Socratic Seminar Prep

For your Socratic Seminar on Thursday, you need to develop 10 questions, that are 'document' based to help guide the discussion of the following 'Big Question'

Does the Mass Media make us a more informed voter or more divided?

Use the 2 articles - Does the Mass Media Divide Us and Strange Bedfellows, along with the following clips

Clip #1: John Stewart on Crossfire

Clip #2: SNL Coverage of Bush/Gore Debate in 2000

You Asked, I Provide

You asked for it, I created it.
Below is a link to the class calendar for the next three weeks, due know things are subject to change (and likely will).

CLASS CALENDAR

Federalism on Trial

For Federalism we will be running a moot court looking at two of the first Federalism cases that went before the Supreme Court - Gibbons v Ogden and McCulloch v Maryland

For our Moot Court, you will take on the role of either a lawyer, interest group, or Supreme Court Justice. Details of the project are also listed below ...

Gibbons v. Ogden and McCulloch v. Maryland

A moot court is a role play of an appeals court or Supreme Court hearing. The court, composed of a panel of justices, is asked to rule on a lower court’s decision. No witnesses are called. Nor are the basic facts in a case disputed. Arguments are prepared and presented on a legal question (i.e. the constitutionality of a low or government action). Since moot courts are not concerned with the credibility of witnesses, they are an effective strategy for focusing attention on the underlying principles and concepts of justice. Please note: you will be graded for both your preparation and participation. Good luck!

Roles:

All students:

1. Visit the websites for the cases your are assigned (Justices are assigned both)
1. McCulloch v Maryland
1. http://www.streetlaw.org/en/landmark/cases/mcculloch_v_maryland
2. http://www.streetlaw.org/en/Page/372/Powers_of_the_Federal_Government
3. http://www.oyez.org/cases/1792-1850/1819/1819_0
2. Gibbons v Ogden
1. http://www.streetlaw.org/en/landmark/cases/gibbons_v_ogden
2. http://www.streetlaw.org/en/Page/399/Classifying_Arguments_in_the_Case
3. http://www.oyez.org/cases/1792-1850/1824/1824_0

2. Answer the following questions ...
1. What happened in this case?
2. Who are the people/organizations involved?
3. How did the lower court rule on this case?
4. Who is the petitioner and the respondent?
5. Identify the constitutional issue(s) involved in the case.
6. What are the arguments in favor of the petitioner (first person listed)? Against? (These may overlap )
7. What are the arguments in favor of the respondent (second person listed)? Against?

Justices:

1. After you have completed the above questions, read both the summary of the opinion and the excerpts from the opinion for both Gibbons and McCulloch:
1. Gibbons: http://www.streetlaw.org/en/landmark/cases/gibbons_v_ogden#Tab=Decision
2. McCulloch: http://www.streetlaw.org/en/landmark/cases/mcculloch_v_maryland#Tab=Decision
2. When you’ve read all of the material, you should write at least 5 questions to ask EACH side (petitioners and respondents) from EACH case that they need answered in order to reach a decision. This is important – how prepared you are can greatly affect the Moot Court. These questions are due at the beginning of class, on the day of the moot court.
3. Tips:
1. Prepare questions – not speeches – for both sides
2. Consider how a ruling in the case might affect other cases – ask hypotheticals
3. Remember that the lawyers mostly have the material you’ve seen – don’t ask about the ‘record below’ or about precedents not in the materials you’ve received.

Lawyers:

1. After you have completed the above questions together, read the syllabus (an excellent summary of the case) and opinions on the Cornell Law Website. Discuss the key aspects of the case, the related constitutional phrases, and choose the most convincing arguments to include in your arguments.
1. Gibbons: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/22/1
2. McCulloch: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/17/316
2. Writing your arguments (Due the day of the Moot Court)
1. Lawyer 1: Opens the arguments. Have a strong opening sentence or two. Right away, state your main point, with a clear and convincing argument. (One sentence: main point’ next two sentences: explanation of why your point is correct; next four to five sentences: precedents and how they connect to your main point) You want to have enough material to explain your arguments for 7 minutes.
2. Lawyer 2: Responds to the key arguments from the respondent. Begin by explaining that the Respondent is wrong. Then list your most convincing argument why this is true. Then explain it. Then, list another argument and explanation. You will be able to add to this section as the respondent lays out their argument to the Court. You want to have enough material to explain your arguments for 5 minutes.
3. Tips:
1. You first words: “Mr./Mrs. Chief Justice and may it please the Court. My name is ______ and I represent ______ in this case.”
2. Answer questions briefly and directly.
3. Try to help the Justices figure out a way to decide the case your way. Don’t fight them.

Interest Groups

1. After you have complete the above questions for the case you were assigned, you will begin to develop what are called amicus curiae – a brief for a certain side of a Supreme Court case written by a special interest group or party.
2. You need to decide what special interest group would want to be involved (are you for civil liberties like the ACLU or minority rights like the NCAAP or gun rights like the NRA) for the case you were assigned. You will then need to write amicus curiae brief to the Court, telling the Justices who you are, your connection to the case, and why the Justices should side with the side you want to win. See the Lawyer tips for things to consider in writing your brief.

Are you wondering what role you will be playing in our Moot Court, well find your class and name below ...

4th Period

Ogden Lawyers		Gibbons Lawyers		Supreme Court Justices
Sarah		Garrett		Myah
Rebekah		Kendyl		Jordan
Brett		Jared		Luis
Ogden Interest Groups		Gibbons Interest Groups		Natalie
Morgan		Mallory		Ryan
Lane		Cassidy
		Adam
McCulloch Lawyers		Maryland Lawyers
Preslie		Taylor
Rachel		Zach
David		Kylie
McCulloch Interest Groups		Maryland Interest Groups
Fernando		Dylan
Raquel		Jesus
Amber		Colton

6th Period

Ogden Lawyers		Gibbons Lawyers		Supreme Court Justices
Ali		Jasmin		Kathine
Pricila		Brandon		Madison
				Jorge
Ogden Interest Groups		Gibbons Interest Groups
Blake		Reagan
Jarett		Stephanie
McCulloch Lawyers		Maryland Lawyers
Nicholas		Victoria
Nicolas		Daniella
McCulloch Interest Groups		Maryland Interest Groups
Miranda		Pedro
Reygan		Timothy

8th Period

Ogden Lawyers		Gibbons Lawyers		Supreme Court Justices
Kenna		Madison		Hannah
Mon'tee		Alex		Hannah
Malachi		Vincent		Adrianna
Ogden Interest Groups		Gibbons Interest Groups		Ian
London		Joley		Jesus
Reagan		Kennedy
McCulloch Lawyers		Maryland Lawyers
Megan		Melanie
Argelis		Caleb
Erin		Kendell
McCulloch Interest Groups		Maryland Interest Groups
Victoria		Chadra
Brittany		JP
Bailey		Hunter