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)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=367&page=488
See "What
is the Judicial Branch?" ABA Teaching unit
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/lawday/schools/lessons/46_judicial.html
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)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=5&page=137
See Marbury v. Madison,
The Supreme Court's First Great Case ABA
Lesson Plan
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/lawday/marbury.pdf
OR http://www.abanet.org/publiced/lawday/guidemain.html
(then click on "Special Supplement - 200th Anniversary of Marbury
v.
Madison")
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)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=5&page=137
See Marbury v. Madison,
The Supreme Court's First Great Case ABA
Lesson Plan
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/lawday/marbury.pdf
OR http://www.abanet.org/publiced/lawday/guidemain.html
(then click on "Special Supplement - 200th Anniversary of Marbury
v.
Madison")
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)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=01-521
See "Bill
of Rights in Action" Constitutional Rights Foundation
Teaching unit 1 http://www.crf-usa.org/bria/bria14_2.html#consent
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)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=01-521
See "Bill
of Rights in Action" Constitutional Rights Foundation Teaching
unit 1
http://www.crf-usa.org/bria/bria14_2.html#consent
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)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=449&invol=200
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")
http://www.crf-usa.org/bria/bria14_2.html#consent
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)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/491/397.html
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")
http://www.crf-usa.org/bria/bria14_2.html#consent
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)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/491/397.html
See "Bill
of Rights in Action" Constitutional Rights Foundation teaching
unit 1
(See particularly the section titled "Politics and the Judiciary")
http://www.crf-usa.org/bria/bria14_2.html#consent
See Marbury v. Madison, The Supreme Court's First Great Case ABA
Lesson Plan
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/lawday/marbury.pdf
OR http://www.abanet.org/publiced/lawday/guidemain.html
(then click on "Special Supplement - 200th Anniversary of Marbury
v.
Madison")
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)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=409&page=824
See "Bill
of Rights in Action" Constitutional Rights Foundation
Teaching unit http://www.crf-usa.org/bria/bria14_2.html#consent
print this page
