Supreme Court Historical Society [DC]

Description

The Supreme Court Historical Society works in conjunction with the Supreme Court in order to chronicle the history of the court and provide a variety of educational events and resources. The society was founded in 1974 by Chief Justice Warren Burger, who served as the society's first chairman. Today, in addition to educational events, the society also works to publish books, journals, and electronic resources. The society also sponsors a series of traveling lectures by distinguished scholars on specific periods of the court's history.

The site offers information and purchasing information on all society publications, a detailed history of the court, an online gift shop, and online resources including sample lessons for teacher's and curriculum support.

The society does not offer a physical site for visitation. Above entry is pre-existing.

Divided Allegiance

field_image
Question

How can a person born in the U.S. to one U.S. citizen parent and one non-U.S. citizen parent (divided allegiance) be defined as a 'natural born citizen?'

Shouldn't a 'natural born citizen' be defined as being born with allegiance to the U.S. only?

Answer

Throughout the history of the United States, there has been a consistent evolution of who a citizen is and how a citizen is defined, as the United States Constitution has been both decided upon and modified on various occasions to expand the definition of who is a citizen and guarantee equal rights for all individuals. In the late 18th century, a citizen was defined as a white, male landowner, and African Americans could legally be held as slaves. The 1857 Dred Scott v Sandford Supreme Court case affirmed this definition. The Oyez Project (2005–2011) puts forth that in this case the Court found that "no person descended from an American slave had ever been a citizen." Six years subsequent to this decision, President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which declared "that all persons held as slaves within the rebellious states are, and henceforward shall be free."

The 14th Amendment guarantees that a person born in the United States is thereby a citizen, even if both parents are illegal immigrants.

This change was reflected in the Constitution of the United States in the 14th Amendment (1868), which states "All persons born or naturalized in the United States . . . are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside," as well as the 15th Amendment (1870), which puts forth that "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." However, the next half century still saw roughly half of the country's population without full citizenship rights, as it was not until 1920 that the 19th Amendment was passed that granted women suffrage. To answer the particular question posed above, simply put, the 14th Amendment guarantees that a person born in the United States is thereby a citizen, even if both parents are illegal immigrants. However, this is not without controversy, and it has become a political issue, as citizens born to illegal immigrants have derisively been referred to as "anchor babies." For more on this issue, try searching the New York Times using the phrase "anchor babies." However, American children of foreign parents can be dual citizens depending in part on the rules of the other country. This status is conferred when "an individual is a citizen of two countries at the same time." The website newcitizen.us describes potential benefits to being a dual citizen; among them are "the privilege of voting in both countries, owning property in both countries, and having government health care in both countries." However, the U.S. Department of State puts forth that the U.S. government "does not encourage" dual citizenship "because of the problems it may cause," particularly that "claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad." To answer the initial question in regards to allegiance, allegiance may be more the way a person feels rather than actual law. On this topic the U.S. Department of State notes that "where a dual national is located [where the citizen resides] generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance."

Bibliography

Newcitizen.us. "Dual citizenship." 2011 (accessed on April 8, 2011).

U.S. Supreme Court Media. "Dred Scott v. Sandford," 60 U.S. 393 (1857). The Oyez Project (accessed on March 31, 2011).

U.S. Department of State. "US Department of State Services Dual Nationality" (accessed on April 8, 2011).

U.S. Immigration Support. "US Dual Citizenship." 2010 (accessed on April 8, 2011).

Federal Judiciary

Article Body

The U.S. judicial system exists to uphold the laws initiated by the nation's legislature.

The Federal Judiciary's site, U.S. Courts, is, in large part, intended to provide individuals with forms and information relevant to legal proceedings with which they may be involved. However, noteworthy resources do exist, including an educational resources page.

This resource page offers brief overviews of major court cases and several court simulations. The simulations are designed in a number of formats including dramatic scripts and debates; and they are intended to present Constitutional amendments as relevant to teenage lives.

A number of other features may also prove handy to you. These included a comparison of federal and state courts (cases, judges, and structure) in the form of two comparable lists of bullet points; commonly used judicial vocabulary; and faqs addressing federal courts, jurors, and the Judicial Conference, among other topics.

Last, but not least, you may be searching for a way to tie current events into your history classroom, particularly in a civics class. If that is the case, you might consider looking into the courts' bankruptcy statistics, which could be used in conjunction with a lesson on the Great Depression. Note that the statistics all correspond to the past 20 years maximum.

Landmark Supreme Court Cases

Image
Annotation

This teaching site was developed "to support the teaching of landmark Supreme Court cases, helping students explore the key issues of each case." The site features 17 pivotal Supreme Court cases, including Marbury v. Madison (1803), McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), Korematsu v. United States (1944), Brown v. Board of Education (1954), Miranda v. Arizona (1966), and Roe v. Wade (1973). Each case offers a "resources" section featuring such material as teaching recommendations, background summaries, a link to the full-text majority opinion, and excerpts from the majority and dissenting opinions. An "activities" section contains short activities and in-depth lessons. The site also includes instructions for general teaching strategies, including moot court, political cartoon analysis, and website evaluation. The site also offers material on key concepts of constitutional law including federalism, separation of powers and checks and balances, equal protection of the laws, judicial review, due process, the commerce clause, and the necessary and proper clause. An excellent resource for teaching the legal history of these important Supreme Court cases and the issues surrounding them.