Salazar v. Buono
Resources
Supreme Court to begin hearings in Mojave Cross case on October 7
http://www.laughlintimes.com/articles/2009/10/01/news/local/news996.txt
Salazar v. Buono
http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Salazar_v._Buono
The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause
http://www.constitutionbee.org/user/StudentGuide.aspx?id=783
Discussion Questions
- What are the facts of the case in Salazar v. Buono?
The Mojave National Preserve is a 1.6 million acre federal park in Southeastern California. In 1934, the Veterans of Foreign Wars donated a wooden cross to be displayed in the Preserve as a memorial to fallen WWI soldiers. Decades later, a request to build a Buddhist shrine in the Preserve was denied. This denial prompted a former Preserve employee to file suit, arguing the cross and the rejection of the Buddhist shrine violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. While that case was pending, Congress transferred the acre on which the cross is situated to a private owner.
- What is the constitutional question before the Court?
Can the government avoid a First Amendment objection to a religious symbolson public property by transferring the land on which a symbol is located to a private owner?
- How do you think the Supreme Court should rule, and what are the Constitutional arguments supporting your thinking?
Accept reasoned answers.
McDonald v. Chicago
Resources
Justices Will Weigh Challenges to Gun Laws
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/us/01scotus.html?hp
Justices to Decide if State Gun Laws Violate Rights
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/30/AR2009093001723.html
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
http://www.constitutionbee.org/user/StudentGuide.aspx?id=961
Discussion Questions
- What is the constitutional question before the Court in McDonald v. Chicago?
Does the individual right to keep and bears arms for self-defense, recognized at the federal level by the Supreme Court in the case District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), also apply to state and local governments?
- Compare and contrast the facts and constitutional arguments in this case to those in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).
Chicago’s handgun ban is almost exactly the same as the handgun ban ruled unconstitutional in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). The cases are different in that the District of Columbia is a federal district, and the ruling applied to actions taken by the federal government. The McDonald suit involves a city’s gun ban. The McDonald ruling may lead to the incorporation (application to the states) of Second Amendment rights against state and local governments. The Court has previously held that most, but not all, rights in the Bill of Rights apply to state and local governments.
- How do you believe the Supreme Court should rule, and what are the Constitutional arguments supporting your thinking?
Accept reasoned answers.
Berghuis v. Smith
Resources
Court to settle dispute over all-white jury
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gsULCZP6b-IWpPT1wpHJJ0UfFbBQD9B1NM486
Supreme Court to rule whether blacks were systematically excluded from jury of man convicted of murder
http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2009/09/michigan_supreme_court_to_rule.html
Sixth Amendment Right to a Fair Trial by an Impartial Jury
http://www.constitutionbee.org/user/StudentGuide.aspx?id=800
Discussion Questions
- What are the facts and arguments in the case of Berghuis v. Smith?
In 1993, Diapolis Smith was charged with murder, tried, and convicted in a state court. Smith is black, and his jury was all white. Smith appealed his case in federal court, arguing that the court’s policy of granting jury service exemptions for child care, lack of transportation and work conflicts affected minorities at a higher rate. The jury pool included only 6% African Americans, though blacks made up 18% of the population of Grand Rapids. Though Michigan has since adopted new procedures to empanel juries, it argues that Smith’s trail was fair.
- What happened when Smith took his case to federal court?
The federal district court threw out Smith’s conviction. Michigan has taken the case to the Supreme Court, asking it to overturn the lower court’s ruling and reinstate Smith’s conviction.
- How do you believe the Supreme Court should rule, and what are the Constitutional arguments supporting your thinking?
Accept reasoned answers.
