USHAP

1. Unit 3 Week 3 USHAP

2. “Where are you From” due on 10/23 • Fluency Fact Review Quiz Tomorrow: Tuesday 10/16 • *Test date changed!! • Now Monday: 10/22 • HW due in 10/19 is now Chapter 13 416-425 and reading question on pg 420. Important Reminders

3. Objective: Work on categorization skills • Content: The Federalist impact of the Marshall Court • Skills: compare and contrast, writing skills • Essential question: Was the U.S. becoming more democratic in this time period? • Agenda: • Marshall Court (and more) Groups • Work on Presentation Monday: 10/15

4. You will be assigned one group to present tomorrow. • You will create a graphic representation or compose and perform a skit or a song or compose a love letter that clarifies the significance of the case. • Be educational and respectful. • Use the Graphic organizer on the next slide to organize your information. Overview

5. Graphic Organizer

6. Marbury v. Madison is a landmark case in United States law. It formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution. • This case resulted from a petition to the Supreme Court by William Marbury, who had been appointed by President John Adams as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia, but whose commission was not subsequently delivered. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to force Secretary of State James Madison to deliver the documents, but the Court, with John Marshall as Chief Justice, denied Marbury's petition, holding that part of the statute upon which he based his claim, the Judiciary Act of 1789, was unconstitutional. • Marbury v. Madison was the first time the Supreme Court declared a law "unconstitutional," and established the concept of judicial review in the U.S. Judicial Review allows the Court to oversee and nullify the actions of another branch of government). The landmark decision helped define the "checks and balances" of the United States structure of government. Marbury v. Madison (1803)

7. McCulloch v. Maryland was a significant decision by the Supreme Court of the United States. In 1816, Congress chartered the Second Bank of the United States. The state of Maryland had attempted to impede operation of a branch of the Second Bank of the United States by imposing a tax on all notes of banks not chartered in Maryland. Though the law, by its language, was generally applicable, the U.S. Bank was the only out-of-state bank then existing in Maryland, and the law is generally recognized as having specifically targeted the U.S. Bank. • The Court invoked the Necessary and Proper Clause in the Constitution, which allowed the Federal government to pass laws not expressly provided for in the Constitution's list of express powers as long as those laws are in useful furtherance of the express powers. Marshall states that “the power to tax involves the power to destroy...” • This fundamental case legitimized the following two principles: • The Constitution grants to Congress implied powers for implementing the Constitution's express powers, in order to create a functional national government. (1.8.18) • State action may not impede valid constitutional exercises of power by the Federal government; “...laws of the United States ...shall be the supreme Law of the land ...(VI.2) McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

8. Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward was a key United States Supreme Court case dealing with the application of the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution to private corporations. The case arose when the president of Dartmouth College was deposed by its trustees, leading to the New Hampshire legislature attempting to force the College to become a public institution and thereby place the ability to appoint trustees in the hands of the governor. The Supreme Court upheld the sanctity of the original charter of the College, which pre-dated the creation of the State, having been granted by King George III in 1769 • The trustees retained Dartmouth alumnus Daniel Webster, a New Hampshire native who would later become a U.S. Senator for Massachusetts and Secretary of State under President Millard Fillmore. Webster argued the college's case against William H. Woodward, the state-approved secretary of the new board of trustees. • The Court held that the College’s corporate charter qualified as a contract between private parties, with which the legislature could not “impair” (I.10.1). Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion emphasized that the term “contract” referred to transactions involving individual property rights, not “the political relations between the government and its citizens.” Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819)

9. A New York state law gave exclusive right to operate steamboats on waters within state jurisdiction. Laws like this one were duplicated elsewhere which led to friction as some states would require foreign (out-of-state) boats to pay substantial fees for navigation privileges. In 1815 Aaron Ogden purchased this right. • In this case, a steamboat owner, Thomas Gibbons, who had a federal coasting license and did business between New York and New Jersey, challenged the monopoly that New York had granted, which forced him to obtain a special operating permit from the state to navigate on its waters. Ogden obtained an injunction from a New York court against Gibbons to keep him out of New York waters, maintaining that navigation was not a distinct form of commerce, and was thus a legitimate area of state regulation. Gibbons then sued for entry into the state, and the case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court. • The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gibbons, stating “The acts of Congress are supreme and the law of the state...must yield to it.” He adds “Commerce...is something more,-it is intercourse.” Gibbons v. Ogden was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the power to regulate interstate commerce was granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. (I.8.3) Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

10. Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) • In June 1830, a delegation of Cherokee led by Chief John Ross selected William Wirt, Attorney General in the Monroe and Adams administrations, on the urging of Senators Daniel Webster and Theodore Frelinghuysen to defend Cherokee rights before the U.S. Supreme Court. The Cherokee nation asked for an injunction, claiming that Georgia's state legislation had created laws which, "go directly to annihilate the Cherokees as a political society". Wirt argued that "the Cherokee Nation [was] a foreign nation in the sense of our constitution and law" and was not subject to Georgia's jurisdiction. Wirt asked the Supreme Court to null and void all Georgia laws extended over Cherokee lands on the grounds that they violated the U.S. Constitution, United States-Cherokee treaties, and United States intercourse laws. • The injunction was denied, on the grounds that the Cherokee people, not being a state, and claiming to be independent of the United States, were a "denominated domestic dependent nation", over which the Supreme Court had no original jurisdiction. • Although the Court determined that it did not have original jurisdiction in this case, the Court held open the possibility that it yet might rule in favor of the Cherokee on an appeal from a lower court. • Worcester v. Georgia (1832) • Samuel Worcester, a U.S. citizen, was indicted, convicted and sentenced to hard labor for 4 years for “residing with in the limits of the Cherokee Nation “without a license” and “without having taken the oath to support and defend the ...laws of the state of Georgia.” • In the Worcester v. Georgia decision, Chief Justice John Marshall noted that the “treaties and laws of the United States contemplate the Indian territory as completely separated from that of the states; and provide that all intercourse with them shall be carried on exclusively by the government of the union…”. Thus, this decision ruled that Georgia could not impose its laws upon Cherokee tribal lands. Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831)& Worcester v. Georgia (1832)

11. Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court under the leadership of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney. • In 1785, the Charles River Bridge Company had been granted a charter to construct a bridge over the Charles River connecting Boston and Charlestown, and to collect tolls for use of the bridge. In 1828, the legislature established the Warren Bridge Company to build a free bridge nearby. In response, the proprietors of the Charles River Bridge claimed that the Massachusetts legislature had broken its contract with the Charles River Bridge Company, and thus the contract had been violated. The owners of the first bridge claimed that the charter had implied exclusive rights to the Charles River Bridge Company. • The Court ultimately sided with Warren Bridge. The Court held that the state had not entered a contract that prohibited the construction of another bridge on the river at a later date. The Court held that the legislature neither gave exclusive control over the waters of the river nor invaded corporate privilege by interfering with the company's profit-making ability. In balancing the rights of private property against the need for economic development, the Court found that the community interest in creating new channels of travel and trade had priority. In reversing a decision by a state court, the Supreme Court in this case supported economic opportunity by denying a monopoly. Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge (1837)

12. http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/vice-presidential-debate-cold-open/1420805http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/vice-presidential-debate-cold-open/1420805 Inspiration for the day

13. Objective: Explore the expressions and contradictions of Jacksonianism • Content: Jacksonianism, the Second American Party System and the Market Revolution • Skills: Cause and effect • Essential question: Was the U.S. becoming more democratic in this time period? Agenda: • Fluency Fact Review Quiz • Marshall Court activity debrief Tuesday 10/16

14. Review Quiz Synthesizer Frames • Show Commonality: • ___________ , _____________ , and _____________ all demonstrate ____________ in the ____________ period. • Show Contrast: • Although ______________ in the case of ____________, for the most part ______________ as seen in the ______________ and the _____________. • Show Analysis: • ______________, ________________, and ______________ all resulted from _______________ in the ____________________ period.

15. Proposed date: Block Day October 31 & November 1 • Foreign & Domestic Policy • We will choose the topics as a class • Volunteers: • Obama • Romney • Biden • Ryan • Moderator • There will be a class discussion afterwards so that all students can participate • Critical Thinking Grading Category Presidential Debate Proposal

16. Supreme Court Presentations

17. Objective: Explore the expressions and contradictions of Jacksonianism • Content: Jacksonianism, the Second American Party System and the Market Revolution • Skills: Cause and effect • Essential question: Was the U.S. becoming more democratic in this time period? Agenda: • Marshall Court activity debrief • Discuss the debate • Market Revolution Block Day 10/18 & 10/19

19. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/10/19/alfred-e-smith-dinner-the-top-10-quips-video/http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/10/19/alfred-e-smith-dinner-the-top-10-quips-video/ Inspiration of the Day