Ch. 6 The Executive Branch #1

Do you agree or disagree that U.S. citizens should be able to re-elect a president as many times as they want? Explain.

Ch. 6 The Executive Branch #2

If the president ran the government single-handedly, it would be easier to get things done. Do you agree or disagree? Explain.

Ch. 6 The Executive Branch #3

The ages of our past presidents have varied widely. Guess the age of our youngest president, our oldest president and their names?

Ch. 6 The Executive Branch #4

Ambassadors and other diplomats to and for the United States may not be arrested in a foreign land. Among the reasons for the policy of diplomatic immunity is the desire for officially accredited diplomats to be able to perform their duties with complete independence. Also, diplomats are direct representatives of foreign countries and, as such, remain under the authority of their own governments.
Question: Should countries be able to arrest foreign ambassadors and other diplomats? What problems might arise if this were allowed?

Ch. 6 The Executive Branch #5

Why is preventing counterfeiting important for the U.S. economy?

Ch. 6 The Executive Branch #6

The Commerce Department tries to promote the development of cutting-edge industries in areas such as computers and medical science. How does the work of the Patent Office help encourage technological innovation in the private sector?

Ch. 6 The Executive Branch #7

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration maintains the U.S. fleet of space shuttles. Why do you think the space program has its own agency? Is this agency necessary? Explain.

Ch. 6 The Executive Branch #8

As you have learned, John Adams, the first U.S. vice president, called the office of the vice president "the most insignificant" ever invented. Do you think this statement holds true today? Explain.

Ch. 6 The Executive Branch #9

Why do you think only three specific requirements for president are listed in the Constitution? Why do you think those qualifications were listed?

Ch. 6 The Executive Branch #10

North Korea just tested a nuclear bomb last year. They have thus joined the nuclear club of seven other countries with nuclear capability. If you were President, how would you handle this situation? What steps would you take? How would you respond?

DESHANEY V. WINNEBAGO COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES (1989)

Four-year-old Joshua DeShaney lived with his father, who physically abused him, in Neenah, Wisconsin. At one point, the State Department of Social Services took custody of Joshua but returned him after three days. Later, Joshua was hospitalized with bruises all over his body and severe brain damage. He survived, but was permanently paralyzed and mentally disabled. His father was convicted of child abuse and sent to prison. Joshua's mother sued the Department of Social Services for returning him to his father. She argued that the department had a duty to protect her son under the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids the state from depriving "any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

[HOW DO YOU THINK THE SUPREME COURT RULED ON THIS CASE?] [DO YOU BELIEVE THE MOTHER HAS A VALID CASE? EXPLAIN]

GRUTTER V. BOLLINGER (2003)

In 1997, Barbara Grutter, a white Michigan resident, was denied admission to the University of Michigan Law School. Grutter, who had a 3.8 undergraduate grade point average and good standardized test scores, sued the university over the law school's affirmative action policy, which considered race as a factor in admissions. Michigan and many other universities use affirmative action to increase the number of minority students admitted. Grutter claimed that Michigan admitted less-qualified minority applicants in violation of federal civil rights laws and the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees citizens "equal protection" under the law.

[HOW DO YOU THINK THE SUPREME COURT RULED?] [WHAT IS YOUR OPINION ON AFFIRMATIVE ACTION?]

WEST SIDE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V. MERGENS (1990)

Bridget Mergens was a senior at Westside High School in Omaha, Nebraska. She asked her homeroom teacher, who was also the school's principal, for permission to start an after-school Christian club. Westside High already had about 30 clubs, including a chess club and a scuba-diving club. The principal denied Bridget's request, telling her that a religious club would be illegal in a public school.

The year before, in 1984, Congress had addressed this issue in the Equal Access Act, which required public schools to allow religious and political clubs if they let students form other kinds of student-interest clubs. When Bridget challenged the principal's decision, her lawsuit became the Supreme Court's test case for deciding whether the Equal Access Act was constitutional under what is known as the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

[HOW DO YOU THINK THE SUPREME COURT RULED ON THIS CASE?] [DO YOU AGREE WITH THE PRINCIPALS DECISION? EXPLAIN]

VERNONIA SCHOOL DISTRICT V. ACTION (1995)

James Acton, a 12-year-old seventh-grader at Washington Grade School in Vernonia, Oregon, wanted to try out for the football team. His school required all student athletes to take drug tests at the beginning of the season and on a random basis during the school year. James's parents refused to let him be tested because, they said, there was no evidence that he used drugs or alcohol. The school suspended James from sports for the season. He and his parents sued the school district, arguing that mandatory drug testing without suspicion of illegal activity constituted an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment.

[HOW DO YOU THINK THE SUPREME COURT RULED?] [DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH DRUG TESTING FOR HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETES? EXPLAIN]

HAZELWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT V. KUHLMEIER (1988)

Cathy Kuhlmeier, Leslie Smart, and Leanne Tippett, juniors at Hazelwood East High School in St. Louis, Missouri, helped write and edit the school paper, the Spectrum, as part of a journalism class. An issue of the paper was to include articles about the impact of divorce on students and teen pregnancy. The school's principal refused to publish the two stories, saying they were too sensitive for younger students and contained too many personal details. The girls went to court claiming their First Amendment right to freedom of expression had been violated.

[HOW DO YOU THINK THE SUPREME COURT RULED IN THIS CASE?] [DO YOU THINK THE ARTICLES SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED? EXPLAIN]

KENT V. UNITED STATES (1966)

Morris Kent, 16, who had been on probation since he was 14 for burglary and theft, was arrested and charged with three home burglaries, three robberies, and two counts of rape in Washington, D.C. Because of the seriousness of the charges and Morris's previous criminal history, the prosecutor moved to try Morris in adult court.

Morris's lawyer wanted the case to stay in juvenile court where the penalties were much less severe. He had planned to argue that Morris had a mental illness that should be taken into account when deciding where he would be tried. Without a hearing, the judge sided with the prosecutor and sent Morris to adult court, where he was found guilty and sentenced to 30 to 90 years in prison. Morris appealed, arguing that the case should have remained in juvenile court.

[HOW DO YOU THINK THE SUPREME COURT RULED IN THIS CASE?] [HOW WOULD YOU RULE ON THIS CASE?]

SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT V. JANE DOE (2000)

A TEXAS SCHOOL DISTRICT ALLOWED A STUDENT "CHAPLAIN," WHO HAD BEEN ELECTED BY FELLOW STUDENTS, TO LEAD A PRAYER OVER THE PUBLIC ADDRESS SYSTEM BEFORE HOME FOOTBALL GAMES. SEVERAL STUDENTS AND THEIR PARENTS ANONYMOUSLY SUED THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, CLAIMING A VIOLATION OF WHAT'S KNOWN AS THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT, WHICH STATES THAT "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF."

[HOW DO YOU THINK THE SUPREME COURT RULED ON THIS CASE?] [DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH SCHOOL PRAYER?]

INGRAHAM V. WRIGHT (1977)

JAMES INGRAHAM, A 14 YEAR OLD EIGHTH GRADER AT DREW JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL IN MIAMI, WAS TAKEN TO THE PRINCIPAL'S OFFICE AFTER A TEACHER ACCUSED HIM OF BEING ROWDY IN THE SCHOOL AUDITORIUM. THE PRINCIPAL DECIDED TO GIVE HIM FIVE SWATS WITH A PADDLE, BUT JAMES SAID THAT HE HADN'T DONE ANYTHING WRONG AND REFUSED TO BE PUNISHED. HE WAS SUBSEQUENTLY HELD DOWN WHILE THE PRINCIPAL GAVE HIM 20 SWATS. WHILE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT WAS PERMITTED IN THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, JAMES SUFFERED BRUISES THAT KEPT HIM OUT OF SCHOOL FOR 10 DAYS AND HE HAD TO SEEK MEDICAL ATTENTION. JAMES AND HIS MOTHER SUED THE PRINCIPAL AND OTHER SCHOOL OFFICIALS, CLAIMING THE PADDLING VIOLATED 8TH AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS AGAINST "CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS."

[HOW DO YOU THINK THE SUPREME COURT RULED ON THIS CASE?] [WHAT ARE YOUR OPINIONS ON CORPORAL PUNISHMENT AND WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE?]

NEW JERSEY V. T.L.O. (1985)

T.L.O.(TERRY), A 14 YEAR OLD FRESHMAN AT PISCATAWAY HIGH SCHOOL IN NEW JERSEY, WAS CAUGHT SMOKING IN A SCHOOL BATHROOM BY A TEACHER. THE PRINCIPAL QUESTIONED HER AND ASKED TO SEE HER PURSE. INSIDE WAS A PACK OF CIGARETTES, ROLLING PAPERS, AND A SMALL AMOUNT OF MARIJUANA. THE POLICE WERE CALLED AND TERRY ADMITTED SELLING DRUGS AT SCHOOL. HER CASE WENT TO TRIAL AND SHE WAS FOUND GUILTY OF POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA AND PLACED ON PROBATION. TERRY APPEALED HER CONVICTION, CLAIMING THAT THE SEARCH OF HER PURSE VIOLATED HER 4TH AMENDMENT PROTECTION AGAINST "UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURES."

[HOW DO YOU THINK THE SUPREME COURT RULED?] [WHAT IS YOUR OPINION ON THE CASE? EXPLAIN]

TINKER V. DES MOINES INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT (1969)

IN DECEMBER 1965, JOHN AND MARY BETH TINKER AND THEIR FRIEND CHRIS ECKHARDT WORE BLACK ARMBANDS TO SCHOOL IN DES MOINES, IOWA, TO PROTEST THE WAR IN VIETNAM. SCHOOL OFFICIALS TOLD THEM TO REMOVE THE ARMBANDS, AND WHEN THEY REFUSED, THEY WERE SUSPENDED. WITH THEIR PARENTS, THEY SUED THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, CLAIMING A VIOLATION OF THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

[HOW DO YOU THINK THE SUPREME COURT RULED IN THIS CASE] [HOW WOULD YOU RULE THIS CASE]