This article describes two middle school students who were arrested for violating a daytime curfew while walking home from a protest.
http://www.news8austin.com/content/your_news/default.asp?ArID=199037
Do you think protesting is risky? Why or why not?
W6 Social Studies students took on the roles of lawyers and Supreme Court justices this week. First they petitioned the Court with case briefs they created using fictional characters. The Court (aka Ms. Ross) chose a brief for each base group; students then acted as lawyers for the defense, lawyers for the plaintiff, or Supreme Court justices.
Each base group heard a different case. In the case of Big Bird v. State of Stephenchusetts, the question for the court was whether Dora’s Discount Furniture violated Big Bird’s First Amendment rights when the store threatened to fire him if he took a day off to observe Passover. The court unanimously found in favor of the plaintiff. (Case brief written by Stephen B.)
The case of Harry Potter v. Dolores Umbridge dealt with two challenges to the Constitution: whether Potter was given a “cruel and unusual punishment” (Amendment VIII), and also whether Amendment I was violated when Umbridge refused to let people read the magazine Harry published. The Court decided in favor of the plaintiff, 6-2. (Case brief written by Ava K.)
Amendment VI, which guarantees the right to an impartial jury, was the focus of Roscuro v. The King’s Court. Roscuro claimed his rights were violated during a trial conducted by the King; the Court agreed unanimously. (Case brief written by Olivia A.)
In the case of Clay v. College, the question was whether Clay’s First Amendment rights were violated when he was expelled from the College for practicing his religion. The decision was in favor of the plaintiff, with seven justices finding for the plaintiff and two for the defendant. (Case brief written by Fatuma A.)
