PROJECT SAVE

Constitutional Law Web Quest

Ms. Montano

The Frederick Douglass Academy

“American Political Thought”

INTRODUCTION

The use of the “N” word was recently banned by the New York City council. The action has not yet been contested in court and may largely be symbolic. But the ramifications are enormous. A long and hard constitutional fight seems to be brewing. It could lead to deep divisions in American society and stir up the specter of racism and hate. The use of the “N” word has recently been subject of talk shows, editorials and material for activists. There is no question that racism should be eradicated from American society. This is a necessity if our democracy is to survive. However, we are a nation of laws and our Constitution is steeped in the “Enlightenment”. The “First Amendment” clearly prohibits restrictions on free speech. So what are we to do?

To go a step further, jail terms have been extended due to language.

About 15 years ago, a black teenager in Wisconsin who attacked a white teenager was convicted not only of aggravated assault but also had several years added to his sentence because of the reference to the victim’s race before the attack. The attack was categorized as a hate crime and therefore the charges were escalated. According to state law, a hate crime could be categorized by the use of hate speech before or during the commission of a crime. Do you think this violates the First Amendment? The teenager in question did! The case would later go to the Supreme Court.

Just a couple of years before that case went to court, a group of white teenagers in St. Paul, Minnesota, burned a cross on the lawn of a black family. The teenagers were arrested under an ordinance that defining cross-burning, among other things, as acts which could be defined as disorderly conduct. The case would also go to the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs (the charged teenagers) claimed that the St. Paul ordinance violated their First Amendment rights.

Banning certain “hate” words from use, extending prison sentences for “hate crimes’ and preventing symbolic racism are only a few ways the legal community is attempting to eradicate racism. But, are these actions constitutional? Is there a constitutional foundation or legal precedent to accommodate these new laws? Is free speech, as stated in the first amendment, ABSOLUTE? These are critical questions all Americans have to face and you will search for solutions in this WEB QUEST. You have an opportunity to solve a major constitutional question right now!

Good luck!

TASK:

Step #1:

You will analyze the two cases mentioned above, R.A.V. v. St. Paul and Wisconsin v. Mitchell, using the CompuLegal website and you will compare them to the case of Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire to examine your position on hate speech/fighting words.

Step#2:

In your group, you will prepare a two-page position statement addressing the constitutionality of banning forms of speech and prepare a brief but persuasive oral presentation for the class.

Step#3:

In class, your group will make a five-minute presentation arguing your case. The position paper and the oral presentation must refer to all the cases as well as the First Amendment. Your arguments should use the Supreme Court case arguments, precedents and opinions to justify your position. Use of precedent cases is advised.

PROCESS:

Step #1:

You will be working in groups of 4 students. The groups will be assigned.

1. Using CompuLegal, you must access the “Facts of the Case” of R.A.V. v. St. Paul

2. Then you should read the “The Facts and the Issues Question: Instructions”.

3. After reading the instructions, fill in the “Facts and the Issues Question” page.

4. You may print this page.

5. Then click on the “reasoning” hyperlink at the bottom of that page.

6. Click on the various links and read the related Constitutional issues and law that may relate to the case.

7. Complete the boxes that require you to fill in your position on the case and the opposing position.

8. Print this page after you have completed it.

Step #2:

Access the information on Wisconsin v. Mitchell and follow the same steps listed above.

Step #3:

Now you are ready to write brief position papers on each case and the Supreme Court decisions as a group. Prepare these notes, taking into consideration the focus question of this web quest. You will use the notes from CompuLegal to create a precedent for your argument.

Step #4:

You will now access the Oyez website to compare the case mentioned above to the case of Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire to examine your position on the constitutionality of hate speech/fighting words.

1. Read about the overview of this case.

2. Read the written opinion of the case.

3. Write your position on the Supreme Court decision on this case.

Step #5:

Read the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights. This is the legal source for the constitutionality of the issue.

Step #6:

Your group is now ready to address the central question of this web quest. You should prepare a draft of your position paper by:

1. First taking a position on the question;

2. Then provide the evidence that supports that position;

3. Follow up your evidence with arguments from the cases that you investigated.

Once you have your rough draft ready, prepare your oral presentation using the draft information.

Step #7:

Finalize your position paper for the oral presentation. Each group will have 5 minutes to present their position. After all the presentations the class will follow up with a debate and discussion on the key question.

Be sure to access the web sites in the “RESOURCE” section of the web quest to help in your oral and written presentations. Please cite all web sites you have utilized.

RESOURCES:

CompuLegal

http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/plegal/scales/fos.html

Search Engines

https://www.google.com/

http://www.yahoo.com/

The Constitution

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution.html

The Supreme Court

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/

The Bill of Rights

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights.html

Constitutional Resources

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/constpap.htm

http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/constitution-day/ratification.html

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/constitution/ratifying.htm

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_history.html

Constitutional Law Resources

http://www.oyez.org

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/

http://www.lectlaw.com/tcon.htm

http://www2.lib.uchicago.edu/~llou/conlaw.html

EVALUTION:

Constitutional Law Oral Presentation

CATEGORY	4 EXCELLENT	3 VERY GOOD	2 SATISFACTORY	1 UNACCEPTABLE
Research	Group members researched the subject and integrated more than 3 cases from their research into their presentation.	Group members researched the subject and integrated 3 cases from their research into their presentation.	Group members researched the subject and integrated only 2 cases from their research into their newscast.	Either no research was done or it was not clear that the group used it in the presentation.
Accuracy of Facts and Clarity of Argument	All supportive facts are reported accurately. Argument for position is well-supported by precedence.	Almost all facts are reported accurately. Argument for position is supported by precedence.	Only a few facts are reported inaccurately. Argument for position does not use precedence.	Almost no facts are reported accurately. Argument for position is not supported by evidence.
Clarity of Speech	Presenter speaks clearly and distinctly all of the time and mispronounces no words.	Presenter speaks clearly and distinctly all of the time but mispronounces 1 or more words.	Presenter speaks clearly and distinctly most of the time and mispronounces no words.	Presenter does NOT speak clearly and distinctly most of the time AND/OR mispronounces more than 1 word.
Group Work	The group functioned exceptionally well. All members listened to, shared with and supported the efforts of others. The group (all members) was almost always on task!	The group functioned pretty well. Most members listened to, shared with and supported the efforts of others. The group (all members) was almost always on task!	The group functioned fairly well but was dominated by one or two members. The group (all members) was almost always on task!	Some members of the group were often off task AND/OR were overtly disrespectful to others in the group AND/OR were typically disregarded by other group members.
USE OF COMPU LEGAL	Uses CompuLegal extensively in oral presentation	Uses CompuLegal in many parts of the presentation	Uses CompuLegal but inaccurately and sporadically	Shows no use of the CompuLegal website

Grading

A = 18-20

B = 16-17

C = 14-15

D = 13

F = less than 13

CONCLUSION

Thank you for your participation in this web quest. Let’s hope you have solved a critical legal question facing America today, and, in fact, facing all democratic societies. You have also learned, first hand, the complex work of a constitutional lawyer. This highly trained professional, uses the law to solve social problems and to set standards of an entire society.

The rule of law is the foundation for all democracies, as you has studied in “American Political Thought”. The Founding Fathers knew this well. They fought seven years against an English monarchy to preserve individual rights, or as Locke stated, “Natural rights”. However, individual rights are never clear and simple when they are confronted by racism and hate. As you have seen, a balance must be struck to preserve the American democratic heritage but also guarantee “equality under the law” for all citizens. Let’s hope you made a difference in this web quest and will continue to do so in the future.