Bill of Rights Institute

I was reading a book on slaves in America recently (Rough Crossings, by Simon Schama) and was intrigued by the stories African-American loyalists. The Proclamation of the Earl of Dunmore (1775) and Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, issued 88 years later, share similarities making them well worth the effort to introduce to a classroom.

Teaching slavery is never a simple undertaking. Consideration of two documents written by two chief executives in the midst of war may give students a chance to look at the issue from a new perspective. A striking difference between the two documents is, of course, the eventual outcome of the wars in question and the fate of the slaves freed under the 1775 edict. As the bicentennial celebration of Lincoln’s birth nears, creating historical perspective through the use of his own papers and those of others can only help

If I want to know why the Constitution created a system that gives slave holding states more representation than free states in the Congress, I need to look at the men who wrote it.

If I want to know why the Bill of Rights was so important it was the first order of business in the House of Representatives, I need to understand the minds of the men who fought over the ratification of the Constitution.

If I want my students to look at these documents and the Founding with fresh eyes and a new perspective, I need to bring the Founders themselves into the narrative. So - where do I find them?

The Founders Online - our student centered pages with interactive resources.

The Founders Constitution - a great word-searchable online resource of primary source documents written by the Founders.

The Founders Alamanac - a guide to the writings and lives of the Founders with a great interactive time line.

The Founding Fathers - the National Archives resource page for all 55 signers of the Constitution.

Take some time to explore the words and lives of the men who shaped the course of the country. The stories and writings can help you teach the documents and concepts - nothing is as compelling as the personal narrative!

Brett Helm

“The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” — Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution, 1789

“The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.” –Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the 5-4 majority, in Boumediene et al v. Bush, 2008

“[The nation is] at war with radical Islamists….[the court's decision] will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.” — Justice Antonin Scalia, dissenting opinion

The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that individuals being held indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay have the right to challenge their detention in court. This essential right, known as habeas corpus, has its roots in the Magna Carta, and is fundamental to a free society. But it is not an absolute right. The Constitution, in the section listing powers prohibited to Congress, states when it may be suspended. But the Constitution is silent on to whom the right applies: citizens only? Some non-citizens? All non-citizens including those suspected of terrorist attacks, and/or having ties to Al-Qaida and the Taliban? 

Yesterday, the Court interpreted Article I, Section 9, along with how it applies to the more than 250 detainees at Guantanamo Bay. The 5-4 ruling essentially states that non-citizens being held at the prison camp have the same rights as anyone else being held by the United States to challenge their incarceration before a judge.

The Founders included strong protections for accused persons, because they knew that suspected criminals are likely to be disliked in the community and may be easy targets for abuse by majorities. What does the ruling say about the scope of the right to habeas corpus? What implications does it have for the President’s power as commander in chief?  What do you think? What do your students think?

I’m currently involved in programs dealing with the fundamentals of our Founding and wanted to share some great resources with you. Many teachers would love to take a little time to really have their students learn what happened during the Philadelphia Convention, but simply don’t have time to create activities dealing with what was said in the debates. As these concepts will be near the top of your planning needs come next fall, let me clue you in! Our website has a flash activity entitled Madison’s Notes are Missing that takes a look at what the Founders said in debating some of the key issues of the Convention in a fun and interactive manner. Another great site for exploring the Convention is Gordon Lloyd’s Constitutional Convention page at teachingamericanhistory.org - a comprehensive overview of the Convention itself with links to lots of resources. For those of you interested in pulling your own excerpts together from Madison’s Notes on the Constitutional Convention, the Liberty Fund has provided an online, word-searchable edition at its Online Library of Liberty. Feel free to share your favorite ideas and lesson in the comments section!

Brett Helm

Even if one views the FLDS belief system as creating a danger of sexual abuse by grooming boys to be perpetrators of sexual abuse and raising girls to be victims of sexual abuse as the Department contends, there is no evidence that this danger is ‘immediate’ or ‘urgent’ … with respect to every child in the community. –3rd Court of Appeals in Austin

The Third Court of Appeals in Austin has ruled that officials did not have the power to seize 460 children–half of which were babies or toddlers–from their families at the YFZ Ranch in Texas. The families were all members of a breakaway Mormon sect called the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The Court reasoned that in order to remove children from their families, a danger must be immediate, and  ”the Department (CPS) did not present any evidence of danger to the physical health or safety of any male children or any female children who had not reached puberty.”

Texas Child Protective Services officals had argued that the FDLS church’s “pervasive belief system” turned boys into sexual predators when they reached adulthood and brainwashed girls to submit to underage marriage once they reached puberty.

In addition to its front page, the Houston Chronicle runs this story in its religion section. Is this a religion case? Is it a criminal procedure case? Personal liberty? A combination of all three? What do you think? What do your students think?

I’ll be in Arlington National Cemetery this weekend, stopping by to honor those who have given their “last full measure” for the United States. Memorial Day is an opportunity for educators to review how we teach the history of our country’s wars. War is a clearly defined state of national emergency, and the relationship between government and citizens changes markedly during wartime. Rather than focusing on the major campaigns and battles of the war, stepping back to view the impact of war on the nature of our Republic may be a worthwhile exercise - after all, we fight wars when our way of life is threatened. That being the case, if war causes a fundamental shift in the relationship of governors and governed, it becomes part of our national life.

The impact of pressing issues of national security in times of war have been the subject of some of the Supreme Court’s most interesting holdings (Schenck, Korematsu, Hamdi) Use these cases to help your students understand the limits placed on personal freedom and the rationale for such actions.

Look to the Constitution and show the students the balance between Article I and Article II when it comes to making war. Explore the text of the War Powers Resolution and see how it impacts the roles laid out for Congress and the Executive in the Constitution.

While the students explore these important issues, use the context of the war to emphasize the importance of these concepts in American life - remember, some Americans feel they’re worth dying for.

“This [Internet] message was no different than if it was written on a bathroom wall.”

–Lake County Circuit Court Judge Theodore Potkonjak

A pair of recent news articles highlights the difference between speech that may deserve First Amendment protection, and speech that does not. In the first situation, a student went on an online rant about her principal and her school’s body piercing code.  Whether or not you believe that a student’s choice to display piercings in school is protected by the First Amendment, a judge held that her right to rant about it on a semi-private Web page was.

In the second situation, a student’s threat of violence against his high school posted online was not protected by the First Amendment. The threat, which held that many would die and included images of a shotgun and shotgun shells, was so potent that some 500 kids stayed home from school when they learned about it.

How are these situations the same? How are they different? On what issues did the rulings agree? What can we learn about First Amendment applications to different kinds of speech? What do you think? What do your students think?

By the way, you can always find news related to the Bill of Rights on our website, www.BillofRightsInstitute.org/headlines.

I was privileged to sit in as an observer this week at the state finals of the Texas Citizen Bee in Austin, Texas. Eighteen regional representatives from across the state tested their knowledge of Founding Documents, historically significant people and events, Supreme Court jurisprudence and current events shaping American society. The Institute created our Student Study Guide as the reference for these knowledge based questions. The level of knowledge about the civic foundations of America was impressive, but what really struck me was a discussion held in the afternoon.

The top four students discussed the nature of justice in American society. For just over 20 minutes, these students held an informed, civil, and lively exchange of ideas on a question usually reserved for college political philosophy classes. No teacher, no moderator, just the kids. (Scholastic.com provides a set of ideas and rules for grades K-8. A high school level set of general discussion guidelines can be found here.) My immediate reaction was simple – why aren’t we doing more of this in the classroom?

Why not challenge the students to frame the next unit’s big question in an introductory discussion among a selected group, followed by Q&A with the whole class? How about wrapping up a unit with small group discussions focused on defining what they believe the most important lessons to take away from the unit? A weekly opportunity to tie what the class is doing to current events? Turning the class over to the students can be a powerful learning tool, why not give it a try?

- Brett Helm

“The legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions.” –Thomas Jefferson 

 The First Amendment protects an absolute freedom of belief. We know that protecting rights of conscience was of  paramount importance to the Founders, and the Supreme Court affirmed this in Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940). But as Jefferson noted in his letter to the Danbury Baptists, government can exercise just power in restraining certain actions, even if that action is religiously motivated.  This commentary by Charles Haynes of the First Amendment Center explores the balance between free religious exercise and child welfare, and might make a useful classroom resource. What are the limits of free religious exercise when children are impacted? What do you think? What do your students think?

“The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach”

Justice Hugo Black,

writing for the majority in Everson v.Board of Education

Its always interesting to revisit phrases and concepts we become comfortable with over time. One of the most recognized phrases in our lexicon of rights is Jefferson’s description of a “wall of separation” between church and state. Understanding historical context allows students to better analyze the application of this simple phrase in America today. The phrase has been part of our legal traditions since 1878 (Reynolds v. United States) and ringingly reasserted above by Justice Black in Everson.

The story of Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists is a fascinating exercise in understanding Jefferson’s idea in context of time and place. The Library of Congress’ research and FBI recovery of the first draft of this letter provide new viewpoints on Jefferson’s purpose in writing to the congregation. Professor Robert Jeffrey of Wofford College gives us another approach to understanding why Jefferson chose this phrase in this short podcast. Professor Daniel Dreisbach of American University brings his analysis to bear in the evaluation of two very different missives to the newly elected president: the letter FROM the Danbury Baptists to Jefferson and the delivery of a “mammoth cheese” from the Baptists of Cheshire, Massachusetts. Take a few minutes to look over what impact a simple letter can have on the history of a nation.

Brett Helm