Should Questions:

1.) Suppose that the Michigan legislature has passed a law requiring state employees to declare a belief in the existence of God as a qualification for holding a state job. Further suppose that a secular humanist has been denied a state job in Michigan due to his refusal to declare a belief in God. Suppose also that the man filed a law suit which reached the highest court in Michigan, and that the Michigan Supreme Court held the Michigan law to be valid and enforceable.

Should a secular humanist, that has been denied a state job due to a refusal to declare a belief in the existence of God, appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States if the Supreme Court of Michigan has denied him relief?

See Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)

See What is the Judicial Branch? ABA Teaching Unit

2.) Suppose that our elected officials in the United States Congress, in order to help authorities manage prison security, passed a law stating that federal prisoners cannot have visiting time with former inmates. Further suppose that a group of inmates filed suit claiming the restrictions infringe on their First Amendment right of association and violate the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

Should appointed judges in the federal courts be able to overrule an act of Congress on constitutional grounds?

See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

See Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court's First Great Case ABA Lesson Plan

3.) Suppose that the United States Congress wants to be the branch of government to decide whether an existing law is constitutional.

Should Congress have the power of judicial review?

See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

4.) Suppose the state of Michigan currently use elections to select judges for the circuit courts, Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.

Should Michigan switch to a judicial selection process based on merit?

See Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 122 S. Ct. 2528 (2002) (See particularly Part IV of Justice Scalia's majority opinion and the concurring opinion of Justice O'Connor)

See Bill of Rights in Action Constitutional Rights Foundation Teaching Unit 1

5.) Suppose the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct contains a clause that states that a candidate for a judicial office should not make pledges or promises of conduct in office other than the faithful and impartial performance of the duties of the office. Further suppose that a judicial candidate violates this law by publicly promising to give criminals the harshest sentences possible and to never reverse a rape or murder conviction.

Should the law prohibiting judicial campaign pledges and promises be upheld as constitutional?

See Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 122 S. Ct. 2528 (2002) See particularly Part IV of Justice Scalia's majority opinion and the concurring opinion of Justice O'Connor

See Bill of Rights in Action Constitutional Rights Foundation Teaching Unit 1

6.) Suppose that a U.S. District Judge has ruled that a Michigan school district has violated a student's free speech right by suspending him for posting death threats against other students on the internet. Suppose also that parents and taxpayers in that district are upset that the school district that acted promptly to prevent a potential incident like the tragedy at Columbine High must now pay $75,000 to the suspended student.

Should upset taxpayers write to congressmen asking that a federal judge's salary be reduced because that judge has financially burdened their school district with his court ruling?

See United States v. Will, 449 U.S. 200 (1980)

See Bill of Rights in Action Constitutional Rights Foundation Teaching Unit 1 (See particularly the sections titled "The Third Branch of Government" and "Politics and the Judiciary")

7.) Suppose that some military veteran members of Congress are upset that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that a Texas law prohibiting the burning the American flag with intent to offend others is inconsistent with the First Amendment freedom of speech clause. Further suppose that these congressmen are concerned that a case involving an Iowa law that makes it illegal to publicly mutilate, deface or cast contempt upon the U.S. Flag may soon make its way to the Supreme Court.

Should members of Congress attempt to prevent the Supreme Court from invalidating additional flag desecration laws by introducing a law that takes away the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to review flag desecration cases?

See Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)

See Bill of Rights in Action Constitutional Rights Foundation Teaching Unit 1 (See particularly the sections titled "The Third Branch of Government" and "Politics and the Judiciary")

8.) Suppose the President is upset that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that burning the American Flag, if performed as a political statement, is an act protected by the First Amendment. Suppose also that the President is concerned that a new case involving flag mutilation may soon make its way to the Supreme Court. Further suppose there are no available openings on the Supreme Court bench for the President to be able to appoint new justices.

Should the President propose to increase the number of Supreme Court justices so that he can appoint new justices that share his views on flag desecration laws?

See Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)

See Bill of Rights in Action Constitutional Rights Foundation teaching Unit 1 (See particularly the section titled "Politics and the Judiciary")

See Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court's First Great Case ABA Lesson Plan

9.) Suppose that a Michigan Supreme Court Justice, prior to coming to the court, wrote a book in which he expressed the opinion that giving racial preferences to minorities for university admissions would help attain diversity and a better academic environment, and that he has spoken in favor of affirmative action on many occasions.

Should a Justice with an established record in favor of affirmative action disqualify himself from participating in a Michigan Supreme Court decision regarding the use of racial preferences in university admissions?

See Laird v. Tatum, 409 U.S. 824 (1972)(memorandum opinion)

See Bill of Rights in Action Constitutional Rights Foundation