population in the United States is stable. Self-deportation is not working,” he said, referring to policies advocated by some lawmakers to increase enforcement pressure on illegal immigrants to spur them to leave voluntarily.

Recent increases in illegal arrivals are migrants from countries other than Mexico, including Central American nations, according to the Pew report.

The report shows variations among states. In Texas, the unauthorized population never saw any significant decline in the last decade. In Florida and New Jersey, the numbers are growing again after falling in the first years of the recession. In California, Illinois and New York, the numbers declined after 2007 and never rebounded.

The Pew researchers derive their estimates with a complex formula that calculates the number of legal immigrants in the country and subtracts that from the overall foreign-born population, which was 41.7 million last year. About 28 percent of that total was immigrants here illegally, according to the Pew report.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/24/us/immigrant-population-shows-signs-of-growth-estimates-show.html

Article #4:

Are Illegal Immigrants Good for the U.S. Economy?

There are currently 12 million people living in the United States illegally

YESUndocumented immigrants contribute to our economy as workers,

10

taxpayers, and consumers. They account for 5 percent of the total U.S. labor force, and at least a quarter of the workers in industries like construction, agriculture, groundskeeping, meat processing, and textile production.

All undocumented immigrants pay sales and property taxes, and—contrary to popular belief—most pay federal and state income taxes as well, even though they're not eligible for Social Security, Medicare, or the many other programs their tax dollars help fund. Undocumented immigrants also spend billions of dollars each year, which supports our economy and helps create new jobs.

A 2006 study by the Texas State Comptroller estimated that the 1.4 million undocumented immigrants in Texas alone added almost $18 billion to the state's economic output, and more than paid for the $1.2 billion in state services they used by generating $1.6 billion in new state revenues.

The contributions of undocumented immigrants would be even greater if they were able to earn legal status. Workers who are not part of an underground economy and don't live in fear of deportation are better able to acquire new job skills and move up the career ladder. That translates into higher wages, more money paid in taxes, and more money to spend.

Undocumented immigration is a symptom of an immigration system that is broken. Lawmakers should revamp our immigration system so that it works with our economy, not against it.

—Walter Ewing Immigration Policy Center (immigrationpolicy.org)

NOIn purely economic terms, illegal immigration is harmful because it floods our 21st-century economy with 19th-century-style low-skilled workers.

Almost 60 percent of adult illegal immigrants lack a high school education. That's more than nine times the rate among native-born Americans.

This has three consequences. First, it means big costs for taxpayers. Workers with little education don't earn much money, so they pay little in taxes and use a lot of government services.

For example, half of Mexican immigrant families use at least one welfare program. It's not a question of laziness; it's just that the average high school dropout cannot support a family in a modern society like ours without government assistance, no matter how many jobs he or she has.

The second problem is that it reduces the wages of low-skilled Americans. As we flood the market for entry-level jobseekers, they lose the ability to demand higher salaries. Research shows that illegal immigration has cut the earnings of poor Americans by 7 percent, and even forced some out of the job market.

Finally, by keeping wages lower, illegal immigration takes away much of the incentive to invest in labor-saving technologies that make workers more productive, thus slowing the innovation that's needed for continued economic vitality and competitiveness.

What worked for our country 100 years ago is no longer helpful. Cutting illegal immigration levels is vital to ensure broad-based economic prosperity in the future.

—Mark Krikorian Center for Immigration Studies (cis.org) http://teacher.scholastic.com/scholasticnews/indepth/upfront/debate/index.asp?article=d090108

Summarize each cartoon next to it. What argument is being made for each?

11

The First Amendment

1. What does it say about our first amendment rights that they are in the FIRST amendment rather than a later amendment?

12

2. What is a “right”? Why do we need our rights written down somewhere?

3. Complete the row you are assigned with your group. Then share out and complete the table. Clause topic of the first amendment

History/reason this right was so important to the colonists

Summarize what is protected by this clause.

Summarize what is not protected by this clause or any misconceptions people have about this clause.

Describe court cases that are important to understanding your clause.

Religion

p. 537-544

Assembly

p. 555-558

Petition

p. 555-558

Press

p. 546-553

13

Speech

p. 546-553

4. Why do you think there are so many court cases addressing the first amendment?

Civil Liberties/Civil Ri ghts/Due Process Movie Questions

Part I:1. Civil liberties are all the rights and freedoms that government cannot interfere

with. Describe an example:

14

These can be found in the _____________________________.

2. The Due Process Clause is found in the 14th Amendment, and it declares that no state shall deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property without due process. What do you think this means?

3. The incorporation doctrine was drafted, or created, by the Supreme Court. It states that most protections found within the Bill of Rights are applicable to states as well as to the federal government. Why do you think this doctrine is important?

4. Who is not guaranteed civil liberties? __________________________________

5. What rights are included in the 1st amendment? Then, place a box around the right that you see as the MOST vital to American life.

6. The Supreme Court has created seven acceptability tests of speech. These are used to decide if speech is protected or not.

a. Libel, slander, or seditious speech is speech: Seditious speech=talking about overthrowing the government Written defamation=libel Spoken defamation=slander

b. Bad tendency test: Did a speaker intend something bad to happen when one says it?

Ex: Someone yelling fire in a crowded movie theatre

c. Clear and present danger: Used to determine whether speech should be banned because it poses a danger to society; Used especially

during wartime.

d. Direct incitement test: Used to determine which kinds of speech can be regulated by the government. If speech encourages and

incites (sparks) illegal acts, then the government can regulate; Used especially during wartime.

e. Symbolic speech: The symbolism of when people don’t actually speak Ex: Picket lines, sit-ins, bumper stickers, political cartoons, arm bands.

f. Prior restraint: Suppression of speech before you say it No censoring of press is allowed

g. Politically correct speech:

15

Associated with the PC Movement (1980s/1990s); is the banning in private institutions of inappropriate, derogatory speech.

Ex: ethnic slurs, racial, sexual, and religious slurs

Evaluate these tests. With which test do you MOST AGREE and why?

With which test do you LEAST AGREE and why?

Part II:7. The definition for “decency” has evolved over time, and it depends on who you ask, even today. Today, our Court

tends to say that material lacks decency if it is devoid of any value. Swearing, fights, obscenity, and other forms of indecency are not protected. Is our society too strict, too lenient, or just right in this realm? Explain your ideas.

8. Due process rights are those rights for people accused of a crime, and help to ensure that a defendant has a right to a fair trial. These rights can be found in amendments 4, 5, 6, and 8. What does it mean to say that you are innocent until proven guilty?

a. The 4 th Amendment protects you from illegal search and seizure-the police cannot break into your house without cause. They must have reasonable evidence AND a search warrant approved by a judge.

b. The 5 th Amendment protects you from self-incrimination: you are not forced to testify against yourself.

c. The 6 th Amendment guarantees you a lawyer the services of a lawyer, even if you cannot afford one, and a trial by an impartial jury of your peers.

d. The 8 th Amendment protects you from cruel and unusual punishment. The punishment must fit the crime.

Which of these amendments seems to come into play the most in our modern society?

9. We’ve all heard our “Miranda” rights-upon arrest, you have the right to be read your rights. Which amendment does this connect with?

____________________

16

10. Without a proper warrant, illegally obtained evidence cannot be used in courts. This is called the exclusionary rule. Why is this such an important idea in our court system? And, which amendment does this connect with?

____________________

11. Certain amendments have been interpreted to defend the privacy of individuals in various ways. This is the right to be left alone.

a. 1st amendment- choosing and practicing your religion

b. 4th amendment-search and seizure; government/police cannot go through your stuff without reason/warrant

c. 3rd amendment-quartering troops in our homes is outlawed; our homes are ours alone and we cannot be forced to share that space

d. 15th /19th/27th amendments-right to vote is our personal choice

In this modern age, do you feel that our government has too much access to our private information? How can this be problematic for our democracy?

12. Read each scenario below. Explain in a sentence whether you agree or disagree with each statement. Write the Bill of Rights amendment that relates to each scenario. You may use your textbook, class notes, or the internet.

a. A person who enters a room and screams "Bomb!" just to see the reaction of the people in the room is protected under provisions in the Bill of Rights. Agree/Disagree: Amendment:

b. Members of Congress can learn many different things -- such as what you like and dislike about the area where you live -- from letters you send to them.Agree/Disagree:Amendment:

c. A police officer comes to your door and asks to search your home without probable cause. You don't want to allow the officer to enter, but he is allowed to search your home.Agree/Disagree:Amendment:

d. Violence is getting to the point in our society where they should stop letting civilians own guns.Agree/Disagree:Amendment:

e. The Death Penalty is a good way to punish those who murder another human being.Agree/Disagree:Amendment:

f. A person is convicted of murdering another human being. Later, it is discovered that the victim of that murder had actually faked his or her death. Under those circumstances, it would be legal for the person convicted of the murder to kill the person who faked his/her death. Agree/Disagree:Amendment:

17

g. Your parents own a house. They invest hours of time and many thousands of dollars into it. The government can make your parents sell the house to them so a highway can be built on the land.Agree/Disagree: Amendment:

h. If a power is not expressed in the Constitution, then it is the responsibility of the individual states to protect citizens' rights.Agree/Disagree: Amendment:

i. Even after September 11th, people are still free to practice the Islamic religion in the United States.Agree/Disagree:Amendment:

j. A person involved in a dispute over $10 is permitted to take his or her complaint to a civil court. Agree/Disagree: Amendment:

k. President Obama is allowed to call you at home and tell you that you must let soldiers stay in your home. Agree/Disagree: Amendment:

Landmark Supreme Court Cases Matching

1. ____________ Marbury v. Madison A. said African Americans were not citizens and had no rights in federal courts

2. ____________ McCulloch v. Maryland B. case that said writers are allowed to publish “untruthful” things as long as they aren’t doing it on purpose

3. ____________ Gibbons v. Ogden C. said that police must read an accused rights to them upon arrest

4. ____________ Scott v. Sanford D. Decided that Congress has some powers that are only implied in the Constitution, not clearly spelled out

5. ____________ Brown v. Board ofEducation

E. Established “judicial review,” meaning the Supreme Court has the right to interpret the Constitution and decides if laws violate the Constitution

6. ___________ Gideon v. Wainwright F. Says that it is not permissible for the state or federal government to segregate along racial lines

7. ___________ NY Times v. Sullivan G. established a zone of personal autonomy concerning a woman’s reproductive rights

18

8. ___________ Miranda v. Arizona H. states that Congress has the power to regulate trade across state lines and to break up monopolies

9. ___________ Loving v. Virginia I. Overturned the idea of “separate but equal,” integrating schools

10. __________ Roe v. Wade J. Case that says anyone in a state or federal court was to be appointed a lawyer even if they couldn’t afford one

Ten Landmark Supreme Court Decisions

By Jethro K. Lieberman

Between the late 18th century and the beginning of the 21st century, the Supreme Court of the United States decided some 25,000 cases. While hundreds of these decisions have played a significant role in the development of American law, only a few dozen have truly transformed American society, for good or ill. These ten cases changed our history.

These cases set new precedents for America. What is a precedent? (see page 522).Marbury v. Madison (1803)

One of the Supreme Court’s earliest decisions was also among its most momentous. In Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court fashioned judicial review, a tool that would permit courts to veto acts of Congress that violate the Constitution of the United States. Marbury v. Madison established the courts as the ultimate interpreters of the Constitution, giving them an essential role to play in the American system of checks and balances.

On the surface, the case tested whether the Supreme Court would agree to seat as justices of the peace four men who had been appointed by President John Adams. The Senate confirmed Adams’s appointees, but the men had not yet received their commissions when Adams left the presidency in 1801. The disappointed men, who included businessman William Marbury, filed suit against Secretary of State James Madison for his refusal to seat them. Adams’s successor, President Thomas Jefferson, insisted that the Supreme Court did not have the power to give orders to the president or his appointees.

In an adroit move, Chief Justice John Marshall gave Jefferson the victory in fact but not in theory. He said that the four men had the right to their seats and, moreover, that when the law required the president to carry out duties in a straightforward way, the courts could order him to do so. But Marshall said that in this case, the Supreme Court would not order the president. He reasoned that the law Adams’s four judicial appointees used to bring the suit before the Supreme Court actually violated the Constitution and thus could not be enforced.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

In McCulloch v. Maryland the Supreme Court grappled with how much leeway Congress should have in enacting law if the Constitution does not assign it specific power to do so. Chief Justice John Marshall's decision established the idea that certain congressional powers are implied in the Constitution.

In the late 18th century Alexander Hamilton, then secretary of the treasury, suggested that Congress form a Bank of the United States. Thomas Jefferson, then secretary of state, opposed Hamilton’s suggestion. He argued that the Constitution did not grant Congress an express power to create a bank. Hamilton reasoned that Congress had the power to do anything not explicitly prohibited by the Constitution. President George Washington sided with Hamilton, and the Bank of the United States was given a charter.

19

Years later, many state banks began objecting to the conservative fiscal policy established by the federal bank. At the urging of state banks, Maryland imposed a tax on the federal bank to restrict its operations. James McCulloch, an employee of the Baltimore branch of the federal bank, refused to pay the tax. The case went to the Supreme Court, with Maryland challenging the constitutionality of a national bank.

Chief Justice Marshall decided in favor of McCulloch, striking down the tax. Marshall also concluded that Congress had the right to establish a national bank, reasoning that the Constitution empowered Congress to enact laws that were “legitimate and proper” and that if a law concerns the means of carrying out a legitimate end, then it does not matter if the Constitution is silent on the matter. This decision set the stage for the historical development of a strong and expanding federal government.

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

In the late 18th century, intrastate (in-state) commerce constituted a large part of the economic activity of the United States. Because the Constitution stipulates only that Congress may regulate interstate (among states) commerce, it might have seemed that Congress would play a minor role in the American economy. But in Gibbons v. Ogden the Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion written by Chief Justice John Marshall, defined commerce in an expansive way that would ultimately permit Congress to play a major role in economic regulation.

The question was whether Congress could regulate the shipment of goods across state lines. In 1818 Thomas Gibbons began running a steamboat between New York and New Jersey under a federal license. He was sued by Aaron Ogden, who held exclusive rights to steamboat traffic in New York State under a state law.

Strict interpreters of the Constitution argued that Congress could not regulate navigation across state lines, on the basis that commerce refers only to actual buying and selling. But Marshall said that Congress’s power over commerce embraces all aspects of commercial activity and that Congress may regulate any activity, even one that seems to be local and to occur entirely within a state, if the activity “affects” interstate commerce. The Court’s opinion also struck down the state monopoly as invalid.

The logic behind this single opinion led in the 20th century to an immense expansion of the powers of Congress, and in areas far beyond economic transactions. For example, Marshall’s broad definition of commerce has been used to uphold legislation protecting civil rights.

Scott v. Sandford (1857)

Perhaps the most infamous decision in the Supreme Court’s history, Scott v. Sandford (also known as the Dred Scott case) in 1857 struck down the Missouri Compromise and held that African Americans could never be citizens of the United States. The Missouri Compromise, passed by Congress in 1820, had prohibited the extension of slavery in the United States north and west of Missouri.

In 1846 Dred Scott, a slave in St. Louis, Missouri, sued to establish his right to freedom after living in Illinois, a free state, for four years. Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney ruled against Scott, arguing that African Americans could not become U.S. citizens and thus had no right to sue in federal courts.

The decision stymied Congress in its attempts to ban slavery in new states and was one of the primary causes of the American Civil War. The case was directly overturned by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which gives citizenship to anyone born in the United States except the children of foreign diplomats.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

In 1896 in Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court had approved state legislation that enforced separation of the races in railroads, as long as the cars for blacks and whites were “equal,” a word the Court never defined. In approving the practice of legalized racial segregation, the Court set back the cause of racial equality in the United States for more than half a century.

20

The principle of “separate but equal” established by Plessy v. Ferguson was not overturned until 1954, when the Supreme Court began to dismantle official racial segregation with Brown v. Board of Education. Oliver Brown filed suit against the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, on behalf of his daughter, Linda, who had to travel more than an hour each way to a segregated school, when a school for white students was only blocks from her home. This was one of a number of cases challenging Plessy v. Ferguson that Thurgood Marshall, the chief lawyer for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), brought before the Court in the early 1950s.

Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote the unanimous decision of the Court, which held that laws requiring racial discrimination in public schools violate a clause of the 14th Amendment guaranteeing equal protection under the law to all citizens. This landmark decision eventually led to the overturning of thousands of laws and ordinances that had succeeded in keeping African Americans out of the mainstream of American life. At the same time it provoked immense political upheaval and altered voting patterns throughout the South and other parts of the country.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

For most of American history, an impoverished criminal defendant could be tried, convicted, and sent to jail even though the defendant was too poor to afford a lawyer. Until Gideon v. Wainwright in 1963, state and local courts had to provide a lawyer only for offenses for which capital punishment was possible.

Clarence Earl Gideon was tried for burglary in Florida in 1961 and asked the court to provide a lawyer because he could not afford one. The court refused; Gideon conducted his own defense and was convicted. He then sent a petition to the Supreme Court. Louie L. Wainwright, head of the Florida prison system, was named defendant in the case.

In Gideon v. Wainwright the Court overruled an earlier decision that the right to legal counsel was not guaranteed in state criminal cases. The majority opinion, written by Justice Hugo Black, for the first time stated that anyone accused of a crime had a fundamental right to legal counsel. Another trial was held. Gideon was defended by a court-appointed lawyer and was acquitted.

The Supreme Court ruled that because the legal process is so complex, the state must provide a lawyer at its own expense to any defendant in a criminal trial. Although having a lawyer does not, of course, guarantee a fair trial, not having a lawyer makes it much more likely that the legal process will be unfair, because police and prosecutors will have far fewer incentives to follow investigative leads and constitutional procedures. Gideon and later cases that extended the right to counsel make it less likely that innocent people will be brought to trial on trumped-up charges and more likely that even the guilty will be dealt with fairly.

New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)

Although the First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press, it was long possible for government officials to silence the press by filing lawsuits over stories that carried inaccuracies, even if the inaccurate statements occurred by mistake.

In 1962 L. B. Sullivan, a city commissioner in Montgomery, Alabama, filed a libel suit against the New York Times for publishing an advertisement alleging misdeeds by the Montgomery police. Although the descriptions of the police actions were inaccurate, the Supreme Court ruled in New York Times v. Sullivan that the First Amendment protects even untruthful stories about government and government officials, unless the stories are written or published with “actual malice”—that is, with knowledge of the story’s falsity or with reckless disregard for the likelihood that it is false.

The Court’s decision, followed by other rulings, guards against official attempts to “chill” speech by threatening lawsuits.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

The Miranda warnings that are now a ubiquitous feature of police shows on television and in motion-picture thrillers were not a constitutional requirement until Miranda v. Arizona. In its decision the Supreme Court for the first time said that all state and local police must warn a suspect being held in custody of several rights: to remain silent, to have an attorney

21

present, and to have the state appoint an attorney if the suspect cannot afford one. In addition, the police must warn suspects that any statements they make can be used against them.

The question before the Court was how to ensure that a suspect’s constitutional rights were protected—the right to legal representation established by Gideon v. Wainwright and the right not to incriminate oneself, guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. The case involved a truck driver, Ernesto Miranda, who confessed to a crime during police interrogation without having been informed of his right to an attorney. He was convicted on the basis of his confession. Miranda was retried after the Court’s decision and was convicted without the use of the confession.

Miranda v. Arizona has sparked scores of other cases in the Supreme Court and thousands of cases in the lower courts, all aimed at defining what makes a criminal investigation and trial fair. The Miranda case became an important issue in national politics because critics feared that the Court’s decision would hamper the police in convicting criminals. A 1999 case threatened to overturn Miranda, but the Court rebutted claims that Miranda had no constitutional basis. The warnings are required by the 14th Amendment, the Court said, and Congress may not abolish them.

Loving v. Virginia (1967)

Although Brown v. Board of Education began the process of dismantling legalized segregation, its underlying rationale did not necessarily point to an eradication of every type of racial discrimination enshrined in law. The Supreme Court took that step in 1967 in Loving v. Virginia.

The Lovings were a couple convicted in 1958 of violating a Virginia state law that prohibited miscegenation (interracial marriage). She was black and Native American, and he was white. Their jail sentence was suspended on condition that they leave Virginia. They filed suit, and the Supreme Court struck down the Virginia law because it violated 14th Amendment guarantees of equal protection and due process of law. In essence, the Court held that it is not a permissible end of either the states or the federal government to segregate along racial lines.Roe v. Wade (1973)

In Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court ruled that a woman has a constitutional right to an abortion during the first six months of pregnancy. Before this ruling, abortion was illegal in most states, except when the pregnancy endangered the woman’s life.

In 1970 a Texas woman challenged the constitutionality of a Texas law outlawing abortion. Using the pseudonym Jane Roe, she sued Dallas County district attorney Henry Wade for the right to end an unwanted pregnancy. Although Texas judges ruled in Roe’s favor, they refused to void the Texas law and the case went to the Supreme Court.

Justice Harry Blackmun wrote the majority opinion of the Court. He argued that although the Constitution does not explicitly guarantee a right to privacy, a later Court decision and the 14th Amendment established that right, which restrictive state abortion laws violated. In its essence, Roe established a zone of personal autonomy in matters of reproduction, a right that continues to the present day, although later cases have modified the reach of Roe’s protections.

Roe is the most significant example of the theory that the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments protect substantive liberties of individual citizens. The decision ignited a continuing firestorm of political controversy and significantly affected electoral politics at the state and national levels.

Quick Write: Which court case has had the largest impact on American society, overall?

22

Article #1: With Reservations, Obama Signs Act to Allow Detention of Citizens

Dec 31, 2011 3:14pm

In his last official act of business in 2011, President Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act from his vacation rental in Kailua, Hawaii. In a statement, the president said he did so with reservations about key provisions in the law — including a controversial component that would allow the military to indefinitely detain terror suspects, including American citizens arrested in the United States, without charge.

The legislation has drawn severe criticism from civil liberties groups, many Democrats, along with Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, who called it “a slip into tyranny.” Recently two retired four-star Marine

generals called on the president to veto the bill in a New York Times op-ed, deeming it “misguided and unnecessary.”

“Due process would be a thing of the past,” wrote Gens Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar. “Current law empowers the military to detain people caught on the battlefield, but this provision would expand the battlefield to include the United States – and hand Osama bin Laden an unearned victory long after his well-earned demise.”

The president defended his action, writing that he signed the act, “chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed.”

Senior administration officials, who asked not to be named, told ABC News, “The president strongly believes that to detain American citizens in military custody infinitely without trial, would be a break with our traditions and values as a nation, and wants to make sure that any type of authorization coming from congress, complies with our Constitution, our rules of war and any applicable laws.”

One official explained that President Obama does believe, however, that American citizens can be temporarily detained, and that the military has the right to capture and hold any citizen who is engaged in conflict against the United States. If various provisions in the law prove unworkable, the president could go back to Congress to ask for changes.

23

“The president is going to adhere to the policies that he has held over the last three years, making sure that none of these congressional provisions impede the ability of the counterterrorism and military professional from keeping the country safe,” the official said.

Questions to answer:

1. Summarize the details of this new law.

2. Which core democratic values or amendments do you see conflicting in this new law? Explain why.

3. If you were the president in this situation, would you have signed this bill into law? What major arguments would you have used?

Article #2: Supreme Court refuses to stop indefinite detention of Americans under NDAAPublished time: May 01, 2014 15:46

The United States Supreme Court this week effectively ended all efforts to overturn a controversial 2012 law that grants the government the power to indefinitely detain American citizens without due process.On Monday, the high court said it won’t weigh in on challenge filed by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges and a bevy of co-plaintiffs against US President Barack Obama, ending for now a two-and-a-half-year debate concerning part of an annual Pentagon spending bill that since 2012 has granted the White House the ability to indefinitely detain people "who are part of or substantially support Al-Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces engaged in hostilities against the United States.”

The Obama administration has long maintained that the provision — Section 1021(b)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 — merely reaffirmed verbiage contained within the Authorization for Use of Military Force, or AUMF, signed by then-President George W. Bush in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

24

Opponents, however, argued that the language in Section 1021 of the NDAA is overly vague and could be interpreted in a way that allows for the government to detain without trial any American citizen accused of committing a “belligerent act” against the country “until the end of hostilities.”

When the provision was first challenged days after Pres. Obama signed it into law on December 31, 2011, Hedges — who previously worked as a war correspondent for the New York Times and covered matters concerning Al-Qaeda for the paper — said, “I have had dinner more times than I can count with people whom this country brands as terrorists … but that does not make me one.”

US District Judge Katherine Forrest agreed with Hedges and his co-plaintiffs, and months later wrote in a 112-page opinion that “First Amendment rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and cannot be legislated away.”

"This Court rejects the government's suggestion that American citizens can be placed in military detention indefinitely, for acts they could not predict might subject them to detention,” Judge Forrest wrote.

But the District Court’s temporary, then permanent injunction against Sec. 1021 was challenged by the White House, and the Obama administration pleaded with the Justice Department to issue a stay. A federal appeals court ruled in favor of the president last July and said that the government can, in fact, indefinitely detail a person who has provided support to anyone deemed a threat to America.

On his part, Hedges said he feared that the administration’s adamant attempts to keep the law in tact could mean that the government has already relied on the NDAA to imprison American citizens without trial. Attorneys for the plaintiffs responded by saying they would take the case to the Supreme Court, but his week the nine-justice panel said they won’t be hearing the case.

SCOTUS declined to make any comment regarding the case on Monday, but rather simply said that it would not be considered by the high court.

Last year, Hedges warned that the odds the court would take the case were slim, and said rejection on that level could lead to grave consequences with regards to freedoms in America.

“If we fail, if this law stands, if in the years ahead the military starts to randomly seize and disappear people, if dissidents and activists become subject to indefinite and secret

25

detention in military gulags, we will at least be able to look back on this moment and know we fought back,” he wrote.

On Monday this week, activist and co-plaintiff Tangerine Bolen wrote that the high court’s decision to ignore the case means that “the fundamental right of due process and our fundamental rights of free speech and association . . . no longer matter.”

“We have tried to stand up to this madness: we are outnumbered, outspent and outgunned - a David intrepidly fighting a Goliath that spans the planet and has the power to shape our 'reality' - thus shaping what the courts even see. We have sacrificed greatly to do this - and yet we would do it all again,” she wrote.

Hedges in Bolen were joined in their suit against the Obama administration by Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg, writer Noam Chomsky, activist and journalist Alexa O’Brien, Icelandic parliamentarian and WikiLeaks associate Birgitta Jónsdóttir, Occupy London activist Kai Wargalla and acclaimed academic Dr. Cornel West.

Questions to answer:

1. Summarize the actions taken on the law since 2012. What has the Supreme Court said about it?

2. Describe the historic relationship in the United States between wartime and the rights of citizens. What is your stance on this relationship?

3. As president, what how far would you go to keep America safe from domestic terror?

The Judicial Branch: Your role

1. What does it mean to do jury duty? Why do some people call it a “civic” duty?

26

2. Use the information below to answer the following. Why do you think some people avoid jury duty? How might they do that?

Qualifications to be a Juror United States citizen At least 18 years of age Reside in the judicial district for one year Adequate proficiency in English No disqualifying mental or physical condition Not currently subject to felony charges Never convicted of a felony (unless civil rights have been

legally restored) Exemptions from Service

Active duty members of the armed forces Members of police and fire departments Certain public officials Others based on individual court rules (such as members of voluntary emergency service organizations

and people who recently have served on a jury) Temporary Deferrals of Service

May be granted at the court's discretion on the grounds of "undue hardship or extreme inconvenience." Length of Service

Trial jury service varies by court. Some courts require service for one day or for the duration of the trial; others require service for a fixed

term of up to one month (or more if a trial is longer) Grand jury service may be up to 18 months.

Payment $40ish per day; in some instances jurors may also receive meal and travel allowances

Employment Protections By law, employers must allow employees time off (paid or unpaid) for jury service. The law also forbids

any employer from firing, intimidating, or coercing any permanent employee because of their federal jury service.

There are two types of juries serving distinct functions in the federal trial courts: trial juries (also known as petit juries), and grand juries.

3. How are jurors normally chosen? Make sure to include voir dire in your answer, with a definition. (Use info below)

27

Potential jurors are chosen from a jury pool generated by random selection of citizens' names from lists of registered voters, or combined lists of voters and people with drivers licenses, in the judicial district. The potential jurors complete questionnaires to help determine whether they are qualified to serve on a jury. After reviewing the questionnaires, the court randomly selects individuals to be summoned to appear for jury duty. These selection methods help ensure that jurors represent a cross section of the community, without regard to race, gender, national origin, age or political affiliation.

Being summoned for jury service does not guarantee that an individual actually will serve on a jury. When a jury is needed for a trial, the group of qualified jurors is taken to the courtroom where the trial will take place. The judge and the attorneys then ask the potential jurors questions to determine their suitability to serve on the jury, a process called voir dire. The purpose of voir dire is to exclude from the jury people who may not be able to decide the case fairly. Members of the panel who know any person involved in the case, who have information about the case, or who may have strong prejudices about the people or issues involved in the case, typically will be excused by the judge. The attorneys also may exclude a certain number of jurors without giving a reason

The Jury Consultants/Runaway Jury Movie Qs

NEW YORK, June 2, 2004

(CBS) In the brave new world of high-stakes, high-profile trial preparation, the people running the show are not the lawyers, but rather jury consultants. Correspondent Troy Roberts reports.

These days, it's hard to find a big case without experts in human behavior involved.

Jury consulting came into its own during the O.J. Simpson trial, when a consultant named Jo-Ellan Dimitrius picked the jury that found him not guilty. She did the same for basketball player Jayson Williams, found not guilty of manslaughter April 30. This fall, she'll help defend Kobe Bryant, and she's currently in lock-step with Scott Peterson's defense team.

Dimitrius is involved in everything from picking the jury, to coaching witnesses, to fine-tuning arguments.

"I almost act as a 13th juror," she says. "I hear a case for the first time. I wanna know what the good is. I wanna know what the bad is, so that we can figure out a way to desensitize or neutralize the negative components."

With a PhD. degree in criminology, Dimitrius has never spent a day in law school. Rather, she's hired for her "intuition."

28

She says she gets a sense of a person from their body language. "Body language is extremely important. If I were to turn away from you and I'm sitting like this and I'm answering your questions, that says something very different than I'm facing you. It could say I'm hiding something."

If all this sounds a little suspect, consider that even the prosecution on the Peterson case has hired a jury consultant, Howard Varinsky. He's the man who helped the government pick the jury that convicted Martha Stewart. His degree: psychiatric social work.

Varinsky calls himself "a human BS meter," and says he can usually size someone up in 10 minutes or less.

"I'll look at their appearance first," he explains. "I'll look at what they were wearing. I'll look at the quality of their clothes, their attention to detail. I'll look at their shoes to see whether they are shined or not."

He says there's also another way to tell whether a juror can grasp a complicated argument: find out who their favorite person is.

During the Stewart trial, he says, "We had people who said Cher. We had people that said Martin Luther King, Hillary Clinton, Ronald Reagan."

What does it say about you if your favorite person is Cher?

"To me?" Varinsky asks. "It says you're not very bright.

"In a case where you have a lot of information that one has to process and the information goes against your side, I think you would want somebody who says Cher. Because to me that says someone who is not that intelligent and they may vote emphatically."

When he began his work 25 years ago, Varinsky says he was cold-calling lawyers. These days, jury consultants are routinely hired for large cases. He says it is proof they make a difference.

In a capital murder trial like Scott Peterson's, a jury consultant's fees could run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

That, says famed defense lawyer Gerry Spence, "is silly." Spence has never used a jury consultant and he hasn't lost a jury trial in 50 years.

"Lawyers hang onto them because if they lose their case, they have to blame it on somebody," he says. "If you would have asked Thomas Jefferson whether or not there out to be jury consultants, he'd say, 'Are you crazy?'"

Spence doesn't put much stock in subjective observations about a juror's dress or body language.

"Are we supposed to say that this person would be a better juror than that person because of their shoes? That is voodoo!" he says. "This is a better word for bulls**t."

Dimitrius says when she hears such charges about jury consulting, "I usually smile and say I got a pretty good education to practice that voodoo."

For the Peterson trial, Dimitrius is donating her services to the defense team.

And, she says, "What I know will be an absolute surprise to an awful lot of people."

29

She says her work on the case has been the most challenging of her career. She says her polls show 45 percent of the jury pool already believe her client is guilty. And some potential jurors have even lied about their beliefs to get on the panel and convict Peterson.

The defense team says two potential jurors who appeared to have no bias during questioning later were bragging they had lied so they could convict Peterson. None of these accusations have been proven, but those jurors were dismissed.

According to Varinsky, "We have to be extra vigilant. Before, we only had to be vigilant about whether they wanted to write book deals, or go out and become media stars. Now they have an agenda." It took more than two months just to pick a jury for the Peterson trial. But for Dimitrius and Varinsky, now the real work begins.

The Runaway Jury

1. Based on the first 15 minutes of the movie, what is the basic case against gun companies?

2. Explain the jury selection process as seen in the movie. Why do the lawyers get to reject some jurors?

3. How does the movie depict jury consultants? Do you think this is accurate?

4. What is your impression of Wendall Rohr?

5. What is your impression of Rankin Fitch?

6. Throughout the film, you will learn about Nick Easter. Keep a list here of what you think and know about him, both his personality and his past.

7. What is the foreman’s job in a jury?

30

8. As the case progresses, list the arguments for the prosecution (Celeste Wood) and the defendant (the gun company).

Prosecution Defense

9. How does Rankin Fitch attempt to manipulate the jury?

10. Why are the jurors sequestered?

11. Fitch and Rohr have a meeting in the men’s room. What do they discuss? What are their philosophical differences?

12. What is the story behind Marlee and Nick?

13. What are the pros and cons of jury trials?

14. What does this film say about the American judicial system? Do you agree?

15. What does the film say about guns in America? Do you agree?

Citizenship: Rights & Responsibility Review SheetThis should be completed for your test. Write your answers here or if you need more space on a separate sheet of

paper.

31

1. Signing up for the draft, paying _________, serving __________ duty, respecting and obeying local, state

and federal laws are all examples of the duties of being a ______________________.

2. If you want to become a naturalized citizen, you must be ______ years old, entered the country legally, lived

in the U.S for at least 5 years (husbands or wives of citizens, 3 years), passed a citizenship test, be literate in the

______________ language, and take an oath.

3. Civil liberties are not guaranteed to ________________________. However, our Constitutional protections

of liberty and freedoms are not absolute if they harm the safety of others and sometimes in times of rebellion,

national emergency or during wartime our civil liberties can be taken away!

4. The 1st Amendment includes your rights of the freedom of ___________, assembly, petition, __________

and speech.

a. The 1st Amendment guarantees the right of religious freedom. This guarantee prohibits the government from

establishing a national church or religion from the ___________________ Clause and the free ______________

Clause requires the government to _______________________________________________

__________________with minimal interference. The Supreme Court has ruled school-sponsored prayer, Bible

readings and the posting of the Ten Commandments all to be unconstitutional. However, in the Supreme Court

case Epperson v. Arkansas the court ruled states may not outlaw the teaching of ______________ in public schools.

b. The _____ Amendment guarantees the right of the people to assemble. This guarantees citizens to do the

following peacefully; meet in public/private places, form _____________ parties, and bring your views to the

attention of public officials. The Supreme Court has ruled the government can make and enforce reasonable rules

covering the time, place and manner of assemblies (“Time, place and ______________ doctrine”). So, freedom of

assembly doesn’t give citizens right to protest if they are breaking local laws.

c. The 1st Amendment guarantees the freedom of speech and press. This guarantees citizens the right of free

expression, in spoken and written words, and by all other means of communication. This does not protect citizens to

purposefully lie. Citizens don’t have the right to libel (____________ lies) and ____________(spoken lies). The 1 st

Amendment right of speech does provide the right to symbolic speech, talk bad about people (as long as you don’t

talk about harming them), hate groups and burning a flag. What are the seven acceptability test of speech (be able to

describe each!): 32

1. 5.

2. 6.

3. 7.

4.

5. Due process rights are located in what Amendments? _____________________. Define Due Process rights

(what to they ensure?):

a. The ________ Amendment provides protection against unreasonable search and seizure. In order for the police to

legally search your house they must have probable cause (reason) and a ______________. Illegally seized evidence

can not be used at trial this is known as the __________________________ rule.

b. The ________ Amendment provides protection against self-incrimination.

c. The ________Amendment guarantees the right to a lawyer, speedy trial and trial by an impartial (not biased) jury.

The right to a lawyer only applied to offenses for which capital punishment was possible until the Supreme Court

case Gideon v. _____________ . The Supreme Court ruled in this case that anyone in a state or __________ court

was to be appointed a lawyer even if they couldn’t _____________ one.

d. The ________ Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.

6. From the court case ___________ v. Arizona the Supreme Court ruled police must warn a suspect the

constitutional rights an accused citizen is guaranteed upon their arrest. This short list of rights an accused citizen is

told and guaranteed upon arrest is known as _______________ rights. 7. Miranda rights include; the right to remain silent (connected to the ______ Amendment), the right to have an

attorney (connected to the _____ Amendment), if you can’t afford an attorney then the state will one, and

anything said can be used in court against you.

8. The ___________________ doctrine is the process of incorporating, or including, most of the guarantees in the

Bill of Rights to be applicable to the states. This was established from the Supreme Court case Gitlow v New York,

33

the Supreme Court ruled the provisions of the 1st Amendment were “incorporated” by the ______ Amendment’s

Due Process Clause, thus applying to the State and federal government.

9. What are the 7 qualifications to be a juror?1. 4.2. 5.3. 6.

7.

10. True (a) or False (b) The process when the attorneys and the judge ask potential jurors questions to determine

their suitability to serve on jury and to exclude people who may not be able to decide the case fairly is known as the

voir dire process.

11. What does the National Defense Authorization Act allow the U.S military to do? Which core democratic values are conflicting in this new law?

12. Which of the following Supreme Court cases overturned the “separate but equal” doctrine as it applied to public schools?

a. Plessy v. Ferguson c. Scott v. Sanfordb. Brown v. Board of Education d. New York Times Co v. United States

13. The Supreme Court case Marbury v. _______________ established “__________________________”, meaning the Supreme Court has the right to interpret the ____________________ and decides if laws violate the Constitution.

14. Summarize each of the four immigration articles we discussed in class.

34