The American Constitution:

Modern Constitutional Applications/ Combo (2022-23)

Overview: Thomas Jefferson once described the United States Constitution as a “living document,” one that
changes with the interpretations of the times. The Bill of Rights stands as a testament to the rights of all
Americans, but it is constantly interpreted to refine those rights or define the limits of absolute freedom. The
debates that you will be involved in are similar to Constitutional Questions currently under consideration by
the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

Activity: In the following activity, you will represent one side of this real life debate. Your group must
generate persuasive arguments that prove that the resolution being considered by the Supreme Court is
constitutional or unconstitutional. These are actual cases currently in line to be heard by the courts.

Procedure: Eight groups of 4-6 students will be assigned. Each group will randomly draw one side of the
issue and must research and create detailed arguments to persuade the court of its position. One side will
represent the constitutionality of the law, while the other will represent the unconstitutionality of the law. You
will be graded based on your persuasive arguments & on your ability to apply legal precedents to your case.

Debate Resolutions:

The Major Supreme Court Cases to Watch This Fall

https://www.axios.com/2022/10/04/here-are-5-supreme-court-cases-to-watch-this-
term

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022

1.
303 Creative LLC V. Aubrey Elenis, et al. First Amendment (Free Speech Clause)
Lorie Smith is the owner and founder of a graphic design firm, 303 Creative LLC. She wants to
expand her business to include wedding websites. However, she opposes same-sex marriage on
religious grounds so does not want to design websites for same-sex weddings. She wants to post a
message on her own website explaining her religious objections to same-sex weddings.

Constitutional: The Colorado AntiDiscrimination Act (“CADA”) has the right to prohibit businesses
that are open to the public from from discriminating on the basis of numerous characteristics,
including sexual orientation.
Unconstitutional: The Colorado AntiDiscrimination Act (“CADA”) does NOT have the right to
prohibit businesses that are open to the public from from discriminating on the basis of numerous
characteristics, including sexual orientation on the basis of the First Amendment.

2.
Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. V. University of North Carolina, et al. -
14th Amendment / Equal Protection
Petitioner Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) sued the University of North Carolina (UNC) over
its admissions process, alleging that the process violates the Fourteenth Amendment by using race
as a factor in admissions. UNC admits that it uses race as one of many factors in its admissions
process but argues that its process adheres to the requirements for race-based admissions outlined
in the Supreme Court’s decision in Grutter v. Bollinger.
Constitutional: The process that UNC uses DOES NOT violate the Fourteenth Amendment by using
race as a factor in admissions.
Unconstitutional: The process that UNC uses violates the Fourteenth Amendment by using race as a
factor in admissions.

3.

AMERICAN LEGION ET AL. v. AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSN. ET AL. - 1st Amendment

(Establishment of Religion Clause)
In 1918, residents of Prince George’s County, Maryland, formed a committee to erect a
monument honoring the county’s fallen soldiers in World War I. The completed monument was
a 32-foot Latin cross that sits on a large pedestal that reads: “Dedicated to the heroes of Prince
George’s County, Maryland who lost their lives in the Great War for the liberty of the world.” A
long standing cross in Bladensburg, Maryland, erected to honor slain World War I servicemen
from that area violates the Establishment (of Religion) Clause of the First Amendment.

Constitutional: The cross does NOT violate the Establishment (of Religion) Clause of the First
Amendment.

Unconstitutional: The cross does violate the Establishment (of Religion) Clause of the First
Amendment.

4.
Atkins V. Virginia - 8th Amendment / Cruel & Unusual Punishment
Daryl Renard Atkins was convicted of abduction, armed robbery, and capital murder. In the
penalty phase of Atkins' trial, the defense relied on one witness, a forensic psychologist, who
testified that Atkins was mildly mentally disabled (or "mentally retarded" in the vernacular of the
day). The jury sentenced Atkins to death, but the Virginia Supreme Court ordered a second
sentencing hearing because the trial court had used a misleading verdict form. During resentencing
the same forensic psychologist testified, but this time the State rebutted Atkins' intelligence. The
jury again sentenced Atkins to death. In affirming, the Virginia Supreme Court relied on Penry v.
Lynaugh, in rejecting Atkins' contention that he could not be sentenced to death because he is
mentally retarded.

Constitutional: The execution of mentally diabled persons is not considered "cruel and unusual
punishment" and therefore not prohibited by the Eighth Amendment?
Unconstitutional: The execution of mentally diabled persons is considered "cruel and unusual
punishment" and therefore prohibited by the Eighth Amendment?

5.
Shinn v. Ramirez - Death Penalty
On Nov. 1, the court will hear the case Shinn v. Ramirez, a procedurally complicated case that could
have important implications for how federal courts approach the right to counsel. Two death row
prisoners in Arizona, David Ramirez and Barry Jones, have filed for habeas relief (a prisoner can be
released from unlawful detention) in federal court, arguing that they had ineffective counsel during
their original trials, and should not be executed. This point was never raised by their attorneys at the
state post-conviction level, and the prisoners now argue it should be allowed to be raised in federal
court.

Constitutional: The accused has the right to request a stay of executions because of ineffective counsel
during trial.
Unconstitutional: The accused does not have the right to request a stay of execution because of ineffective
counsel during trial.

Responsibilities

● Each group member should demonstrate understanding of the constitutional issues, events and facts
relevant to the topic with application of key precedents.
● Each group member should make deliberate and effective use of logical, emotional and ethical
appeals in order to persuade the audience.
● Each group member will upload their script and annotated sources (at least 4) in MLA format to the
relevant Turnitin link on Moodle.

Debate Dates 2022-2023: Class Blocks _________

Debate # 1 - __________ Debate # 2 - __________

Debate # 3 - __________ Debate # 4 - __________

Debate # 5 - __________