We studied the tension between maintaining public order and individual rights as we examined the constitutional rights of the accused as established in the Bill of Rights. I provided instruction first on the scope of the Fourth Amendment and the requirement of probable cause and a warrant. We then explored the creation of the "exclusionary rule " in Mapp v Ohio and the shift of the Supreme Court toward maintaining public order in more recent cases relaxing the exclusionary rule.We then studied the 5th Amendment's prohibition against self-incriminartion , the court case creating the Miranda rules(and warnings) and the exceptions to the Miranda rules. (public safety). Last, we began a study of the 8th Amendment and the right to bail. Matthew conriues to raise interesting questions on constitutional issues and discussed the fairness of certain bail thresholds.

In noting the distinction between "civil liberties" and "civil rights", I emphasized. that the Bill of Rights mostly restricts actions by the government rather than creating substantive affirmative rights. As such ,we describe these protections as our civil liberties. We then reviewed the holdings in the major "Establishment" cases and "free exercise " cases. Starting with Engle v Vitale's prohibition on prayer in school, we examined the court's conservative drift by addressing the recent Kennedy case holding that under the"free exercise " clause a coach at a public school could kneel and conduct a post-game team prayer . We then addressed the scope of the Second Amendment as outlined in the Heller and McDonald cases. I reviewed the various interpretations on the scope of the amendment's language, and discussed the "incorporation" theory (under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment) which applied the Heller case to the states thereby declaring unconstitutional Chicago's outright ban on hand gun ownership.

Today's lesson focused on religious freedom as guaranteed under the First Amendment. I first provided instruction on the incorporation theory and explained how the "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment incorporates most of the Bill of Rights,thereby binding the states. We then studied the precise language of the Constitution and discussed the tension between the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise" clause by examining the outcomes of numerous Supreme Court cases. We noted the Court's tendency to maintain a separation of church and state in a school setting . After reviewing the 3 prong test established in Lemon v Kurtzman we discussed the recent Hobby Lobby case that held that corporate employers can refuse to comply with the Affordable Care Act's requirement that insurance policies offer birth control pills under the free exercise clause. Matthew remains very interested and involved in our class discussions on these controversial current topics.

Before studying the controversial Second Amendment, we first reviewed constitutional restrictions on the right of free speech. We then discussed why the Second Amendment and gun rights remain controversial with Matthew noting the importance of a court's subjective interpretation of the amendment in determining something as critical as a constitutional right. We addressed the Supreme Court Second Amendment decisions in McDonald and Heller as victories for gun rights lobbyists as these decisions declared unconstitutional state laws and federal laws banning handguns within a local jurisdiction (Chicago and DC). As Matthew inquired as to the next areas of Second Amendment controversy, we discussed proposed open carry laws and whether these laws deter or induce crime.

We explored limits on the protections of the First Amendment : fighting words, defamation, public school expression, and time ,place , and manner restrictions. I discussed the case law limiting student rights of expression in school newspapers and after school activities. As the First Amendment only limits government actions, Matthew astutely noted that First Amendment rights ,however, should be unlimited in public schools given the absolute language of the amendment. I then provided examples of how even hate speech is not banned although the time, place , and manner of such expression remains subject to limitation . We noted how speech restrictions do not allow censorship or prior restraint of the press and how the scope of "free speech" varies depending on the constituency of the US Supreme Court. In that regard, I addressed Matthew's question about the procedure employed by the judges in adjuciating a case and why a decision takes months. Last, we began to examine the First Amendment's " free exercise" of religion provision and the "establishment clause" which we will continue after the break.

Matthew participated in a school-wide holiday event during today's session.

Continuing our examination of freedom of speech we first discussed how the due process incorporation theory acts to apply this right to the states. I noted the distinction between a negative right and an affirmative right in the context of explaining why the rights under the first amendment are limited. We first discussed the meaning of" speech." Matthew identified written and spoken words as well as expressive speech in art. I then discussed the Tinker case and explained the concept of symbolic speech. We explored why flag burning is protected speech but draft card burning is not. Last, we noted other restrictions on speech such as defamation and incitement to violence . I explained how the standard of Schneck(a required case) has been replaced by a more permissive standard.

Matthew was absent today.

To begin our study of the "freedom of speech" and "free exercise " of religion clauses in the First Amendment , I placed the amendment's exact language on the board and defined the term "abridge" as to reduce or to deprive. I then discussed the expansive legal definition of speech as including symbolic speech and the right not to speak at all. I further noted how the First Amendment now applies to the states under the 14th Amendment (a concept we will later study in detail). We then discussed the 322 free speech case argued in the US Supreme Court on Monday and exchanged ideas on whether the Colorado anti-discrimination law can be considered an abridgment of "free speech." HW- write argumentative essay on the 322 case based on NY Times article I distributed and text reading.

Matthew took a test on the judiciary during today's session.