POL 303 (Ash) Read, Lead, Succeed/Uophelpdotcom

1. POL 303 (Ash) Read, Lead, Succeed/Uophelpdotcom For more course tutorials visit www.uophelp.com

2. POL 303 Entire Course For more course tutorials visit www.uophelp.com POL 303 Week 1 DQ 1 Judicial Review POL 303 Week 1 DQ 2 Congress and Federalism POL 303 Week 2 DQ 1 Religious Liberty POL 303 Week 2 DQ 2 Freedom of Expression POL 303 Week 2 Teaching “Intelligent Design” in the Public Schools POL 303 Week 3 DQ 1 Equal Protection and Gender Discrimination POL 303 Week 3 DQ 2 Constitutional Issues Related to Same-gender Marriage

3. POL 303 Week 1 DQ 1 Judicial Review (Ash) For more course tutorials visit www.uophelp.com Judicial Review. Respond to this 2-part question in your initial post: a.  What is the Supreme Court's justification for its claim to the power of judicial review in the American system of government? Fully explain Chief Justice Marshall’s rationale in Marbury v. Madison. b.  Do you find this rationale persuasive, especially in light of how the modern Court exercises this power in a decision like Bush v. Gore? Fully explain the constitutional basis of your reasons.

4. POL 303 Week 1 DQ 2 Congress and Federalismv(Ash) For more course tutorials visit www.uophelp.com Congress and Federalism. Respond to this 2-part question in your initial post: a.  What is the Supreme Court's justification for recognizing broad and expansive national power in Congress to address what some view as "local" problems? Fully explain the Court’s rationale in McCulloch v. Maryland (by Marshall, C.J.) and the different rationales of various Justices in the 2012 Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) cases. b.  Which of the Court’s rationales do you find most persuasive? Which are the least persuasive? Fully explain the constitutional basis of your reasons.

5. POL 303 Week 2 DQ 1 Religious Liberty (Ash) For more course tutorials visit www.uophelp.com Religious Liberty. Respond to this 3-part question in your initial post: Explain the Supreme Court's reasons, in Edwards v. Aguillard (the majority opinion by Justice Brennan), for holding that a law mandating the teaching of creationism in public schools violates the Constitution’s ban on “establishment of religion.” Explain the rationale of Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion. Which rationale, the majority or dissent, is more consistent with previous Supreme Court interpretations of the Establishment Clause (see Davis, 2008)? Fully explain the historical and constitutional basis for your position.

6. POL 303 Week 2 DQ 2 Freedom of Expression (Ash) For more course tutorials visit www.uophelp.com DQ 2 Freedom of Expression. In 2010 the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, held that certain government restrictions on corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections were unconstitutional (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission). This controversial decision has been greeted with calls to overturn it by amending the Constitution. Respond to this 3-part question in your initial post: Explain the rationale of the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United (the majority opinion by Justice Kennedy). Explain the rationale of Justice Steven’s dissenting opinion. Evaluate both the majority and minority rationales. Explain and justify your evaluation by drawing on previous Supreme Court interpretations of the 1st Amendment.

7. POL 303 Week 2 Teaching Intelligent Design in the Public Schools (Ash) For more course tutorials visit www.uophelp.com Teaching “Intelligent Design” in the Public Schools. Write your paper about a hypothetical proposal that is before the elected school board for the public schools in your city. The proposal stirs deep controversy in the community. Opponents claim that it would violate the Constitution’s prohibition against a “establishment of religion.” The proposed mandatory regulation states: “The theory of ‘intelligent design’ shall be taught in the public schools of this city in all classes where the theory of evolution is taught. The theory of ‘intelligent design’ shall be taught as a possible scientific explanation for life, and other aspects of the universe, and as an alternative to the scientific explanation offered by the theory of evolution.

8. POL 303 Week 3 DQ 1 Equal Protection and Gender Discrimination (Ash) For more course tutorials visit www.uophelp.com Equal Protection and Gender Discrimination. In recent years opportunities for women in the U.S. military have been expanding. But 200,000 jobs may remain closed to women for a variety of reasons. Recently two female Army Reserve officers sued the government for excluding them from formal “assignment” to specific Army combat units and other positions solely because of their gender (Sampson, 2012). They argue that being excluded from these “assignments” limits their opportunities for advancement in the Army and restricts their current and future earnings and their retirement benefits. They also argue that the Army’s practice of “attaching” them to such units (instead of formally “assigning” them which is barred under Army rules) actually exposes them to greater danger than male soldiers because women are excluded from combat-arms training for engaging hostile opponents.

9. POL 303 Week 3 DQ 2 Constitutional Issues Related to Same-gender Marriage (Ash) For more course tutorials visit www.uophelp.com Constitutional Issues Related to Same-gender Marriage. In 2012 the Armed Services Committee of the House of Representatives adopted, by a party-line vote, an amendment to the military defense budget for 2013 that would prohibit same-gender marriage ceremonies in base chapels serving members of the U.S. Armed Forces. If this amendment is enacted into law, it will change current Defense Department policy that allows use of chapels for religious marriage ceremonies on sexual-orientation neutral basis. If by law the government denies a same-gender military couple permission to hold a religiously authorized marriage ceremony in a base chapel, would such denial violate the Constitution? Respond to this question in your initial post. Fully explain the constitutionally-based reasons for your position, considering both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses and the following cases:

10. POL 303 Week 3 Research Paper Draft (Ash) For more course tutorials visit www.uophelp.com Research Paper Draft. This is an opportunity to submit a draft or outline of the Research Paper for review and feedback from your instructor. Read the instructions for the Week Five Research Paper and create an outline for the structure of the paper. For information regarding writing an outline, reference to the Ashford Writing Center within the Learning Resources tab on the left navigation toolbar. You must use at least five scholarly resources (including Supreme Court decisions) and at least two articles that can be found in the Ashford Online Library to support your claims and subclaims. Cite your resources in text and on the reference page. For information regarding APA samples and tutorials, visit the Ashford Writing Center, within the Learning Resources tab on the left navigation toolbar, in your online course.

11. POL 303 Week 4 DQ 1 Suspicion-less Strip Searches (Ash) For more course tutorials visit www.uophelp.com Suspicion-less Strip Searches. In 2012 the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, upheld the constitutionality of routine (without probable cause) strip searches of persons arrested and detained, even briefly, in a jail (Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the Country of Burlington). Respond to this 3-part question in your initial post: Explain the rationale of the Supreme Court's decision in Florence (the majority opinion by Justice Kennedy). Explain the rationale of Justice Breyer’s dissenting opinion. Evaluate both the majority and minority rationales. Explain and justify your evaluation by drawing on prior Supreme Court interpretations of the 4th Amendment’s prohibition of “unreasonable searches” from the required textbook.

12. POL 303 Week 4 DQ 2 Cruel and Unusual Punishment (Ash) For more course tutorials visit www.uophelp.com Cruel and Unusual Punishment. During the last decade, the Supreme Court has applied the 8th Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments against some of the harsher sentencing policies implemented by various states. Three cases dealing with juvenile offenders – Roper v. Simmons (2005), Graham v. Florida (2010), and Miller v. Alabama (2012) – illustrate this moderating trend. An underlying rationale of these decisions – “disproportionality” – contrasts with rationales guiding the Court’s earlier (pre- 2002) interpretations of the 8th Amendment (see Davis, 2008). Respond to this 3-part question in your initial post: Explain the rationale which seems to guide the current Supreme Court majority’s approach to defining “cruel and unusual punishment.”

13. POL 303 Week 5 DQ 1 Eminent Domain (Ash) For more course tutorials visit www.uophelp.com Eminent Domain. In 2005 the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, upheld the constitutionality of a city taking private property, while paying the owner just compensation, and selling it to a private developer as part of a plan to stimulate the city's weak economy (Kelo v. City of New London). Respond to this 3-part question in your initial post: Explain the rationale of the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo (the majority opinion by Justice Stevens). Explain the rationale of Justice O’Connor’s dissenting opinion. Evaluate both the majority and minority rationales. Explain and justify your evaluation. Include consideration of these factors: The Supreme Court’s traditional approach to the “public use” requirement for takings The relative competence of the Supreme Court vs. local governments to determine what is a “public use” to justify the taking of private property. 

14. POL 303 Week 5 DQ 2 Right to Bear Arms (Ash) For more course tutorials visit www.uophelp.com Right to Bear Arms. In 2010 the Supreme Court’s novel and controversial interpretation of the 2nd Amendment greatly limited government’s power to restrict gun possession. The case McDonald v. Chicago sparked widespread debate across the political and legal community, some of which is expressed in the articles you read for this discussion. Read the summary of McDonaldv.Chicago, then choose and read two articles pertaining to the McDonald v Chicago case from the Recommended Resources for POL303 PDF file located in your online classroom. Write a detailed critique of these articles. Respond to this 3-part question in your initial post:
a. Explain the articles’ positions and arguments.
b. Identify and analyze a strength and a weakness in the authors’ analyses or conclusions (from your perspective). Explain your reasons for viewing each point as either a strength or a weakness.
c. Describe how the articles affect your evaluation of the Court’s decision in McDonald v. Chicago and explain why.

15. POL 303 Week 5 Final Paper (Ash) For more course tutorials visit www.uophelp.com Focus of the Research Paper In this essay you will research a case that is actively pending before the Supreme Court of the United States (not yet decided by the Court when you submit your essay at the end of Week Five). It must be a case that raises significant issues involving the interpretation of the Constitution. The thesis of your essay will be a statement of the decision, regarding these issues, which the Court should make, according to your research and analysis of the constitutional principles, Court precedents, facts of the case, and other relevant information. Step One: Identify a Pending Case First, you must identify a pending constitutional case that you will research. Here are some suggested search strategies:

16. POL 303 (Ash) Read, Lead, Succeed/Uophelpdotcom For more course tutorials visit www.uophelp.com