Hobby Lobby v Burwell

On this episode of Teens Be Talkin’, we’re discussing the Burwell v Hobby Lobby case. Special guest Aidan discusses his views on the intersection of the Constitution and ethics, and when a business should become religiously neutral.

Sources –

 

 

 

 

 

Shelby County v Holder

Sections 4 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act were meant to protect all Americans’ right to vote by forcing certain states to obtain federal approval before passing any new election laws and practices.

When the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Shelby County in Shelby County v. Holder, the Court opened the floodgates for these states to pass new voting laws—even voter suppression laws—without the federal government’s approval.

In this episode:

  • Huyen-Tram interviewed Matt Sherls, a civics teacher at SAMi. In his interview, he shared his knowledge and opinion regarding the Voting Rights Act, the ruling of Shelby County v. Holder, and voter suppression.
  • Phoenix interviewed Julie Anderson, the Pierce County Auditor. She shared her insight on election laws and voting in Washington.
  • Daniel, Greg, and Roman discuss how they would rule on Shelby County v. Holder. The discussion reflected the progression of their thoughts and changing opinions.

 

 

Sources:

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/12-96

The oral arguments of the Supreme Court case can be accessed on Oyez. The oral arguments contains Justice Scalia talking about how the Senate vote to renew the Voting Rights Act’s sections increased to 98-0 in the 2006 renewal vote. Additionally, in the oral argument, the counsel for Shelby County stated that there is a high registration and turnout of black voters in Alabama.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/01/0-000002-percent-of-all-the-ballots-cast-in-the-2016-election-were-fraudulent/?utm_term=.e91fb7645b2c

This Washington Post article stated that there were only four cases of voter fraud in the 2016 presidential election.

 

https://www.thenation.com/article/ohio-early-voting-cutbacks-disenfranchise-minority-voters/

The Nation reported that in 2012, Ohio Republicans tried to curtail the early voting period in 2012 from thirty-five to eleven days, with no voting on the Sunday before the election, when African-American churches historically rally their congregants to go to the polls. Thanks to successful protests, the Republicans had to repeal their own bill. But they still kept a ban on early voting in the last three days before Election Day, with an exception to the ban for active duty members of the military—who tend to lean Republican.

 

https://www.justice.gov/crt/jurisdictions-previously-covered-section-5

The states that had to acquire federal approval include Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia. Ohio never had to acquire approval.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Safford v Redding

 

A 13 year old student, Savannah Redding, was brought to the office during school after her principal received a day planner on his desk, with knives, lighters, and a cigarette. He and an admin searched her backpack, found nothing, and sent her to the nurses office for a strip search. The nurse (who was female) had her take off her clothing down to her underpants, shake out her bra, and pull out the elastics in her underpants. Student sued, claiming that the school violated her fourth amendment rights.

https://www.oyez.org/case/2008/08-479

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7395783

 

https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/education-law/school-law/when-can-a-school-strip-search-or-pat-down-students.html

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/us/politics/26scotus.html

Texas v Johnson

This podcast is about the outlawing of the ability to burn the flag, and the fight to keep this action as a right protected under freedom of speech. This case has been decided, but we’re going to share our thoughts and ideas about it. Also, we will be touching on some hot-button issues in the process.

Special thanks to https://www.oyez.org/cases/1988/88-155 for useful information and audio from the court.

Hazelwood v Kuhlmeier

It’s Hazelwood East High School. 1987. The student newspaper, The Spectrum, is about to be published. Then, out of nowhere, the principal takes it upon himself to be an editor. The students take this to the courts on the grounds of censoring their freedom of speech. When it’s taken to the Supreme Court, the result is shocking. The group that wins will be revealed when you listen to this episode of Teens be Talkin’.

 

We used the Oyez article ( https://www.oyez.org/cases/1987/86-836 ),  which is an unbiased fact checker about supreme court cases.

United States Courts- http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-hazelwood-v-kuhlmeier is an informational website about the facts and information on the case.

United States Courts Podcast- http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/supreme-court-landmarks/hazelwood-v-kuhlmeier-podcast is a podcast about this case.

A firsthand account video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuTVtokDYhY which is from a student who was at Hazelwood at the time.

And a c-span video (https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4387692/hazelwood-v-kuhlmeier) which is a news broadcast about this case from 1987.

Bethel v Fraser

In this episode, Noah, Phoenix, and Huyen-Tram discuss the Bethel v. Fraser Supreme Court case about regulating student speeches, and whether that regulation violates the students’ First Amendment rights. Gregory interviews special guest SAMI co-director Ms. Hall. 

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/478/675/case.html  was a good site for finding the opinions of all of the Justices. Justia is a good cite for finding lawyers and reviewing court decisions. 

 https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bethel-School-District-No-403-v-Fraser was where we found all the information from how it started to the court’s final decision. Britannica is one of the best sites for finding information.

 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1985/84-1667 was the site that we used to listen to the oral arguments. Oyez is good for finding all of the essential information about the case and listening to the oral arguments.  

Roe v Wade

The year is 1973. In Texas, a woman (Jane Roe) says that she is pregnant due to rape and does not want the child. She requests to have her baby aborted, but because of laws in Texas (and many other states at the time), they deny her request. But that does not stop her, and what happened next changed the laws of the U.S. birthrights forever.

Tinker v Des Moines

In 1965, the Vietnam War was an ongoing issue. A group of high school students chose to exercise their right to free speech and wore armbands to protest the war. They were told their protest was distracting, and they sued the school district in response. This episode discusses the Tinker v Des Moines Independent School District case and students’ right to free speech.

 

Case summary:

://landmarkcases.org/en/landmark/cases/tinker_v_des_moines#Tab=AnswerKey

An ACLU article with more info:

https://www.aclu.org/other/tinker-v-des-moines-landmark-supreme-court-ruling-behalf-student-expression

Supreme Court Hearing Audio:

https://apps.oyez.org/player/#/warren15/oral_argument_audio/15012

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/21?sort=ideology

 

Coates vs Cincinnati

This episode is about the Coates V Cincinnati case. It’s about a law which is extremely unfair and can be easily abused – that if anyone is annoying they can be arrested. We will discuss in what unjust ways they can abuse it. We talk about Coates, who was involved with several other individuals in a demonstration in a labor dispute. And we want to share who, what, when, and why it happened in the past of the U.S.A, and how it was fixed.