The House of Representatives
Number of Representatives from each state: Length of term:

Required qualifications:

(1)

(2)

(3)

Title of Presiding Officer:

Sole Powers of the House of Representatives:

(1)

(2)

Utah's Representatives and their political affiliation:
1st District
2nd District
3rd District

Senate
Number of Senators from each state: Length of term:

Required qualifications:

(1)

(2)

(3)

Title of Presiding Officer:

Sole Powers of the Senate:

Utah's Senators and their political affiliation:
THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH:
THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS cont’d.

The Constitution has been amended several times in ways that affect the Legislative Branch. For each amendment, explain how it changed the original text regarding the Congress and give historical background/reasoning when you can.

XVII

XX

XXVII

BONUS POINTS Identify the individuals and their home state for each of the following positions in the House of Representatives and Senate

Speaker of the House:

House Majority Leader:

House Minority Leader:

President of the Senate:

President Pro Tempore:

Senate Majority Leader:

Senate Minority Leader:
 POWERS OF CONGRESS AND THE STATES
in class
Use the text of the Constitution (Article I Section 8) to identify the powers for each section.

POWERS SPECIFICALLY GIVEN TO CONGRESS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
POWERS SPECIFICALLY DENIED TO CONGRESS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
POWERS SPECIFICALLY DENIED TO THE STATES:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
POWERS SPECIFICALLY DENIED TO THE STATES UNLESS THEY ARE GIVEN CONGRESSIONAL CONSENT:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
 How a Bill Becomes a Law
homework

Suppose that your community has elected someone to Congress who has a plan to help public schools. Now, to become a law, that proposal must go through a series of steps in a long process, which could take from several months to more than a year. The flowchart on the other sheet shows some of the main steps in this process. Most legislative proposals, or "bills," can be introduced in either the House of Representatives or the Senate. Often, similar bills are introduced in both houses at the same time. Both houses of Congress must approve identical forms of a bill before it can become law.

The House of Representatives
Imagine that your Representative is introducing a bill in the House. Refer to the flowchart to complete the exercise below.
1. Here are six steps that the bill must go through in the House of Representatives. The steps are all mixed up. Number them in correct order, from 1 to 6.

_____ Subcommittee holds hearings

_____ Rules Committee makes rules for debate

_____ Full House debates and votes on the bill

_____ Representative introduces the bill

_____ The bill is assigned to a Committee

_____ The Full Committee "reports the bill out"

The Senate
When the bill passes the House, it then must go to the Senate. The Senate may consider that bill or a similar one introduced by its own members. Compare the steps the bill goes through in the Senate with those in the House. Answer the questions below.
2. Which steps are unlike in both the House and the Senate?

3. How is the process in the Senate different from that in the House?

Conference Committee and the President
Study the rest of the steps in the flowchart and answer the following.
4. After the House and Senate approve different versions of a bill, what three steps take place before the bill can go to the President?

5. What happens to the bill if the President signs it?

6. A bill can pass either house of Congress with a simple majority, yet the Constitution requires that at least two-thirds vote of both houses is necessary to override the President's veto. Why do you think this is so?  How a Bill Becomes a Law cont’d.
Flowchart
 THE BIG SWITCH
homework

This 1889 cartoon echoed widespread criticism that the U.S. Senate was filled with rich men representing giant industries. Such criticism set the stage for "the big switch." Article I, Section 3, paragraph 1 of the U.S. Constitution originally stated:
"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each Stat, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote."
That is not the way U.S. Senators are chosen now. The election of U.S. Senators by state legislatures was bitterly criticized by much of the press during the final decades of the 19th century. It was said that wealthy men could often "buy" Senate seats by financing pet projects in their home states or by making large donations to the election campaigns of state legislators. A number of reformers argued that the Constitution should be changed to permit the direct election of Senators by the voters of the states. However, it took a major scandal to change the rules. William Lorimer of Illinois was elected to the U.S. Senate by his state's legislature. Almost immediately, serious charges were made that Lorimer had bribed enough legislators to win the election. Despite the charges, the Senate voted 46-40 to seat Lorimer. A year later, a committee of the Illinois legislature turned up hard evidence against Lorimer. Progressive Republican Senator Robert M. LaFollette of Wisconsin persuaded the Senate to reconsider its approval of Lorimer. It did. Lorimer was unseated by a 55-28 vote in 1912. This hastened the ratification in 1913 of Amendment XVII, which took away the election of Senators from the state legislatures and gave it to the people.

1. In the original Constitution, was the Senate considered to be primarily representative of the people or the states?

2. What five words did Amendment XVII, section 1 take away from the original Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution?

3. Were the press and the public completely happy with the selection of Senators before the scandal?

4. Do you think "the big switch" was a good action? Explain. A DIFFERENT VIEW OF CONGRESS
Reading a Political Cartoon
homework

Political cartoons are as old as Congress. They usually appear on the editorial pages of newspapers and magazines. They are not meant to state facts. They express opinions that are not always fair. Examine the following cartoons and answer the questions that follow.

1. What two buildings are pictured in this picture? Whom do the buildings represent?

2. Many words are coming out of the building on the left. What is the message?

3. This cartoon is about how: (A) Congress and the President often disagree about how much money to spend; (B) Congress and the Supreme Court don't listen to each other; (C) Congress must say something twenty-six times to be heard. Explain your choice of answer.

4. How does this cartoonist feel about the Legislative Branch? The Executive Branch?A DIFFERENT VIEW OF CONGRESS
Reading a Political Cartoon, cont'd.
1. This recent cartoon uses two pictures. almost all of the same words and symbols appear in both. They work together to form a message. In the top picture, Congress looks like he is ready to do what? What is he using to perform that action?

2. In the bottom picture, Congress has fooled us. Why did Congress not do what you expect him to?

3. What is this cartoonist's view of Congress? MOVERS AND SHAKERS
Representatives and Senators Who Have Influenced Congress
homework
Back in 1867, Representative Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania declared that the U.S. has "a Government of the people, and Congress is the people." From the 1st Congress to today, this legislative body has been constantly evolving to reflect the moods of the times and to better represent the people. More than 11,000 men and women have served in Congress. Many have played a major role in moving and shaping Congress. You don't have to know about every one, but here are a few you ought to be familiar with:
John Randolph, VA 1773-1833
"I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I hate equality." John Randolph saw no conflict in calling himself an "aristocrat" and at the same time being an outspoken champion of representative democracy and individual liberty. He felt that an educated elite could best represent the interests of the people. Serving in the House of Representatives during most of the period form 1799 to 1829, Randolph opposed the annexation of Florida, the War of 1812, and protective tariffs. He defended states' rights. Though he freed his own slaves, Randolph supported slavery and opposed the Missouri Compromise.
Henry Clay, KY 1777-1852
During several terms as Speaker of the House (1810-14, 1815-21, and 1823-25), Henry Clay supported Western expansion, Federal aid for roads, canals, and other local improvements, and tariff protection of American industry. He was a backer of the War of 1812. In 1821, he led the Missouri Compromise which balanced regional interests. Clay was accused of swaying the Presidential election in 1824 toward John Quincy Adams as part of the "Corrupt Bargain." He was elected to the Senate in 1831, and there he made his reputation as the "great compromiser." During the summer of 1850, a debate raged in Congress over the issue of admitting California to the Union as a free state, thus alienating the slave states. Clay helped to break the deadlock by a compromise that admitted California but made concessions to the South.
Daniel Webster, MA 1782-1852
Throughout his public life as Representative, Secretary of State, and Senator, Daniel Webster often put national interest before personal or regional interests. During the great debate of 1850, Webster -- a strong opponent of slavery -- backed Clay's compromise. He said, "I speak today not as a Massachusetts man, nor as a Northern man, but as an American." Thanks to his support, the compromise passed. Since many Northern anti-slavery were bitterly opposed to it, Webster lost friends. But the Union was saved.
Hiram R. Revels, MS 1822-1901
A noted educator and religious leader, Hiram Revels was elected in 1870 by the Mississippi state legislature to fill and unexpired U.S. Senate term. As the first black member of Congress, Revels called for desegregation of the schools and railroads. Concerned with healing the scars left by the Civil War, he supported legislation to restore the vote to former officials and soldiers of the Confederacy.
Thomas B. Reed, ME 1839-1902
As Speaker of the House from 1889 to 1891, and from 1895 to 1899, Tom Reed pushed through a number of procedural changes, "Reed's Rules," to streamline the working of the House. Since Reed was a vigorous Republican party leader, he was charged with using dictatorial rule-making powers to ensure majority control of the House. However, many Democrats accepted Reed's Rules. They realized that their turn to be in the majority would come someday, and, in the meantime, the House functioned more efficiently.
Jeannette Rankin, MT 1880-1973
On April 2, 1917, the opening day of the 65th Congress, the chamber of the House of Representatives echoed with cheers and applause as one member was sworn in. What was so special? Jeannette Rankin, a Republican Representative from Montana, was a member of Congress. She had long been active in the campaign to gain suffrage (the right to vote) for women in all states. Her election was seen as a giant step in that direction. Suffrage for women throughout the U.S. was secured on August 26, 1920 with ratification of Amendment XIX.
Sam Rayburn, TX 1882-1961
First elected to the House of Representatives in 1912, Sam Rayburn of Texas was reelected 25 times. He helped draw up Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal program and was often called "Mr. Democrat." He became Speaker of the House in 1940 and held that position for 17 years. He was respected in Congress for his common sense, honesty, and patriotism.
Robert A. Taft, OH 1889-1953
Affectionately known as "Mr. Republican," Robert Alphonso Taft was a champion of traditional conservatism in the U.S. Senate from 1939 to 1953. During the Franklin Roosevelt and Truman administrations, he denounced the "socialist trends" of the New Deal and Fair Deal programs. Because he opposed several policies that he felt would entangle the U.S. in foreign affairs, he was often at odds with the "internationalist" branch of his own party.

1. John Randolph and Henry Clay were in the House of Representatives around the same time. Based on their views of the issues, do you think they were usually allies or opponents? Explain.

2. Why did Daniel Webster support the Compromise of 1850? Did most other Northern anti-slavery Senators agree with him?

3. Was the method of entering the U.S. Senate the same in Hiram Revels' time as it is today? Explain.

4. Ratification of Amendment XIX giving women throughout the U.S. the right to vote was completed on August 26, 1920. Could any American women vote or be elected to public office before that date? (This will require some digging in your history text.)

5. Some critics call Speaker of the House Reed, "Czar Reed." Why?

6. During his time in Congress, Robert A. Taft was known as "Mr. Republican." Who was his counterpart, "Mr. Democrat"? Were they in the same house of Congress?

 THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH:
THE UNITED STATES PRESIDENCY
in class

1. Give the three constitutional requirements for any person who wants to be President:

a)

b)

c)

2. Answer the following questions about the President's term in office:

a) How long is the term that a president is elected to serve?

b) How many times can a person run for the office of President if he wins every time he runs?

c) What is the maximum number of years that an individual could serve as President? (Under current guidelines, THINK about this one and do some math.)

3. Answer the following questions about electing the President:
a) When are national elections held?

b) Who elects the President? Explain, the difference between electoral and popular votes.

c) What is the formula for deciding how many electoral votes each state will receive?

4. What Constitutional guides are there about paying the President?

How much is his yearly salary today?

5. What must the President do (after being elected) before he can take office? (Give specific details and quote from the Constitution.)

6. Under what circumstances and following what procedures can the President temporarily be relieved of his duties and responsibilities against his will?

7. For what reasons may the President be permanently removed from office against his will?

 THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH cont’d.

8. Detail the procedures and areas of authority in the impeach and remove process:

9. List the powers and duties of the President as found in Article II Section 2 of the Constitution:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.
7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

10. The Constitution has been amended five times in ways which affected the executive branch of the U.S. Government. Explain how the Presidency was affected by each amendment.

XVII

XX

XXII

XXIII

XXV
 GREAT DEBATES
WHO HAS THE POWER TO DECLARE WAR?
homework

The United States Constitution clearly grants Congress the authority to declare war and the President the power to conduct war. Article I, Section 8 declared that "The Congress shall have Power...to declare War..." Article II, Section 2, provides that "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States...."

In recent years, the President's constitutional power to wage war has increasingly conflicted with Congress's prerogative to declare war. Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon aroused legislators' concern by sending American troops to fight in the Vietnamese civil war without seeking a declaration of war from Congress. Johnson claimed that the 1964 Tonkin Gulf Resolution, in which Congress authorized him to "take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression," gave him the power to wage war in Vietnam.

Provoked by what it perceived as Presidential coercive tactics that had embroiled the nation in an unpopular war, Congress passed the War Powers Act in 1973. The act requires that the President notify Congress within forty-eight hours of deploying troops in an area where "imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated." It further requires that troops be withdrawn after sixty or, in special circumstances, ninety days if Congress does not authorize the military operation to continue. President Nixon and all of his successors have, in turn, denounced the act as unconstitutional.

The international crisis precipitated by Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 revived the debate over war powers. As President George Bush sent half a million Americans to Saudi Arabia to force Iraq out of Kuwait, Congress demanded a role in the nation's move toward war. The following readings debate both sides of this issue.

In an article that appeared in the New York Times in October 1990, political columnist Anthony Lewis argued that the President and Congress should share the responsibility for making war. Caspar W. Weinberger, former Secretary of Defense under Ronald Reagan, denounced the War Powers Act in a 1990 article in Forbes. Read both views and answer the questions that follow.Congress should share the responsibility of a decision as grave as this one.
---Anthony LewisGREAT DEBATES cont'd.

Around Dec. 1... the United States will have in place in Saudi Arabia the military forces and equipment that the Pentagon believes would be required for an attack on Iraq. By then also, if Saddam Hussein has not withdrawn from Kuwait, there will be pressure to act militarily before political support for President Bush's policy frays.
War is on the horizon. Sensing that possibility, senators of both parties told Secretary of State Baker last week that Congress should be asked first to declare war. Mr. Baker refused to give that assurance.
Before this country goes through another traumatic conflict about the war-making power, the President and Secretary Baker should think more carefully about their real interest. For it lies, in this instance, in shared responsibility for any military action: shared with Congress and with the Untied Nations Security Council....
To act militarily now without Security Council authorization would be dubious legally. Prof. Abram Chayes of the Harvard Law School argues in a paper on the issue that the U.S. has taken the matter to the Council and since the Council has acted, is committed to that forum by the UN Charter.
In any event, practical considerations strongly argue for seeking Security Council approval for military action. It would be folly to act without the approval of those who have joined us in the UN effort. The first consequence, Professor Chayes notes, "would be to shatter the international consensus that has so far given legitimacy and strength to the enterprise."
If the United States does act through the Security Council, President Bush should still go to Congress. The reasons for saying that are found in history and politics. In 1950 President Truman acted through the UN Security Council to resist the North Korean invasion of South Korea. He did not ask Congress for a declaration of war, or even an approving resolution....
Political disaster resulted. Members of Congress, sharing no responsibility, were free to attack the war as unauthorized when it went badly. They called it "Truman's war." The political instinct, if nothing more, should make George Bush beware of repeating that history.
Secretary Baker said a commitment to go to Congress first might deprive the President of the ability to act quickly. But the need for UN support already makes a surprise American attack unwise....
If Saddam Hussein takes some provocative action...there would truly be no difficulty going to Congress. President Bush would be in the same position as Franklin Roosevelt after Pearl Harbor....
The more likely prospect is that Saddam Hussein will avoid provocations. Then, if President Bush decides that military action is unavoidable, by going to Congress he would effectively serve an ultimatum on Saddam Hussein.
The strategy of the American deployment in the gulf has been, from the beginning, to persuade Saddam Hussein that he faces a real possibility of war--and destruction--if he does not pull out of Kuwait. A Congressional declaration-ultimatum would be an effective persuader.
Moreover, Congress should share the responsibility of a decision as grave as this one. A war in the gulf would not be Grenada. But the cost of failing to undo Iraq's aggression would also be high, in the devastation of Kuwait and the precedent for other aggressor.
Suppose Congress was asked to declare war and said no? The answer is that risk is the price of living under our constitutional system -- and the benefit...
 GREAT DEBATES cont'd.

Few people realize that, when President Bush sent our troops to Saudi Arabia the first week in August, the War Powers Resolution permits Congress to force the return of the troops by the first week of October or, at the latest, November, no matter what the military situation is then....
This is the kind of law that could be passed only by people totally ignorant of the realities of military action ... prompt and unambiguous action is impossible for a nation ruled by two governments: one in the White House and one on Capitol Hill.
--Caspar W. Weinberger When President Bush sent Congress the formal notice that he had dispatched troops to Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf area, he followed President Reagan's precedent in dealing with the problems caused by the War Powers Resolution [Act]. President Bush notified Congress but said he did not think an involvement in hostilities was imminent and that therefore the War Powers Resolution did not apply. But Congress may not agree.
In 1987 Congress was in full cry against President Reagan's decision to respond to Kuwait's request that we convoy its oil tankers through the Persian Gulf in the face of Iranian threats to sink the tankers. The President sent naval forces to the Gulf, telling Congress he had done so but that he did not believe hostilities to be imminent. If the President had not done this, the military deployment would have had to end in 60 days.
Perhaps the more onerous requirement of the law is that any troop deployments ordered by the President must end in the given time unless both houses of Congress act to authorize the troop activity. Thus, even if Congress is in recess or only one house approves, the troops must come home no matter how threatened they may be.
This is the kind of law that could be passed only be people totally ignorant of the realities of military action. Breaking off military operations on a previously announced timetable is an invitation for disaster. No one had any idea what the situation will be in 30 or 90 days. But if an enemy knows that, in the first week of November, we must disengage and start home ... we will simply be telling the enemy when and how to attack our troops.
In the 1987 incident, the Senate became embroiled in a debate so ensnarled with parliamentary thickets over the question of whether to force withdrawal of our fleet that one Senator declared, "In the final analysis, I don't know what we are doing." The Senate was unable to decide anything, and our forces went on to win all our objectives....
So until the War Powers Resolution, weakened and derided as it is, is repealed or held unconstitutional, it remains a living hope for all our enemies that American forces, sent into action by the President, and even in combat, could be forced to disengage by a given day.
Unfortunately, the Resolution is highly regarded by those in Congress who feel that they and not the President should control our foreign policy. If this law forced a dangerous disengagement of our forces the first week in November, that would demonstrate the impotence of the American presidency as nothing else could....
The framers of our Constitution wanted the President to be free to act, and to be accountable for his actions to the people -- including their representatives in Congress. But accountability is not subservience. It should be plain that prompt and unambiguous action is impossible for a nation ruled by two governments: one in the White House and one on Capitol Hill. If we are to maintain a clear and considered defense of our interests abroad, it is imperative that we speak to allies and adversaries with a single voice.GREAT DEBATES cont'd.

1. How does the constitutional power of Congress to declare war conflict with the power of the President to wage war?

2. According to Lewis, what aspect of America's constitutional democracy is both a risk and a benefit?

3. Why is the ninety-day withdrawal deadline of the War Powers Act "an invitation to disaster," according to Weinberger?

4. In Weinberger's view, how does the War Powers Act weaken the United States?

5. In Lewis's opinion, why should the President ask for congressional approval before sending American troops to war?

6. President Bush asked Congress to authorize him to use armed force against Iraq, and Congress did so on January 12, 1991. What does this suggest about criticisms of the War Powers Act?

7. How can a declaration of war improve the chance of maintaining peace?
 PRESIDENTIAL POWER IN POETRY
homework
President Theodore Roosevelt dramatically increased the power of the American Presidency. he took an active role in both domestic and foreign affairs -- as a reformer at home and as a champion of American interests abroad. In his important 1904 "corollary" to the Monroe Doctrine, Roosevelt declared that the United States had the right to intervene in Latin America to impose order and to "exercise our international police power." Not surprisingly, many Latin Americans were angered by what they saw as Roosevelt's arrogant use of power. As you read this poem, not the images to which Nicaraguan poet and diplomat Ruben Dario compares Roosevelt and the United States.
1904
Hunter, the only way to approach you
is with a voice like that of the Bible, or poems like
those of Walt Whitman.
Archaic and modern, simple and involved,
with something of Washington, and more of Nimrod.
In fact you are the United States,
you are the future invader
of the native American that still has native blood,
that still prays to Jesus Christ, and still speaks
Spanish.
You are a magnificent and powerful example of your
race:
you are cultivated; you are efficient; you disagree
Dominating horses or murdering tigers,
with Tolstoy.
you are an Alexander-Nebuchadnezzar.
(You are a professor of energy,
as the sports would say today.)
You believe that to live is to burn,
that progress is explosion,
that where you place the rifle slug
you place the future.
No.
The United States is powerful and great.
When the States shiver a deep shudder
Moves down the enormous vertebrate of the Andes.
If you shout, we hear it like a lion's roar.
Hugo once said to Grant: "You own the stars."
(Hardly visible, the Argentine sun is just rising,
and the star of Chile ascending...) You are rich.
You mingle the religion of Hercules with the religion
of Mammon;
lighting up the road of easy domination of others,
Liberty raises her torch in New York.PRESIDENTIAL POWER IN POETRY cont’d.

But in the America we have, which has produced
poets
since the ancient days of Netzahualocoyotl,
which has kept the footprints of the great Bacchus,
which even knew at one time the words of Pan,
which used to speak with the stars, which had
legends of Atlantis,
whose name arrives to us, resonating, in Plato,
which since the most distant beginnings of its life,
lives out of light, out of fire, out of perfume, out of
love,
America of the great Montezuma, of the Inca,
the odorous America of Christopher Columbus,
Catholic America, Spanish America,
America in which the aristocratic Guatemoc said:
"I do not find myself in a bed of roses"; that America
which is shaken by hurricanes and brought alive by
love:
Men with Anglo-Saxon eyes and barbaric souls: that
America is alive,
And it sleeps, and loves, and moves, and is the
daughter of the Sun.
Be careful. Spanish America is alive!
The Spanish lion has wild cubs around.
Roosevelt, in order to take us in your iron claws
you would have to have been sent by God himself
as the terrifying Rifleman and the mighty Hunter,
It's all arranged, just one thing is missing: God!

1. What does Dario mean when he says that Roosevelt believes, "that where you place the rifle slug / you place the future"?

2. What does Dario's poem reveal about the power of Roosevelt and the American Presidency?

3. In what sense is the end of Dario's poem both a warning to and a criticism of Roosevelt?

 THE JUDICIAL BRANCH
in class

1. How is a Supreme Court Justice appointed?

2. What are the qualifications required by the Constitution to be a Justice on the Supreme Court?

3. What is the term of office for a member of the federal judiciary?

4. How many Justices are on the Supreme Court? Has this always been the case?

5. How can a Supreme Court Justice (or any federal judge) be removed from office?

6. What is the title of the leading Supreme Court Justice? What is his/her name?

7. What is jurisdiction? Over what kinds of cases do the federal courts have jurisdiction?

8. What is original jurisdiction? Give an example?

9. What is appellate jurisdiction? Give an example?

10. What are the two types of cases heard in any court? What is the difference in burden of proof?

BONUS POINTS: Name the current Supreme Court justices. How Cases Travel Through America’s Judicial System
homework

In both the federal and state court systems, people have the right to appeal, or ask a higher court to review the way their case was handled. If the next court decides that a lower court made a serious error, it can overturn that court’s decision. The flowchart shows how cases in both systems travel from lower to higher courts.

SEE PAGE MAKER FILE “COURT CHART” FOR THIS PAGE.
 THE CONTROVERSIAL FACE OF JUSTICE
homework
Americans accept the authority of the Supreme Court – but they don’t always agree with it! Here’s a profile of eight big decisions in the 19th and 20th centuries. Read each case then rate the Court’s decision. Write your rating and the reason for it on the lines provided. TERRIBLE! -4 -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 +4 TERRIFIC!
Marbury v. Madison
In 1801, William Marbury was appointed to a minor federal office by outgoing President John Adams. Marbury needed a commission (a signed paper) before he could take the office. He never got the commission from Adams, and in-coming President Jefferson told his Secretary of State, James Madison, not to deliver it.
Marbury was angry. He asked the Supreme Court to order Madison to produce the paper. Marbury thought that a provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Court the power to issue such orders. The Court, through Chief Justice John Marshall, refused. Marshall claimed that the provision in the Judiciary Act was unconstitutional. Congress, he said, could not give the Court a power that the Constitution itself did not mention. As time went on, people realized that this decision had made the Court very powerful. It could decide the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress.

Rating:
Reason:

Gibbons v. Ogden
In the early 1820s, America’s inland waterways were filled with boats carrying goods from one port to another. Among steamboat owners, the competition for customers was strong.
In New York State, Aaron Ogden sued one of his steamboat competitors, Thomas Gibbons. Ogden claimed to have an exclusive right from the state to operate steamboats on the Hudson River between New York and New Jersey. Gibbons was using a federal license to run boats in the same area. The case reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 1824.
Under Chief Justice Marshall, the Court supported Gibbons. It said his federal license was protected by Article I of the Constitution: “The Congress shall have power ... to regulate commerce ... among the ... states.” No state, said Marshall, could interfere with this power. The decision spurred steamboat competition, expanded federal power – and angered some states.

Rating:
Reason:

Dred Scott v. Sandford
In the 1830s, Dred Scott was the slave of U.S. Army surgeon John Emerson. Between 1834 and 1838, Emerson took Scott to Illinois (a non-slave state) and to the territory of Wisconsin. Slavery had been previously banned in Wisconsin by the federal government.
By 1846, Scott was living in Missouri, where he sued for his freedom. He claimed that the years he had spent on free soil made him legally a free man. Scott’s case moved through state and federal courts, reaching the U.S. Supreme Court in 1857.
The Court declared that Scott was a slave under the laws of Missouri. Slaves, it argued, could not become citizens by traveling. It even denied the claim that Wisconsin was a “free” territory. Congress, said the Court, had no power to ban slavery in the territories. Besides its effect on Scott, this decision made the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional – and hastened the Civil War.

Rating:
Reason:

Plessy v. Ferguson
On June 7, 1892, Homer Plessy purchased a first-class ticket on the East Louisiana Railway. Plessy, who had both black and white ancestors, sat in a coach reserved for whites. The conductor demanded that Plessy move to the coach where blacks, by state law, were forced to sit. When Plessy refused, he was jailed and brought to trial.
Plessy sued the judge. He claimed that the state’s segregation policy unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. This amendment guarantees “equal protection of the laws” to all.
In 1896, by and 8:1 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Louisiana’s right to establish “separate but equal” railway coaches. But there was a strong dissent. Arguing against the decision, Justice John Marshall Harlan said, “The Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.”

Rating:
Reason:

NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation
In 1935, Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act. The Act gave workers the right to organize (form unions) for the purpose of bargaining with employers. It also set up a board, the NLRB, to deal with problems that arose under the Act.
The NLRB soon received a complaint that the Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation had fired some workers who were union members and had prevented others from joining. The board ordered the company to rehire the workers and stop its anti-union activities. The company refused. It claimed that the NLR Act – and the board – were illegal.
In 1937, the Court upheld the NLR Act and the board’s stand against the steel company. It said that Congress has the right to involve itself in union activities, because such activities affect interstate commerce (use of the elastic clause). The decision led to a big role for Congress in economic activities.

Rating:
Reason:

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka
In the early 1950s, Linda Brown, 11, walked 20 blocks to and from school each day. She could not attend the school much closer to her home. It was for whites only. Linda’s father sued the Topeka, Kansas school district for an end to the segregation within its system. In effect, he wanted to overturn the 1896 Plessy decision, which had permitted racial segregation. Brown based his suit on the “equal protection” clause of the 14th Amendment.
The U.S. Supreme Court heard the case in 1954. In a 9:0 decision, it supported Brown’s suit. The Court agreed that forced segregation in public schools “generates a feeling of inferiority” among the minority group. Such segregation, said the Court, “may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone.” The Brown decision reversed Plessy and paved the way for the civil rights laws of the 1960s.

Rating:
Reason:

Miranda v. Arizona
One night in 1963, the police in Phoenix, Arizona, arrested Ernesto Miranda on a charge of abduction and rape. After several hours of questioning, Miranda confessed. Miranda was convicted of the crimes and sentenced to 20-30 years in prison. His lawyer then appealed the judgment, saying his client’s confession had been obtained with threats. In addition, he said, Miranda had been questioned without being told he had the right to a lawyer.
The case reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 1966. By a 5:4 vote, it supported Miranda’s claim. Chief Justice Earl Warren ordered a new trial for Miranda and set rules for evidence in criminal trials. Among them: No testimony by an accused person can be used in court unless the person was advised of his/her right to remain silent and to have a lawyer present. Police officials were divided over the decision.

Rating:
Reason:

Roe v. Wade
In 1970, Jane Roe (not her real name) was an unmarried pregnant woman in Dallas County, Texas. She wished to have an abortion “performed by a ... licensed physician, under safe clinical conditions,” but Texas law forbade it. The state allowed an abortion only when the mother’s life was in danger.
Roe sued to have the Texas abortion laws declared unconstitutional. She said they violated her right of privacy under the 14th Amendment.
The case reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973. By a 7:2 vote, the Court overturned the Texas laws. It ruled that states (a) may not ban abortions in the first six months of pregnancy, (b) may ban abortions after six months, except when the woman’s health is in danger, and (c) may make laws about the conditions for an abortion between the third and seventh months. Debate over this decision continues.

Rating:
Reason: