Mrs. Boggs' United States and World History Class 2002-2003
Current Unit Projects and Essays

Home
Contacting your teacher | Current Unit Projects and Essays | UNIT 4: ART AND LITERATURE IN AMERICAN HISTORY | TIPS, HINTS AND LINKS | View Final Exam Questions

Unit 3: Law and Justice in America

United States History

Unit 3: Law and Justice in America

Unit Project: A Look at the Supreme Court

Interactive Notebook

 

Materials you will need

Book: The Supreme Court in American Life (in class set)

Spiral notebook: 150 pages

Colored pencils or markers

 

Directions

 

Following the reading assignment below, you will create an Interactive Notebook. Using your spiral, you will record the case information on the right side of your spiral in a 2-column brief style. This is your Input page.

 

On the left page, you will record your interactions with the information on the left side. These are reflections, illustrations, diagrams, etc. This is your Output page.

 

Begin with your Table of Contents. Record the Reading Information and the name of the team member responsible for briefing the team on that case. Your team must divide up the cases for each section and brief team members at the end of each section of reading. All team members then will write their own reflections on the right side of the page. The next page will give you some examples to follow. After briefings, you will rate the team member according to the scale attached. The group will decide on the rating and all members will record this information in the Table of Contents.

 
Reading List

Cases will be assigned from the in class text. You must complete the reading in class as the books may not be checked out. A few cases will be assigned as supplements to the book. These will be given to you in handouts.

Your completed Interactive Notebook will count as 4 major grades. You will use the notebook to organize and prepare for a Debate that will count as your unit test grade and will also count as 4 major grades.

Your group ratings will each count as one portfolio grade.

Table of Contents

      

Reading

Pages in Spiral (number only the right side)

Group member assigned

Rating assigned

Authors Introduction pp 11-13

  

All

N/A

Problem 1: Establishing the Court Custom and Law pp 15-16

  

All

N/A

I: An Inside view of Court Customs pp 16-18

  

All

N/A

II: The constitutional Framework pp 19-24

  

All

N/A

Problem 2: Court Procedure p 25

  

All

N/A

I: How The Federal Courts Are Organized

pp 26-27

      

II: How Cases Reach the Supreme Court pp 27-29

      

III: How To Read A Citation pp 29-30

      

IV: How To Read An Opinion pp 30-33

      

Problem 3: Judicial Review pp 34-35

  

All

N/A

MARBURY v. MADISON

      

FLETCHER v. PECK

      

DARTMOUTH COLLEGE v. WOODWARD

      

Problem 4: Strengthening Federal Power pp 42-44

  

All

N/A

McCULLOCH v. MARYLAND

      

GIBBONS v. OGDEN

      

Supplemental Problem: Native Americans: WORCESTER v. GEORGIA (1832)

      

Problem 5: The Slavery question pp 50-51

  

All

N/A

STRADER v. GRAHAM

      

DRED SCOTT v. SANDFORD

      

ABLEMAN v. BOOTH

      

Supplemental Problem: Secession: TEXAS v. WHITE (1869)

      

Problem 6: Regulating Business pp 57-58

  

All

N/A

MUNN v. ILLINOIW

      

THE WABASH CASE

      

THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT

      

THE SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT

      

UNITED STATES v. E.C. KNIGHT CO.

      

SWIFT AND CO. v. UNITED STATES

      

Problem 7: The Court and The Wage Earner pp 67-68

  

All

N/A

LOCHNER v. NEW YORK

      

MULLER v. OREGON

      

THE CHILD LABOR ACT OF 1916

      

HAMMER v. DAGENHART

      

FIVE YEARS LATER

      

THE CHLD LABOR ACT OF 1919

      

BAILEY v. DREXEL FURNITURE CO.

      

ADKINS v. CHILDRENS HOSPITAL

      

Problem 9: The Depression Crisis

pp 78-80

  

All

N/A

THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT

      

THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT

      

SCHECHTER POULTRY CORPORATION v. UNITED STATES

      

UNITED STATES v. BUTLER

      

Problem 9: The court Under Fire pp 87-89

  

All

N/A

THE JUDICIARY REFORM BILL

      

"WE MUST SAVE THE CONSTITUTION FROM THE COURT"

      

"WE ARE NOT THE JUDGES OF THE JUDGES"

      

WEST COAST HOTEL CO. v. PARRISH

      

NLRB v. JONES AND LAUGHLIN STEEL CORPORATION

      

UNITED STATES v. DARBY

      

Problem 10: Freedom of Speech pp 98-99

  

All

N/A

SCHENCK v. UNITED STATES

      

GITLOW v. NEW YORK

      

DENNIS v. UNITED STATES

      

Problem 11: The court and Loyalty Investigations

pp 109-111

  

All

N/A

AN ARGUMENT AGAINST CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS

      

PETERS v. HOBBY

      

WATKINS v. UNITED STATES

      

JOINT ANTI-FASCIST REFUGEE COMMITTEE v. McGRATH

      

Problem 12: the Right to a Fair Trial pp 120-121

  

All

N/A

CHAMBERS v. FLORIDA

      

MAPP v. OHIO

      

BETTS v. BRADY

      

GIDEON v. WAINWRIGHT

      

ESCOBEDO v. ILLINOIS

      

MIRANDA v. ARIZONA

      

SHEPPARD v. MAXWELL

      

Problem 13: Due Process of Law pp 132-133

  

All

N/A

IN RE OLIVER

      

GRIFFIN v. ILLINOIS

      

THOMPSON v. LOUISVILLE

      

IN RE GAULT

      

BOND v. FLOYD

      

Problem 14: Segregation and Desegregation 143-145

  

All

N/A

THE CIVIL RIGHTS CASES

      

PLESSY v. FERGUSON

      

BOWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOPEKA

      

COOPER v. AARON

      

THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964

      

GEORGIA v. RACHEL

      

NEWMAN v. PIGGIE PARK ENTERPRISES, INC

      

Problem 15; Freedom of Religion pp 156-157

  

All

N/A

ROGER WILLIAMS v. LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE

      

JEFFERSONS PROPOSED BILL

      

MADISON WARNS VIRGINIA

      

MINERSVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT v. GOBITS

      

WEST VIRGINIA BOARD OF EDUCATION v. BARNETTE

      

Problem 16: Separation of Church and State pp 164-165

  

All

N/A

EVERSON v. BOARD OF EDUCATION

      

McCOLLUM v. BOARD OF EDUCATION

      

ZORACH v. CLAUSON

      

ENGEL v. VITALE

      

ABINGTON SCHOOL DISTRICT v. SCHEMPP

      

 

EVALUATION OF GROUP MEMBER

The following scale should be used to evaluate each group members briefs to the group.

  1. not complete, absent without notice or sending work
  2. complete but lacks essential elements
  3. has all elements but provides little insight
  4. has all elements and provides insight and extension
  5. has all elements, provides insight and extension and is concise and organized
  6. exceptional

Note: Your group must arrive at consensus and all members must record the same rating.
Edit

SUPPLEMENTAL CASES Edit

Supplemental Problem: Native Americans

 

Cherokee Cases

Two cases make up the Cherokee rulings. These cases evolved out of the attempts by the state of Georgia to assert jurisdiction over the Cherokee lands within the state. These lands were protected by treaty. In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), Chief Justice Marshall held that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to hear a Cherokee request to enjoin stop the state of Georgia from interfering with their lands. For the purposes of Article III, he defined the Cherokees as a "domestic, dependent nation," not a sovereign nation.

Worcester v. Georgia (1832)

This case is interesting not only because the court changes their definition of the Cherokees, but also it shows the political balance of power between a powerful executive and the Supreme Court. A missionary (Worcester) brought the case against the state of Georgia. Mr. Worcester was convicted in Georgia of failure to have a required state license to live in Cherokee country. Marshall held that the Georgia law was void and emphasized that Indian nations were a distinct people, independent of the state where they resided.

The underlying facts are more revealing. This was during Andrew Jacksons presidency and the Cherokee lands in Georgia were just one example of the United States wanting to go back on their treaties with Native Americans. The truth was that the state of Georgia wanted the Cherokee lands and wanted the Cherokee out so they began to harass the people (like Worcester) on the lands. Jacksons policy toward Native Americans was very harsh and he was hoping that Marshall would provide him the means to remove the Native Americans. When Marshall ruled against the state of Georgia, he was also limiting the authority of Jackson to remove the Cherokee. But, in this instance, Marshall had met his match. Jackson refused to enforce the courts ruling and supported Georgia removing the Cherokee. In fact, he said, "If Mr. Marshall wants to stop me [from removing Cherokee] then he can come down here and stop me." The removal of the Cherokees proceeded. Many of them died on their way to relocation in what history has called "The Trail of Tears."

Supplemental Case: Secession

 

 

 

Texas v. White (1869)

 

Facts of the Case

In 1851, Congress authorized the transfer of $10 million worth of United States bonds to the state of Texas. The bonds were payable to the state or bearer and were to be redeemable in 1864. In 1862, during the war of rebellion, an insurgent Texas legislature authorized the use of the bonds to purchase war supplies. Four years later, the reconstruction government tried to reclaim the bonds.

 

Question Presented

Was Texas a state in the union eligible to seek redress in the Supreme Court? Could Texas constitutionally reclaim the bonds?

 

Conclusion

In a 5-to-3 decision, the Court held that Texas did indeed have the right to bring suit and that individuals such as White had no claim to the bonds in question. The Court held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas legislature--even if ratified by a majority of Texans--were "absolutely null." Even during the period of rebellion, however, the Court found that Texas continued to be a state.