Read the “Instruction- READ this first”. Select a case from “cases to select” and analyze the major concepts are: 1. Independence 2. Federalism 3. Personal Responsibility 4. Personal Liberties 5. Living under a Government that has Limits through a Constitution
Scenarios from Actual Supreme Court Cases
1. “Benjamin Gitlow was indicted in the Supreme Court of New York, with three others, for the
statutory crime of criminal anarchy. New York Penal Law, 160, 161.1 He was separately tried,
convicted, and sentenced to imprisonment….The case is here on writ of error to the Supreme
Court, to which the record was remitted. The contention here is that the statute, by its terms and as
applied in this case, is repugnant to the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” (Gitlow
v. People of the State of New York, 1925)
2. “Title II has the caption “Federal Old-Age Benefits.” The benefits are of two types, first,
monthly pensions, and second, lump sum payments…. The scheme of benefits created by the
provisions of Title II is not in contravention of the limitations of the Tenth Amendment….
Congress may spend money in aid of the ‘general welfare.’ Constitution, Art. I, section 8; United
States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 65; Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, supra. There have been great
statesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is
now settled by decision. United States v. Butler, supra. The conception of the spending power
advocated by Hamilton and strongly reinforced by Story has prevailed over that of Madison, which
has not been lacking in adherents…. Nor is the concept of the general welfare static. Needs that
were narrow or parochial a century ago may be interwoven in our day with the wellbeing of the
Nation. What is critical or urgent changes with the times” (U.S. Supreme Court, Helvering v.
Davis, 1937).
3. “It is urged that, under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, Article I, § 8, clause 3,
Congress does not possess the power it has in this instance sought to exercise…. This Act extends
federal regulation to production not intended in any part for commerce, but wholly for
consumption on the farm…. The present Chief Justice has said in summary of the present state of
the law: The commerce power is not confined in its exercise to the regulation of commerce among
the states. It extends to those activities intrastate which so affect interstate commerce … as to make
regulation of them appropriate means to the attainment of a legitimate end, the effective execution
of the granted power to regulate interstate commerce. . .” (U.S. Supreme Court, Wickard v. Filburn,
1942).
4. “Petitioner after jury trial was found guilty of disorderly conduct in violation of a city ordinance
of Chicago and fined. The case grew out of an address he delivered in an auditorium in Chicago
under the auspices of the Christian Veterans of America…. Outside of the auditorium a crowd of
about one thousand persons gathered to protest against the meeting….The crowd outside was
angry and turbulent. Petitioner in his speech condemned the conduct of the crowd outside and
vigorously, if not viciously, criticized various political and racial groups whose activities he
denounced as inimical to the nation’s welfare…. The argument here has been focused on the issue
of whether the content of petitioner’s speech was composed of derisive, fighting words, which
carried it outside the scope of the constitutional guarantees…” (U.S. Supreme Court, Terminiello
v. City of Chicago, 1949).
5. “In each of the cases, minors of the Negro race, through their legal representatives, seek the aid
of the courts in obtaining admission to the public schools of their community on a nonsegregated
basis. In each instance, they had been denied admission to schools attended by white children
under laws requiring or permitting segregation according to race. This segregation was alleged to
deprive the plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment” (U.S.
Supreme Court, Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka et al., 1954).
6. “The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania by law, 24 Pa. Stat. 15-1516, as amended, Pub. Law
1928 (Supp. 1960) Dec. 17, 1959, requires that “At least ten verses from the Holy Bible shall be
read, without comment, at the opening of each public school on each school day. Any child shall
be excused from such Bible reading, or attending such Bible reading, upon the written request of
his parent or guardian.” The Schempp family, husband and wife and two of their three children,
brought suit to enjoin enforcement of the statute, contending that their rights under the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States are, have been, and will continue to be violated
unless this statute be declared unconstitutional as violative of these provisions of the First
Amendment. They sought to enjoin the appellant school district, wherein the Schempp children
attend school, and its officers and the Superintendent of Public Instruction of the Commonwealth
from continuing to conduct such readings and recitation of the Lord’s Prayer in the public schools
of the district pursuant to the statute” (U.S. Supreme Court, School District of Abington Township,
Pennsylvania, et al. v. Schempp et al., 1963).
7. “We conclude that the Equal Protection Clause guarantees the opportunity for equal
participation by all voters in the election of state legislators. Diluting the weight of votes because
of place of residence impairs basic constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment just as
much as invidious discriminations based upon factors such as race, Brown v. Board of
Education…. As stated in Gomillion v. Lightfoot, supra … ‘A citizen, a qualified voter, is no more
nor no less so because he lives in the city or on the farm. This is the clear and strong command of
our Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. This is an essential part of the concept of a government
of laws, and not men. This is at the heart of Lincoln’s vision of ‘government of the people, by the
people, [and] for the people.’ The Equal Protection Clause demands no less than substantially equal
state legislative representation for all citizens, of all places as well as of all races’” (U.S. Supreme
Court, Reynolds v. Sims, 1964).
8. “Appellants, the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and its
medical director, a licensed physician, were convicted as accessories for giving married persons
information and medical advice on how to prevent conception and, following examination,
prescribing a contraceptive device or material for the wife’s use. A Connecticut statute makes it a
crime for any person to use any drug or article to prevent conception. Appellants claimed that the
accessory statute as applied violated the Fourteenth Amendment.” (U.S. Supreme Court, Griswold
et al. v. Connecticut, 1965)
9. In June 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a Negro woman, and Richard Loving, a
white man, were married in the District of Columbia pursuant to its laws. Shortly after their
marriage, the Lovings returned to Virginia and established their marital abode in Caroline County.
At the October Term, 1958, of the Circuit Court [388 U.S. 1, 3] of Caroline County, a grand jury
issued an indictment charging the Lovings with violating Virginia’s ban on interracial marriages.
On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty to the charge and were sentenced to one year in
jail; however, the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that
the Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia together for 25 years….After their
convictions, the Lovings took up residence in the District of Columbia. On November 6, 1963,
they filed a motion in the state trial court to vacate the judgment and set aside the sentence on the
ground that the statutes which they had violated were repugnant to the [the Equal Protection and
Due Process Clauses of the] Fourteenth Amendment. (Loving v. Virginia, 1967)
10. “Appellee attacks his conviction of violating Massachusetts law for giving a woman a
contraceptive foam at the close of his lecture to students on contraception. That law makes it a
felony for anyone to give away a drug, medicine, instrument, or article for the prevention of
conception except in the case of (1) a registered physician administering or prescribing it for a
married person or (2) an active registered pharmacist furnishing it to a married person presenting
a registered physician’s prescription.” (Eisenstadt, Sheriff, v. Baird, 1972)
11. “A pregnant single woman (Roe) brought a class action challenging the constitutionality of
the Texas criminal abortion laws, which proscribe procuring or attempting an abortion except on
medical advice for the purpose of saving the mother’s life… A three-judge District Court…
declared the abortion statutes void as vague and overbroadly infringing those plaintiffs’ Ninth and
Fourteenth Amendment rights” (U.S. Supreme Court, Roe et al. v. Wade, District Attorney, 1973).
12. “These three consolidated appeals require us to evaluate the progress of the Dallas Independent
School District (DISD) in eliminating the vestiges of the dual educational system formerly
mandated by Texas law…. We hold that the measures taken by the district court in the areas of
student assignment and site selection and school construction to transform the DISD into a unitary
system are inadequate to right the constitutional wrong denounced by the Supreme Court in Brown
v. Board of Education, 1954…. It is imperative that the dual school structure of the DISD be
completely dismantled by the start of the second semester of the 1975-76 academic year” (U.S. 5th
Circuit Court of Appeals, Tasby v. Estes, 1975).
13. “Respondents, Negro and Mexican-American residents of Dallas, Tex., brought this action …
against petitioners, the Mayor and members of the Dallas City Council, alleging that the City
Charter’s at-large system of electing council members unconstitutionally diluted the vote of racial
minorities…. The District Court orally declared that system unconstitutional and then ‘afforded
the city an opportunity as a legislative body for the City of Dallas to prepare a plan which would
be constitutional.’ The City Council then passed a resolution expressing its intention to enact an
ordinance that would provide for eight council members to be elected from single-member districts
and for the three remaining members, including the Mayor, to be elected at large…. The District
Court approved the plan, which the City Council thereafter formally enacted as an ordinance….
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the District Court had erred…. Held. The judgment
is reversed and the case is remanded” (U.S. Supreme Court, Wise v. Lipscomb, 1979).
14. The question presented by these cases is whether, consistent with the Equal Protection Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment, Texas may deny to undocumented school-age children the free
public education that it provides to children who are citizens of the United States or legally
admitted aliens. Since the late 19th century, the United States has restricted immigration into this
country. Unsanctioned entry into the United States is a crime…and those who have entered
unlawfully are subject to deportation….But despite the existence of these legal restrictions, a
substantial number of persons have succeeded in unlawfully entering the United States, and now
live within various States, including the State of Texas. In May 1975, the Texas Legislature
revised its education laws to withhold from local school districts any state funds for the education
of children who were not “legally admitted” into the United States. The 1975 revision also
authorized local school districts to deny enrollment in their public schools to children not “legally
admitted” to the country…..This is a class action, filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas in September 1977, on behalf of certain school-age children of Mexican
origin residing in Smith County, Tex., who could not establish that they had been legally admitted
into the United States. The action complained of the exclusion of plaintiff children from the public
schools of the Tyler Independent School District.” (Plyler v. Doe, 1982)
15. “During the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas, respondent Johnson
participated in a political demonstration to protest the policies of the Reagan administration and
some Dallas-based corporations. After a march through the city streets, Johnson burned an
American flag while protesters chanted. No one was physically injured or threatened with injury,
although several witnesses were seriously offended by the flag burning. Johnson was convicted of
desecration of a venerated object in violation of a Texas statute, and a State Court of Appeals
affirmed. However, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding that the State,
consistent with the First Amendment, could not punish Johnson for burning the flag in these
circumstances.” (Texas v. Johnson, 1989)
16. “At issue are five provisions of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982: 3205, which
requires that a woman seeking an abortion give her informed consent prior to the procedure, and
specifies that she be provided with certain information at least 24 hours before the abortion is
performed; 3206, which mandates the informed consent of one parent for a minor to obtain an
abortion, but provides a judicial bypass procedure; 3209, which commands that, unless certain
exceptions apply, a married woman seeking an abortion must sign a statement indicating that she
has notified her husband; 3203, which defines a “medical emergency” that will excuse compliance
with the foregoing requirements; and 3207(b), 3214(a), and 3214(f), which impose certain
reporting requirements on facilities providing abortion services. Before any of the provisions took
effect, the petitioners, five abortion clinics and a physician representing himself and a class of
doctors who provide abortion services, brought this suit seeking a declaratory judgment that each
of the provisions was unconstitutional on its face, as well as injunctive relief. The District Court
held all the provisions unconstitutional, and permanently enjoined their enforcement. The Court
of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, striking down the husband notification provision
but upholding the others….Constitutional protection of the woman’s decision to terminate her
pregnancy derives from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It declares that no
State shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The
controlling word in the cases before us is “liberty.”“ (Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v.
Casey, 1992)
17. “This case began in 1985 and initially resulted in a consent decree, which was approved by
the district court in 1987…. The consent decree addressed the plaintiff class’s challenge under the
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment … to the purposeful racial discrimination
and segregation within DHA’s public housing programs…. Virtually all non-elderly public
housing units were constructed in minority areas of Dallas….
The 1987 consent decree required the demolition of approximately 2,600 units of public housing
in DHA’s West Dallas project, a public housing development located in a predominantly black
area of the city and referred to by this court as ‘one of Dallas’s worst slums.’ These units were to
be replaced on a one-for-one basis with additional public housing units and Section 8 certificates
and vouchers. The decree also required that one hundred newly constructed replacement units be
built in a predominantly white area of Dallas, that a nondiscriminatory tenant selection and
assignment plan be implemented, and that a Section 8 mobility plan be established to assist black
families joining the Section 8 program in finding housing in white areas of Dallas” (The U.S.
District Court’s ruling in Walker v. HUD, 1989, as described by the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of
Appeals in Walker v. HUD, 1999).
18. We apply these principles to a Nebraska law banning “partial birth abortion.” The statute reads
as follows: ”No partial birth abortion shall be performed in this state, unless such procedure is
necessary to save the life of the mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical
illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising
from the pregnancy itself.” Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. §28-328(1) (Supp. 1999)…. Dr. Leroy Carhart
is a Nebraska physician who performs abortions in a clinical setting. He brought this lawsuit in
Federal District Court seeking a declaration that the Nebraska statute violates the Federal
Constitution, and asking for an injunction forbidding its enforcement. After a trial on the merits,
during which both sides presented several expert witnesses, the District Court held the statute
unconstitutional. 11 F. Supp. 2d 1099 (Neb. 1998). On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed. 192
F. 3d 1142 (1999); cf. Hope Clinic v. Ryan, 195 F. 3d 857 (CA7 1999) (en banc) (considering a
similar statute, but reaching a different legal conclusion). We granted certiorari to consider the
matter (Stenberg v. Carhart, 2000)
19. Prior to 1995, a student elected as Santa Fe High School’s student council chaplain delivered
a prayer over the public address system before each home varsity football game. Respondents,
Mormon and Catholic students or alumni and their mothers, filed a suit challenging this practice
and others under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. While the suit was pending,
petitioner school district (District) adopted a different policy, which authorizes two student
elections, the first to determine whether “invocations” should be delivered at games, and the
second to select the spokesperson to deliver them. After the students held elections authorizing
such prayers and selecting a spokesperson, the District Court entered an order modifying the policy
to permit only nonsectarian, nonproselytizing prayer. The Fifth Circuit held that, even as modified
by the District Court, the football prayer policy was invalid. Held: The District’s policy permitting
student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violates the Establishment Clause. (Santa
Fe Independence School District v. Doe, individually and as next friend for her minor children,
et al., 2000)
20. The Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA) expands the federal prohibition on
child pornography to include not only pornographic images made using actual children, 18 U. S. C.
§2256(8)(A), but also “any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or
computer or computer-generated image or picture” that “is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging
in sexually explicit conduct,” §2256(8)(B), and any sexually explicit image that is “advertised,
promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression” it
depicts “a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct,” §2256(8)(D). Thus, §2256(8)(B) bans a
range of sexually explicit images, sometimes called “virtual child pornography,” that appear to
depict minors but were produced by means other than using real children, such as through the use
of youthful-looking adults or computer-imaging technology. Section 2256(8)(D) is aimed at
preventing the production or distribution of pornographic material pandered as child pornography.
Fearing that the CPPA threatened their activities, respondents, an adult-entertainment trade
association and others, filed this suit alleging that the “appears to be” and “conveys the impression”
provisions are overbroad and vague, chilling production of works protected by the First
Amendment” (Ashcroft, Attorney General, et al. v. Free Speech Coalition et al., 2002).
21. “Responding to a reported weapons disturbance in a private residence, Houston police entered
petitioner Lawrence’s apartment and saw him and another adult man, petitioner Garner, engaging
in a private, consensual sexual act. Petitioners were arrested and convicted of deviate sexual
intercourse in violation of a Texas statute forbidding two persons of the same sex to engage in
certain intimate sexual conduct. In affirming, the State Court of Appeals held, inter alia, that the
statute was not unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
(Lawrence v. Texas, 2003)
22. “After approving an integrated development plan designed to revitalize its ailing economy,
respondent city, through its development agent, purchased most of the property earmarked for the
project from willing sellers, but initiated condemnation proceedings when petitioners, the owners
of the rest of the property, refused to sell. Petitioners brought this state-court action claiming, inter
alia, that the taking of their properties would violate the “public use” restriction in the Fifth
Amendment’s Takings Clause.” (Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al., 2005)
23. “California’s Compassionate Use Act authorizes limited marijuana use for medicinal
purposes. Respondents Raich and Monson are California residents who both use doctor-
recommended marijuana for serious medical conditions. After federal Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) agents seized and destroyed all six of Monson’s cannabis plants,
respondents brought this action seeking injunctive and declaratory relief prohibiting the
enforcement of the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to the extent it prevents them from
possessing, obtaining, or manufacturing cannabis for their personal medical use. Respondents
claim that enforcing the CSA against them would violate the Commerce Clause and other
constitutional provisions.” (Gonzales, Attorney General, et al. v. Raich et al., 2005)
24. “Among the 21 historical markers and 17 monuments surrounding the Texas State Capitol is
a 6-foot-high monolith inscribed with the Ten Commandments. The legislative record illustrates
that, after accepting the monument from the Fraternal Order of Eagles–a national social, civic, and
patriotic organization–the State selected a site for it based on the recommendation of the state
organization that maintains the capitol grounds. Petitioner, an Austin resident who encounters the
monument during his frequent visits to those grounds, brought this 42 U. S. C. §1983 suit seeking
a declaration that the monument’s placement violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause
and an injunction requiring its removal. Holding that the monument did not contravene the Clause,
the District Court found that the State had a valid secular purpose in recognizing and commending
the Eagles for their efforts to reduce juvenile delinquency, and that a reasonable observer, mindful
of history, purpose, and context, would not conclude that this passive monument conveyed the
message that the State endorsed religion. The Fifth Circuit affirmed. Held: The judgment is
affirmed” (U.S. Supreme Court, Van Orden v. Perry, in his official capacity as Governor of Texas
and Chairman, State Preservation Board, et al., 2005).
25. “The Oregon Death With Dignity Act (ODWDA) exempts from civil or criminal liability
state-licensed physicians who … dispense or prescribe a lethal dose of drugs upon the request of
a terminally ill patient. In 2001, the Attorney General [of the United States] issued an Interpretive
Rule … declaring that using controlled substances to assist suicide is not a legitimate medical
practice and that dispensing or prescribing them for this purpose is unlawful under the CSA
(Federal Controlled Substances Act).” (Gonzales v. Oregon, January 17, 2006)
26. “New Hampshire’s Parental Notification Prior to Abortion Act…prohibits physicians from
performing an abortion on a pregnant minor until 48 hours after written notice of such abortion is
delivered to her parent or guardian. The Act does not require notice for an abortion necessary to
prevent the minor’s death if there is sufficient time to provide notice, and permits a minor to
petition a judge to authorize her physician to perform an abortion without parental notification.
The Act does not explicitly permit a physician to perform an abortion in a medical emergency
without parental notification, Respondents…filed suit…claiming that the Act is unconstitutional
because of the inadequacy of the life exception and the judicial bypass’ confidentiality provision.”
(Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, January 18, 2006)
27. “Pursuant to Congress’ joint resolution authorizing the use of necessary and appropriate force
against nations, organizations, or persons that planned, authorized, committed, or aided in the
September 11, 2001, al Qaeda terrorist attacks, the President sent Armed Forces into Afghanistan
to wage a military campaign against al Qaeda and the Taliban regime that had supported it.
Petitioners, 2 Australians and 12 Kuwaitis captured abroad during the hostilities, are being held in
military custody at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Naval Base, which the United States occupies
under a lease and treaty recognizing Cuba’s ultimate sovereignty, but giving this country complete
jurisdiction and control for so long as it does not abandon the leased areas. Petitioners filed suits
under federal law challenging the legality of their detention, alleging that they had never been
combatants against the United States or engaged in terrorist acts, and that they have never been
charged with wrongdoing, permitted to consult counsel, or provided access to courts or other
tribunals.” (Rasul v. Bush, 2004)
28. “Pursuant to Congress’ Joint Resolution authorizing the President to “use all necessary and
appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned,
authorized, committed or aided” the September 11, 2001, al Qaeda terrorist attacks (AUMF), U. S.
Armed Forces invaded Afghanistan. During the hostilities, in 2001, militia forces captured
petitioner Hamdan, a Yemeni national, and turned him over to the U. S. military, which, in 2002,
transported him to prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Over a year later, the President deemed
Hamdan eligible for trial by military commission for then-unspecified crimes. After another year,
he was charged with conspiracy “to commit … offenses triable by military commission.” In habeas
and mandamus petitions, Hamdan asserted that the military commission lacks authority to try him
because (1) neither congressional Act nor the common law of war supports trial by this commission
for conspiracy, an offense that, Hamdan says, is not a violation of the law of war; and (2) the
procedures adopted to try him violate basic tenets of military and international law, including the
principle that a defendant must be permitted to see and hear the evidence against him.” (Hamdan
v. Rumsfeld, 2006)
29. “Petitioners are aliens detained at Guantanamo after being captured in Afghanistan or
elsewhere abroad and designated enemy combatants by [Combatant Status Review Tribunals].
Denying membership in the al Qaeda terrorist network that carried out the September 11 attacks
and the Taliban regime that supported al Qaeda, each petitioner sought a write of habeas corpus in
the District Court, which ordered the cases dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because Guantanamo
is outside sovereign territory. The D.C. Circuit affirmed, but this Court reversed, holding that 28
U.S.C s. 2241 extended statutory habeas jurisdiction to Guanatanamo. See Rasul v. Bush….While
appeals were pending, Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, sec. 10005(e) of
which amended 28 U.S.C. sec.2241 to provide that ‘no court, justice, or judge shall have
jurisdiction to…consider…an application for…habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien
detained…at Guantanamo’….The D.C Circuit concluded that…petitioners are not entitled to…the
protections of the Suspension Clause [of the US Constitution]…and that it was therefore
unnecessary to consider whether the DTA provided an adequate and effective substitute for
habeas” (Boumediene v. Bush, 2008).
30. “The City of Farmers Branch, Texas, (“the City”) appeals the district court’s summary
judgment enjoining it from implementing a purported housing ordinance that requires all …
1
Basic Principles of Texas Government
Michael S. Iachetta
All Rights Reserved, 2019
“Tolerance … is learned in discussion, and, as history shows, is only so learned. In
all customary societies bigotry is the ruling principle. In rude places to this day
anyone who says anything new is looked on with suspicion, and is persecuted by
opinion if not injured by penalty. One of the greatest pains to human nature is the
pain of a new idea…. It makes you think that, after all, your favourite notions may
be wrong, your firmest beliefs ill-founded…. Naturally, therefore, common men
hate a new idea, and are disposed more or less to ill-treat the original man who
brings it” (Walter Bagehot, Physics and Politics, 1869).
“No man who has the truth to tell and the power to tell it can long remain hiding it
from fear or even from despair without ignominy. To release the truth against
whatever odds, even if so doing can no longer help the Commonwealth, is a
necessity for the soul” (Hilaire Belloc, The Free Press, 1918).
Introduction: The Basic Rights of Human Beings
Activity 1: The Basic Rights of Human Beings
“Every Anglo-Texan was born with the notion he possessed unalienable rights” (T.R.
Fehrenbach, Lone Star, 189).
A. Based on this statement, what is the goal of human life? What basic rights do people
have? What is the connection between these basic rights and the goal of human life?
“All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights;
among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that
of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their
safety and happiness” (Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, March 2, 1780).
B. Based on this statement, how many basic rights do people have? Why these particular
rights? Why this number?
“Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty;
Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they
can. These are evident branches of … the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first
law of nature” (Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, November 20, 1772).
2
C. Based on this statement, who or what decides which basic rights human beings have?
What are “the immutable laws of nature”?
“That the inhabitants of the English Colonies in North America, by the immutable laws of
nature, the principles of the English Constitution, and the several charters or compacts … are
entitled to life, liberty, and property, & they have never ceded to any sovereign power whatever,
a right to dispose of either without their consent” (Declaration and Resolves of the First
Continental Congress, October 14, 1774).
D. Based on this statement, how many basic rights do people have? What does the word
“liberty” mean, in the context of our three basic rights?
“[The absolute rights of individuals] may be reduced to three principal or primary articles… I.
The right of personal security [consisting] in a person’s legal and uninterrupted enjoyment (that
is, use and possession) of his life, his limbs… II. … The personal liberty of individuals …
[consisting] in the power of locomotion, of changing situations or moving one’s person to
whatsoever place one’s own inclination may direct, without imprisonment, or restraint, unless by
due course of law…. III. The third absolute right, inherent in every Englishman … of property:
which consists in the free use, enjoyment and disposal of all his acquisitions, without any control
or diminution, save only by the laws of the land” (Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the
Laws of England, 1765, Book I, Chapter 1).
For the rights of women, see:
“FELONIOUS HOMICIDE is … the killing of a human creature, of any age or sex, without
justification or excuse” (William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book 4,
Chapter 14, 1765-1769).
For the rights of Africans, see:
Upon these principles the law of England abhors, and will not endure the existence of, slavery
within this nation … And now it is laid down, that a slave or negro, the instant he lands in
England, becomes a freeman; that is, the law will protect him in the enjoyment of his person, his
liberty, and his property” (William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Volume
I, 411-413, 1766).
For the authority of William Blackstone, see:
1. “We must turn to Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, a work which as
Madison said was ‘in every man’s hand’ and the one the Framers turned to when determining
just what legal phrases meant. (Next to the Bible and Montesquieu, Blackstone was the most
frequently quoted source in American political writing from 1760 to 1800.)” (Forrest McDonald,
Testimony before the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution Hearing on
the Background and History of Impeachment, November 9, 1998)
3
2. “Sir William Blackstone[’s] Commentaries on the Laws of England not only provided a
definitive summary of the common law but was also a primary legal authority for 18th and 19th
century American lawyers” (U.S. Supreme Court in Washington v. Glucksberg, 1997)
For a definition of civil rights, see:
“What are civil rights? I understand civil rights to be simply the absolute rights of individuals,
such as the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and
enjoy property’ (Kent’s Commentaries).” (James Wilson, Chairman of the House Judiciary
Committee and House Manager of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, March 1, 1866, Congressional
Globe, 1117)
Features of the Texas/American System of Government that
Protects Against the Evil Side of People
Protective Barrier Number 1A/1B:
Evil Side of People/The Law of Nature
Activity 2: The Evil Side of People; the Law of Nature Establishes a Clear Definition of
Right and Wrong
“It is always to the advantage of the wealthy to deny general conceptions of right and wrong”
(Hilaire Belloc, Europe and the Faith, 1920).
A. Based on these statements, what are people like? Why does this make it difficult for
people to obtain the goal of human life?
• “What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men
were angels, no government would be necessary” (James Madison, Federalist 51,
February 6, 1788).
• “Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not
conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint” (Alexander Hamilton,
Federalist 15, December 1, 1787).
B. Based on this statement, what is the law of nature? How does it make it possible for
people to achieve the goal of human life?
“The supreme being gave existence to man, together with the means of preserving and beatifying
that existence. He endowed him with rational faculties, by the help of which, to discern and
pursue such things, as were consistent with his duty and interest, and invested him with an
4
inviolable right to personal liberty, and personal safety. Hence, in a state of nature, no man had
any moral power to deprive another of his life, limbs, property or liberty” (Alexander Hamilton,
“The Farmer Refuted,” February 23, 1775).
C. Based on this statement, what is the law of nature? How does it protect people from the
evil side of people?
“There is a supreme intelligence, who rules the world, and has established laws to regulate the
actions of his creatures…. The deity, from the relations, we stand in, to himself and to each
other, has constituted an eternal and immutable law, which is, indispensably, obligatory upon all
mankind, prior to any human institution whatever. This is what is called the law of nature….
Upon this law, depend the natural rights of mankind.” (Alexander Hamilton, “The Farmer
Refuted,” February 23, 1775).
D. Based on this statement, what is the law of nature? How does it make it possible for
people to achieve the goal of human life?
“This law of nature, being coeval with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is, of course,
superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all
times. No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid,
derive all their authority, mediately, or immediately, from this original…. The principal aim of
society is to protect individuals in the enjoyment of those absolute rights, which were vested in
them by the immutable laws of nature” (William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Law of
England, Vol. 1, Introduction, Sec. 2 and Vol. 1, Ch. 2, quoted by Alexander Hamilton in “The
Farmer Refuted,” February 23, 1775).
Protective Barrier Number 2:
Government
Activity 3: The Purpose of Government is to Protect the Person and Property of Citizens
from the Evil Side of People
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit
of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men…”
(Declaration of Independence, 1776).
A. Based on these statements, what would life be like if there were no governments? How
would the lack of government affect the ability of people to achieve the goal of human life?
5
• “During the time men live without a common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in
that condition which is called Warre…. In such condition, there is no place for Industry;
because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no
Navigation … no commodious Building… no Arts; no Letters … and which is worst of
all, continuall feare and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty,
brutish, and short” (Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, 1651, Part I, Chapter 13).
• “If man in the state of nature be so free … why will he part with his freedom? Why will
he … subject himself to the dominion and control of any other power? To which it is
obvious to answer, that … the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very
unsafe, very unsecure” (John Locke, Second Treatise on Government, Ch. 9, 1689-1690).
B. Based on these statements, what is the purpose of government? What is the connection
between government and the possibility of people achieving the goal of human life?
“What was the primary and the principal object in the institution of government? Was it—I
speak of the primary and principal object—was it to acquire new rights by a human
establishment? Or was it, by a human establishment, to acquire a new security for the possession
or the recovery of those rights, to the enjoyment or acquisition of which we were previously
entitled by the immediate gift, or by the unerring law, of our all-wise and all-beneficent
Creator?” (James Wilson, Lectures on Law, “Of the Natural Rights of Individuals,” 1790-91).
C. Based on these statements, what is the purpose of government? What is the connection
between government and the possibility of people achieving the goal of human life?
• “The principal aim of society is to protect individuals in the enjoyment of those absolute
rights [the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty; and the right of private
property], which were vested in them by the immutable laws of nature…” (Sir William
Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1765, Book I, Chapter 1).
• “[The insecurity of rights without government] makes [man] willing … to join in
society with others … for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties, and estates….
The great and chief end, therefore, of men’s uniting into commonwealths, and putting
themselves under government, is the preservation of their [lives, liberties, and estates]”
(John Locke, Second Treatise on Government, Ch. 9, 1689-1690).
D. Based on this statement, what is “liberty”? What is the connection between “liberty”
and the goal of human life?
“In all the states of created beings capable of laws, where there is no law, there is no freedom:
for liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others; which cannot be, where there is
no law…” (John Locke, Second Treatise on Government, 1689-1690, Chapter 6).
6
Protective Barrier Number 3:
Fathers as Disciplinarians and Protectors; Self-Defense
Reader Discretion Advised: The belief that this is a necessary barrier that
protects us from the evil side of people is no longer the dominant view, and it
is for you to decide whether or not this belief still remains valid today.
Activity 4: The Political Purpose of the Family is to Protect the Person and Property of
Citizens from the Evil Side of People
“–He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his
invasions on the rights of the people” (Declaration of Independence, 1776)
“[We declare] that no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any
people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and by
frequent recurrence to fundamental principles” (Virginia Declaration of Rights and Constitution,
12 and 29 June 1776).
“The simultaneous rise of out-of-wedlock births and other forms of social/economic distress such
as crime, drug abuse, and poverty … [is] well documented by Anderson [1990], Wilson [1987],
and others…). Rising out-of-wedlock birthrates are of social policy concern because children
reared in single-parent households are more likely to be impoverished and to experience
difficulties in later life. (A substantial literature documents that single parenthood results in a
variety of adverse consequences for children—see, for example, Manski, Sandefur, McLanahan,
and Powers [1992]).”
Source: Akerlof, Yellen, and Katz, “An Analysis of Out-Of-Wedlock Childbearing in the United
States,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, May, 1996.
A. Based on this statement, how does the traditional family make person and property
more secure? What is the connection between the family and obtaining the goal of human
life?
A further consideration is, that in the human species the young need not only bodily nutrition, as
animals do, but also the training of the soul. Other animals have their natural instincts (suas
prudentias) to provide for themselves: but man lives by reason, which [read quam] takes the
experience of a long time to arrive at discretion. Hence children need instruction by the
confirmed experience of their parents: nor are they capable of such instruction as soon as they
are born, but after a long time, the time in fact taken to arrive at the years of discretion. For this
instruction again a long time is needed; and then moreover, because of the assaults of passion,
whereby the judgement of prudence is thwarted, there is need not of instruction only, but also of
7
repression (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, Book 3, Ch. 122, tr. Joseph Rickaby,
S.J.). .
B. Based on this statement, how does the traditional family make person and property
more secure? What is the role of men? What is the connection between the family and
obtaining the goal of human life?
For [the] purpose [of repression] the woman by herself is not competent, but at this point
especially there is requisite the concurrence of the man, in whom there is at once reason more
perfect to instruct, and force more potent to chastise. Therefore in the human race the
advancement of the young in good must last, not for a short time, as in birds, but for a long
period of life. Hence, whereas it is necessary in all animals for the male to stand by the female
for such time as the father’s concurrence is requisite for bringing up of the progeny, it is natural
for man to be tied to the society of one fixed woman for a long period, not a short one. This
social tie we call marriage. Marriage then is natural to man, and an irregular connexion outside
of marriage is contrary to the good of man; and therefore fornication must be sinful” (Thomas
Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, Book 3, Ch. 122, tr. Joseph Rickaby, S.J.).
C. Based on these statements, how does the traditional family make person and property
more secure? What is the role of men? What is the connection between the family and
obtaining the goal of human life?
• “THE duty of parents to provide for the maintenance of their children is a principle of
natural law … for they would be in the highest manner injurious to their issue, if they
only gave the children life, that they might afterwards see them perish…. And the
president Montesquieu has a very just observation upon this head: that the establishment
of marriage in all civilized states is built on this natural obligation of the father to provide
for his children…. The main end and design of marriage therefore [is] to ascertain and
fix upon some certain person, to whom the protection … of the children should belong”
(William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book I, Chapter 16, 1765-
1769).
• “Marriage … secures the peace of society, by cutting off a great source of contention, by
assigning to one man the exclusive right to one woman” (Joseph Story, “Natural Law,
American Encyclopedia, 1832).
D. Based on this statement, how does the traditional family make person and property
more secure? What is the role of men? What is the connection between the family and
obtaining the goal of human life?
“THE defence of one’s self, or the mutual and reciprocal defence of such as stand in the relations
of husband and wife, parent and child, master and servant. In these cases, if the party himself, or
any of these his relations, be forcibly attacked in his person or property, it is lawful for him to
repel force by force; and the breach of the peace, which happens, is chargeable upon him only
who began the affray…. Self-defence therefore as it is justly called the primary law of nature, so
8
it is not, neither can it be in fact, taken away by the law of society” (Sir William Blackstone,
Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1765, Book III, Chapter 1).
Note: “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the
palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation
and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance,
enable the people to resist and triumph over them.” (Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice,
Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833)
For more on discipline, see:
“The formidable power of a Roman father is unknown to the common law. But it vests in the
parent such authority as is conducive to the advantage of the child. When it is necessary—and a
real necessity exists much more rarely than is often imagined—a moderate chastening may be
administered; but every milder means should be previously used. Part of his authority he may
delegate to the person intrusted with his child’s education; that person acts then in the place, and
he ought to act with the disposition, of a parent. The legal power of a father ceases, when the
child attains the age of twenty one years (James Wilson, Lectures on Law, Part 2, Chapter XII).
For more on the family, see:
“The … disorganization of the modern family is … simply an erosion of its natural authority, the
consequence … of the absorption of its functions by other bodies, chiefly the state” (Robert A.
Nisbet, Quest for Community, xiv).
“Marriage is an institution, which may properly be deemed to arise from the law of nature. It
promotes the private comfort of both parties, and especially of the female sex. It tends to the
procreation of the greatest number of healthy citizens, and to their proper maintenance and
education. It secures the peace of society, by cutting off a great source of contention, by
assigning to one man the exclusive right to one woman. It promotes the cause of sound morals,
by cultivating domestic affections and virtues. It distributes the whole of society into families,
and creates a permanent union of interests, and a mutual guardianship of the same. It binds
children by indissoluble ties, and adds new securities to the good order of society, by connecting
the happiness of the whole family with the good behavior of all. It furnishes additional motives
for honest industry and economy in private life, and for a deeper love of the country of our birth”
(Joseph Story, “Natural Law, American Encyclopedia, 1832).
Texas History from the Perspective of Liberty, Part 1
Activity 5: Based on T.R. Fehrenbach, Lone Star (See PowerPoint slides for this activity on
eCampus)
9
A. Identify examples of injustice (violating person or property) or justice (securing or
defending person or property) in this passage. Explain why these actions are unjust or
just.
B. Identify examples of people acquiring land justly (without violating anyone else’s
rights) or unjustly (by violating the rights of others). Explain why these are examples of
justly or unjustly acquiring land.
C. Identify examples of people obtaining or failing to obtain happiness in this passage (for
example, providing themselves with adequate food, shelter, and clothing). Explain why
these are examples of obtaining or not obtaining happiness.
D. Identify examples of just or unjust social organizations (systems that exist for the
benefit of all, in which no person or group benefits from the violation of the person and
property or possibility of happiness of any other person or group, as opposed to systems
that exist for the benefit of a few at the expense of the person and property or possibility of
happiness of everyone else; or vice-versa).
Activity 6: T.R. Fehrenbach, Lone Star Based on T.R. Fehrenbach, Lone Star (See
PowerPoint slides for this activity on eCampus)
A. Identify examples of injustice (violating person or property) or justice (securing or
defending person or property) in this passage. Explain why these actions are unjust or
just.
B. Identify examples of people acquiring land justly (without violating anyone else’s
rights) or unjustly (by violating the rights of others). Explain why these are examples of
justly or unjustly acquiring land.
C. Identify examples of people obtaining or failing to obtain happiness in this passage (for
example, providing themselves with adequate food, shelter, and clothing). Explain why
these are examples of obtaining or not obtaining happiness.
D. Identify examples of just or unjust social organizations (systems that exist for the
benefit of all, in which no person or group benefits from the violation of the person and
property or possibility of happiness of any other person or group, as opposed to systems
that exist for the benefit of a few at the expense of the person and property or possibility of
happiness of everyone else; or vice-versa).
Protective Barrier Number 4: Religion
10
Reader Discretion Advised: The belief that this is a necessary barrier that
protects us from the evil side of people is no longer the dominant view, and it
is for you to decide whether or not this belief still remains valid today.
Activity 7: The Political Purpose of Religion is to Protect the Person and Property of
Citizens from the Evil Side of People
“A frequent recurrence to the fundamental principles of the Constitution, and a constant
adherence to those of piety, justice, moderation, temperance, industry, and frugality are
absolutely necessary, to preserve the advantages of liberty, and to maintain free government”
(Massachusetts Constitution of 1780).
“The belief in a God All Powerful wise & good, is so essential to the moral order of the World &
to the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources
nor adapted with too much solicitude to the different characters & capacities to be impressed
with it” (James Madison to Frederick Beasley, November 20, 1825).
“Next to the Bible and Montesquieu, Blackstone was the most frequently quoted source in
American political writing from 1760 to 1800.” (Forrest McDonald, Testimony before the House
Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution Hearing on the Background and History
of Impeachment, November 9, 1998).
“Our liberties do not come from charters; for these are only the declaration of pre-existing rights.
They do not depend on parchments or seals; but come from the King of Kings and the Lord of all
the earth” (John Dickinson, Chairman of the Committee for the Declaration of Independence,
1776 in C. Herman Pritchett, The American Constitution, McGraw-Hill, 1977, p. 2).
A. Based on the following statement, how does religion make person and property more
secure? What is the connection between religion and people achieving the goal of human
life?
“And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis,
a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are
not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is
just: that his justice cannot sleep forever: that considering numbers, nature, and natural means
only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events:
that it may become probable by supernatural interference! The Almighty has no attribute which
can take side with us in such a contest” (Thomas Jefferson, Query XVIII, Notes on the State of
Virginia).
B. Based on the following statement, how does religion make person and property more
secure? What is the connection between religion and people achieving the goal of human
life?
11
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are
indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should
labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men
and citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man ought to respect and to cherish
them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it
simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of
religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of
Justice?” (George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796. Alexander Hamilton
wrote a first draft of this address).
C. Based on the following statement, how does religion make person and property more
secure? What is the connection between religion and people achieving the goal of human
life?
“Indeed, the right of a society or government to interfere in matters of religion will hardly be
contested by any persons who believe that piety, religion, and morality are intimately connected
with the well-being of the state and indispensable to the administrations of civil justice. The
promulgation of the great doctrines of religion—the being, and attributes, and providence of one
Almighty God; the responsibility to Him for all our actions, founded upon moral accountability;
a future state of rewards and punishments; the cultivation of all the personal, social, and
benevolent virtues—these never can be a matter of indifference in any well-ordered community.
It is, indeed, difficult to conceive how any civilized society can well exist without them” (Joseph
Story, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States, §442, 1840).
D. Based on the following statements, how does religion make person and property more
secure? What is the connection between religion and people achieving the goal of human
life?
• “I am certain that [all Americans] believe [their religion] is necessary to the maintenance
of republican institutions. This opinion does not belong to a class of citizens or to a
party, but to the entire nation; one finds it in all ranks” (De Tocqueville, Democracy in
America, I.2.9, tr. Michael Iachetta).
• “Religion, morality, and …
Directions: You will be evaluated on the thoughtfulness and helpfulness of your responses.
1. Statement of case being analyzed: Does this draft begin with a statement of which case is being
analyzed? What is the case?
2. Arrangement of paragraphs: Does this draft contain five major paragraphs, each one discussing one
of the major concepts assigned for the mid-term, and in the proper order?
3. Opening sentences: does each paragraph contain an opening statement, saying which side promotes
the concept being discussed, or saying if it does not apply? Are these statements correct? Provide at
least one example of an opening sentence that you think could use some work, and explain why. If you
can’t find an example of something that is done incorrectly, provide an example of something that is
done correctly and explain why it is correct.
4. Reason: Does each paragraph contain a reason why one side promotes, or why the concept does not
apply? Are these reasons correct? Provide at least one example of a reason that you think could use
some work, and explain why. If you can’t find an example of something that is done correctly, provide an
example of something that is done incorrectly and explain why it is correct.
5. Quotation: Does each paragraph contain a primary source quotation defining the concept being
discussed (and not a description of the case)? Are the quotations appropriate and properly
cited? Provide at least one example of a quotation that you think could use some work, and explain
why. If you can’t find an example of something that is done incorrectly, provide an example of
something that is done correctly and explain why it is correct.
6. Explanation: Does each paragraph contain an explanation of the primary source quotation in the
student’s own words? Are the explanations correct? Provide at least one example of an
explanation that you think could use some work, and explain why. If you can’t find an example of
something that is done incorrectly, provide an example of something that is done correctly and explain
why it is correct.
7. Application: Does each paragraph contain a final statement, saying which side promotes the concept
being discussed, or say it does not apply, and using part of the primary source quotation in saying why
one side promotes the concept or does not apply? Is the application done correctly? Provide at least
one example of and application that you think could use some work, and explain why. If you can’t find
an example of something that is done incorrectly, provide an example of something that is done
correctly and explain why it is correct.
Sample Paragraph : This gives you the direction but not the full point
This is a sample paragraph for the first paragraph of the paper, using an imaginary case (in
which Professor Iachetta is imprisoned without trial for teaching the American system of
government).
In Iachetta v. U.S., living under a government that protects person and property does not apply.
The reason it does not apply is that no person is harming Professor Iachetta. As John Locke says,
“Where there is no law, there is no freedom: for liberty is to be free from restraint and violence
from others; which cannot be, where there is no law” (3D). This means that we need a
government to protect us from others, if we want to be free. So this feature does not apply to
this case, because Iachetta is not suffering “restraint and violence from others.”
Select one (1) Supreme Court case from the list of cases in “Scenarios from Selected
Supreme Court Cases” (see the attached document). The only cases that you cannot
write about are case numbers 2, 3,5, 20, 23, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30. You will analyze this
one (1) Supreme Court case from the perspective of five of the major concepts we have
learned in the second half of the course. These major concepts are:
1. Independence
2. Federalism
3. Personal Responsibility
4. Personal Liberties
5. Living under a Government that has Limits through a Constitution
Instead of an introduction, simply state the name of the case that you will analyze. Then
write five paragraphs, each one devoted to one of the concepts listed above, and in the
order listed above. Each paragraph must consist of the following five parts, and in this
order:
1. State which side of the case will promote the concept you are discussing; if
the concept does not apply to your case, then state that it does not apply.
2. Explain why this side promotes this concepts, or why this concept does not
apply to the case (using details from the case) .
3. Provide a primary source quotation from the textbook (attached: Government
Book) that defines the concept you are discussing (this should not be a
quotation describing your case).
4. Explain what the quotation says, using your own words.
5. Re-state which side will promote this concept (or re-state that it does not
apply) and the reason why, but this time when you re-state the reason why,
use part of the quotation you just used instead of using your own words. (See
the sample paragraph that follows for an example of how to do this part.)
Follow this pattern for all five major paragraphs, and you are done.Note on
quotations: as with the Mid-Term, you will need to find a quotation that defines each of
the meanings of the features covered in the final, except in the paragraph on
constitutionally limited government. In this paragraph only, use two quotations: a
quotation that defines the rights secured by the 14th amendment (use something from
69A-70B ) and a quotation that explains what happens when the federal government is
able to give itself power (use 72B or 72C).Note on citation: at the end of your quotation,
cite the quotation by using the activity number and letter of the quotation as it appears in
the textbook and place these in quotation mark followed by a period.Note on plagiarism:
do not present anyone else’s work as your own, and do not write this paper together
with anyone else. If you do so, you will receive a penalty and may receive a 0 on the
assignment and be reported to the college for violating the student code of conduct.
Why Choose Us
- 100% non-plagiarized Papers
- 24/7 /365 Service Available
- Affordable Prices
- Any Paper, Urgency, and Subject
- Will complete your papers in 6 hours
- On-time Delivery
- Money-back and Privacy guarantees
- Unlimited Amendments upon request
- Satisfaction guarantee
How it Works
- Click on the “Place Order” tab at the top menu or “Order Now” icon at the bottom and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.
- Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER DETAILS" section.
- Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline, and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
- Click “CREATE ACCOUNT & SIGN IN” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record-keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
- From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.