Can i do my tok essay and presentation on the same topic United States Robert Mc Chesney comments, "And the founding fathers...their legacy here is very rich. They understood that setting up a diverse, well funded media system with a broad range of viewpoints was the essence of building of the oxygen for democracy. It didn't happen naturally you had to work at it." What events have shaped the media's role in reporting politics since the beginning of American history? And how has the press developed in the years since the Bill of Rights outlined its freedoms? NOW's history of media and politics takes us to the early recorded instances of journalism for some background. In Renaissance Europe, newsletters containing information about everything from wars and economic conditions to social customs were handwritten and circulated among merchants. By the late 1400's, the first printed forerunners of the newspaper appeared in Germany as pamphlets or broadsides, often highly sensationalized in content. In the English-speaking world, the first successfully published title was THE WEEKLY NEWES. View the front page of CORANT OR WEEKLY NEWES, FROM ITALY, GERMANY, HUNGARIA, POLONIA, BOHEMIA, FRANCE, AND THE LOW-COUNTRIES published in London on October 11, 1621. In the 1640's and 50's, it was followed by a multitude of different titles in the similar newsbook format. Another prominent early paper (today the oldest continually published paper in the world) was the LONDON GAZETTE. See the GAZETTE coverage of the Great Fire of London. Publication of information about contemporary affairs began in North America in the early 18th century, but they did not yet resemble the newspapers of today. In fact, at first, the notion that "news" should provide timely accounts of recent events was not self-evident. Read about some of the milestones in America's history of media and politics: 1690: PUBLICK OCCURRENCES, BOTH FOREIGN AND DOMESTICK, the first newspaper published in America, was printed by Richard Pierce and edited by Benjamin Harris in Boston on September 25, 1690. It filled only three of four 6x10 inch pages of a folded sheet of paper. The journalist stated in his first (and only) issue that he would issue the newspaper "once a month, or, if any Glut of Occurrences happen, oftener." However, published without authority from the government, it was immediately suppressed, its publisher arrested, and all copies destroyed. (One original copy was later found in the British Library.) 1704: The first continually published American newspaper was the BOSTON NEWSLETTER. It was heavily subsidized by the government, but the experiment was a near failure, with very limited circulation. 1729: Benjamin Franklin, learning from his brother's experience in newspaper, introduced a mode of journalism more literary and satirical and more engaged in civic affairs than the encyclopedic papers that had come before in the PENNSYLVANIA GAZETTE. Colonial Era papers were typically 4-page weeklies containing local ads, short paragraphs of local hearsay, and large, unedited chunks of European political and economic news from the London press. Political news of other colonies rarely appeared; local political news was scarce until the 1760's. Articles in colonial papers, brilliantly conceived by revolutionary propagandists, were a major force that influenced public opinion in America from reconciliation with England to full political independence. As conflict with England grew intense, colonial printers were compelled to choose sides. 1735: John Peter Zenger, publisher of the NEW YORK WEEKLY JOURNAL, was put on trial for publishing articles using sarcasm, innuendo, and allegory to ridicule Governor William Cosby of New York. The law of seditious libel held that the greater the truth, the greater the libel, meaning that if the articles were true, they would, of course, undermine the Governor's authority. The Brief Narrative argued that newspapers should be free to criticize the government as long as what they wrote was true. The article helped shape the political culture that led to the Revolutionary War and the subsequent adoption of the Bill of Rights. 1791: The ratification of the Bill of Rights guaranteed freedom of the press in Amendment 1, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." 1792: Congress supported the press with preferential postal rates. The postal subsidy made it much less expensive to send newspapers and periodicals around the country, done specifically to encourage the spread of a print culture. 1798: The Sedition Act made it a crime to print "any false, scandalous and malicious writingagainst the government of the United States." Introduced by President John Adams as the US was on the brink of war with France and rabble-rousing from French immigrants was feared, the Sedition Act made it illegal to criticize the government, under penalty of a ,000 fine and 2 years in jail. The Act directly contradicted the First Amendment, which had already been ratified in 1791. Everyone from writers, editors, printers, and "even drunks who were overheard condemning (President) Adams" were prosecuted. This failing of the Constitution to guarantee basic rights was only momentary, however. While the law was set to expire in 1801 anyway, Thomas Jefferson pardoned everyone convicted under it soon after he was sworn into office. 1830's: Beginning with THE NEW YORK SUN in 1833, papers took a turn towards reportage, seeking commercial success and mass readership. Advances in printing and papermaking technology led to an explosion of newspaper growth, the emergence of the "Penny Press." Costing a penny an issue, rather than the usual six cents, penny papers aggressively sought out local news, assigning reporters to the courts and to the coverage of "society." 1841: Horace Greeley launched THE NEW YORK TRIBUNE, which quickly reached a circulation of 10,000, was strongly antislavery, and as a reform-minded journal of ideas, reported on women's rights, socialist experiments, temperance, and other reforms. In his autobiography, RECOLLECTIONS OF A BUSY LIFE, 1869, Greeley explained, "I founded the New York Tribune as a journal removed alike from servile partisanship on the one hand and from gagged and mincing neutrality on the other." By the 1850's the TRIBUNE surpassed 250,000 in circulation and was widely influential throughout the North and West. 1850's: The first pictorial weekly newspapers emerged, featuring extensive illustrations of events in the news. Using his paper as a platform to reach a large audience, Greeley mounted editorial attacks on the Fugitive Slave Act, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and the Dred Scott decision. As politics heated up in this decade, more than fifty papers hired Washington correspondents, most of whom wrote for multiple papers and often held additional jobs as clerks for congressional committees or speechwriters for politicians. 1846: News-gathering became the central function of the general-interest newspaper, but political reporting was not well institutionalized. 1865: After the Civil War, the connection between party and paper began to weaken as liberal reformers criticized party loyalty. By 1890, a quarter of daily newspapers in northern states claimed independence of party. In addition to increased circulation and decreased production costs, advertising revenue surpassed subscription fees as the primary source of income. 1880's: Joseph Pulitzer, a key figure in developing the big-business model of the newspaper, and William Randolph Hearst, seeing the press as both political agency and business, competed for mass circulation. The sensational reporting they turned to became known as "yellow journalism." Read more about yellow journalism and propaganda. 1890's: Features of the modern newspaper appeared: banner headlines, extensive use of illustrations, "funny pages," expanded coverage of organized sporting events. This is also the beginning of the age of media consolidation, as many independent newspapers were swallowed up into powerful "chains." 1896: Adolph Ochs bought THE NEW YORK TIMES in 1896. In his inaugural declaration "to give the news impartially, without fear or favor," Ochs set out to distinguish his paper from the yellow journals, to capture a high-toned readership, and to set the standards of journalistic integrity. 1900's: Progressive Era practitioners of a new style of investigative journalism revealed illegal and unsavory practices of capital, labor, and state and local government. It was Theodore Roosevelt who, in a sizzling attack on their negativism, labeled them muckrakers. The term first applied to a group of journalists and writers who exposed corruption in business and government in the early 20th century; Roosevelt intended the term to be pejorative, but the muckrakers were very influential and provided impetus to the Progressive Era reform movement. Around 1902, prominent magazines began featuring crusading exposs or muckraking articles. The public tired of exposs, some of which seemed sensationalized and overly sordid. But muckraking had already made an impact on the reform movement and would influence the policies of President Woodrow Wilson. Later, during WWII, it would be a significant source of breaking news. 1925: During and after WWI, the government suppressed radical newspapers and German language papers, but in 1925 in Gitlow v. United States, the Supreme Court upheld a conviction of radical pamphleteers but acknowledged for the first time that 1st Amendment guarantees of press freedom applied to the states under the 14th Amendment. Minnesota, the High Court struck down a "gag law" suppressing "malicious" and "scandalous" publications. The decisions outlawed the prior restraint of publications and termed suppression a greater danger than journalistic irresponsibility. 1934: The Communications Act of 1934, the basic landmark agreement between commercial television and the people of the United has become the unifying thread of all telecommunications laws since then, establishing the following basic principles: The airways are public property; Commercial broadcasters are licensed to use the airways; The main condition for use will be whether the broadcaster served "the public interest, convenience, and necessity." 1963: Polls show more Americans report that they rely on television rather than newspapers as their primary source for news. 1966: The Freedom of Information Act allows any citizen, including newspaper reporters, to get information from government records. 1965-1973: TV coverage of the Vietnam War took on new significance. The media reporting in Vietnam directly challenged the government, drawing attention to the "credibility gap" official lies and half-truths about the war. 1970's: During Nixon's presidency, two events brought the press a new prominence: the Pentagon Papers and Watergate. 60 MINUTES became the nation's most popular program. From this point forward, media began expanding rapidly. By 1990, more than half of American homes had cable systems, nationally oriented newspapers expanded their national reach, and with the introduction of technological change in the newsroom (including the Internet), a new emphasis on computer-assisted reporting and a new blending of media forms emerged, with one reporter preparing the same story in print, on-line, and on camera for a newspaper's cable station. Can i do my tok essay and presentation on the same topic United States. Of history and not just a recorder and a solid object science tells us that the.
Do my article review about the civic problems of guwahati for me Few decades, many of the unwritten rules of American political life have been discarded. Presidential appointees, once routinely confirmed by the Senate, now spend months in limbo. Signing statements have increased in frequency and scope, as presidents announce which aspects of a law they intend to enforce, and which they intend to ignore. Annual spending bills stall in Congress, requiring short-term extensions or triggering shutdowns. But even as the two parties agree on little else, both still venerate the Constitution. Public officials and military officers swear their allegiance. Members of Congress keep miniature copies in their pockets. The growing dysfunction of the government seems only to have increased reverence for the document; leading figures on both sides of the aisle routinely call for a return to constitutional principles. What if this gridlock is not the result of abandoning the Constitution, but the product of flaws inherent in its design? The history recounted in a recent book on the Constitution’s origins, by Eric Nelson, a political theorist at Harvard, raises that disturbing possibility. In The Royalist Revolution, Nelson argues that the standard narrative of the American Revolutionis mistaken. As they framed their appeals to the king, Nelson demonstrates, the patriots reached back to the debate leading up to the English civil wars. Many leaders of the patriot cause actually wanted George III to intervene in their disputes with parliament, to veto the bills it passed, even to assert that he alone had the right to govern the American colonies. In the 1620s, the Stuart monarch Charles I feuded with his parliament, which feared that he would usurp its authority to approve taxes, and reign as an absolute monarch. Both sides claimed to be working for the common good. The parliamentarians insisted that only a legislature—a miniature version of the people as a whole—could represent the people’s interests. Royalists responded that legislators were mere creatures of their constituencies, bound to cater to voters’ whims instead of tending to the kingdom’s needs. Only a monarch, they argued, could counterbalance legislative parochialism and look to the long term. Charles required revenues, but parliament was determined not to authorize taxes on his terms. So from 1629 to 1640, he ruled without calling parliament into session, scraping together funds by reviving moribund fines and fees, and creatively reinterpreting his royal prerogatives. The deadlock led to a series of civil wars from 1642 to 1651, to Charles’s execution, and to the ultimate triumph of parliament, which absorbed almost all executive authority, leaving England’s monarchs to reign in name alone. While the wars raged, the early settlers of New England sided squarely with parliament, decrying monarchical tyranny and celebrating its replacement by parliamentary democracy. A century later, however, many of their descendants were nostalgic for Stuart royalism. By the 1760s, parliament was imposing taxes on the colonists without their consent. Patriot leaders like John Adams expressed longing for George III to restrain the legislative tyranny of parliament. Generations of historians have largely regarded such statements as insincere rhetorical ploys—as arguments of convenience lodged and then quickly forgotten. Nelson makes a convincing case that in so doing, historians have overlooked an important part of the political philosophy that impelled the American Revolution. By citing the king’s refusal to act like a king, he writes, the patriots justified taking matters into their own hands. Once the war was over, Nelson shows, many of the patriot leaders who had previously argued for royal prerogatives proceeded to push for an executive empowered to do what George III would not. At the Constitutional Convention, the Pennsylvania delegate James Wilson stepped forward and moved “that the Executive consist of a single person.” This was a loaded phrase with which to introduce a controversial idea: When, in 1649, shortly after executing Charles I, parliament abolished the monarchy, it famously declared, “The office of a King … be exercised by any one single person.” Wilson was not just proposing that the United States have a president. He was attempting, in the horrified view of the Virginia delegate Edmund Randolph, to insert into the Constitution “the foetus of monarchy.”Wilson and Randolph, and their respective allies in Philadelphia, revived the old debate between the royalists and the parliamentarians: Which posed the greater threat, legislative tyranny or monarchy? Had America revolted against a king, or against his parliament? In the end, Nelson argues persuasively, the royalists won. In this telling, the Constitution created not a radical democracy, but a very traditional mixed monarchy. At its head stood a king—an uncrowned one called a president—with sweeping powers, whose steadying hand would hopefully check the factionalism of the Congress. The two houses of the legislature, elected by the people, would make laws, but the president—whom the Founders regarded as a third branch of the legislature—could veto them. He could also appoint his own Cabinet, command the Army, and make treaties. The Convention placed limits on the president’s powers, to be sure: Some of his actions would be contingent on approval by the Senate, or subject to overrides. But these hedges on presidential authority did not make the office a creature of Congress. Having defeated the armies of George III, the Framers seized upon a most unlikely model for their nascent democracy—the very Stuart monarchy whose catastrophic failure had produced the parliamentary system—and proceeded to install an executive whose authority King George could only envy. Around much of the world, parliamentary systems became prevalent, but some countries, particularly in Latin America, adopted the presidential model, splitting power between an executive and a legislative branch. S many new democracies have taken inspiration from the U. When, in 1985, a Yale political scientist named Juan Linz compared the records of presidential and parliamentary democracies, the results were decisive. Not every parliamentary system endured, but hardly any presidential ones proved stable. “The only presidential democracy with a long history of constitutional continuity is the United States,” Linz wrote in 1990. This is quite an uncomfortable form of American exceptionalism. Linz’s findings suggest that presidential systems suffer from a large, potentially fatal flaw. In parliamentary systems, governmental deadlock is relatively rare; when prime ministers can no longer command legislative support, the impasse is generally resolved by new elections. In presidential systems, however, contending parties must eventually strike a deal. Latin America’s presidential democracies have tended to oscillate between authoritarianism and dysfunction. America has, after all, defied the odds, through the rise and demise of political parties, through depressions and wars, to the present day. Linz’s critics, moreover, suggest that trying to infer immutable laws of politics from a handful of Latin American governments is a pointless exercise. In the 30 years since Linz published these findings, his ideas have enjoyed wide currency among political scientists and seized the imagination of pundits, but gained little purchase among U. Even if we discount the failures of other presidential democracies, though, we should not dismiss the fact that the U. Constitution was modeled on a system that collapsed into civil war, and that it is inherently fragile. “This is a system that requires a particular set of political norms,” Eric Nelson told me, “and it can be very dangerous and dysfunctional where those norms are not present.” Once those norms have been discarded, the president or either house of Congress can simply go on strike, refusing to fulfill their responsibilities. Until recently, American politicians have generally made the compromises necessary to govern. As American politics grows increasingly polarized, the goodwill that oiled the system and helped it function smoothly disappears. In 2013, fights over the debt ceiling and funding for the Affordable Care Act very nearly produced a constitutional crisis. Congress and the president each refused to yield, and the government shut down for 16 days. In November 2014, claiming that he was “acting where Congress has failed,” President Obama announced a series of executive actions on immigration. House Republicans denounced him as “threatening to unravel our system of checks and balances” and warned that they would cut off funding for the Department of Homeland Security unless Obama’s actions were rolled back. For months, the two sides faced off, pledging fealty to the Constitution even as they exposed its flaws. Only at the 11th hour did the House pull back from the edge. Strikingly, in these and other recent crises, public opinion has tended to favor the president. As governments deadlock, executives are inclined to act unilaterally, thereby deepening crises. When parliament refused to provide Charles I with funds unless he met its demands, he moved to circumvent the legislators, and they in turn deposed him. Other presidential systems have collapsed in much the same way. The Framers do not seem to have understood this particular flaw of mixed monarchy. But then, neither did they express absolute faith in their own wisdom. “They were incredibly conscious of the fragility of what they were creating,” Nelson says, “that it depends on forbearance.” The Constitution was an experiment, and its signers believed that its success was contingent on the willingness of varied constituencies to work together. When politicians today praise America’s system of checks and balances, they seem to understand it as a self-correcting mechanism: When one branch pushes too hard, the other branches must push back, preserving equilibrium. That understanding actually encourages politicians to overreact, in the belief that they are playing a vital constitutional role. It also encourages complacency, because a system that rights itself requires no painful compromises to preserve. Neither Congress nor the president has the capacity to govern alone, but either can refuse to compromise, and prevent the other from governing. If the system is thought to be indestructible, the temptation to take stands becomes overwhelming. Filibusters, shutdowns, and executive orders multiply. The veneration of the Constitution becomes its undoing. This is the paradox of America’s mixed monarchy, a system that operates best when politicians and the public remain skeptical of its ability to operate at all. Blind faith in the wisdom of the Constitution, and in its capacity to withstand the poor behavior of politicians, will eventually destroy it. But a constant fear that the entire system will collapse absent frenzied efforts to save it might just help the country continue to defy the odds, and last another 200 years. Introduce yourself Do my article. Since then, the company has grown into one of the largest partners for state, local government, and school districts.
Write Ecology Article Review, Buy Essay Online - betbonus.dk Parents traditionally worry about what their children are learning in school, but it’s what those students are not learning that’s even more unsettling. Only one state deserved a rating of A when it came to teaching its students American history, according to a recent study. But a majority of states—28 in all—had standards ratings of D or F, the study found. C.-based educational think tank that conducted the study. Most states fall in the category of “mediocre to awful.” The study ranked history standards in 49 states and the District of Columbia (Rhode Island has no mandatory history standards, only suggested guidelines) for “content and rigor” and “clarity and specificity” on a scale of A to F. The findings confirm what the study’s authors have long suspected, says Chester E. “No wonder so many Americans know so little about our nation’s past,” he says. And Americans’ lack of civic knowledge disturbs some of the most respected figures in government and politics. “When I went to school, we had all kinds of courses on civics and government,” says retired U. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who is pushing to revive civic education. “Today, at least half of the states don’t even require high school students to take civics; only three states require it in middle school.” Teaching government, civics and history is becoming a more pressing need than before. With school cutbacks, the Internet distracting students, and the disappearance of traditional newspapers and TV news shows that objectively report information, youngsters have become increasingly disengaged from civic and political life, experts say. Those under the age of 25 are less likely to vote than were their elders or younger people in previous decades, according to a 2003 report by the Silver Spring, Md.-based Campaign for the Civic Mission of Schools, a coalition of about 40 organizations, including the American Bar Association. According to the report, students also are less interested in public or political issues than were previous generations, and they exhibit gaps in their knowledge of fundamental democratic principles and processes. “As a result,” the report said, “many young Americans are not prepared to participate fully in our democracy now and when they become adults.” The report also found that schools in many ways are uniquely suited to addressing the situation because they reach virtually every young person in the country, they represent a community of different views and opinions, and they are well-equipped to deal with the cognitive aspects of good citizenship, such as critical thinking and deliberation. Other studies have also documented the need for improvement and reform in civic education. The Denver-based National Center for Learning and Citizenship maintains a database on citizenship education, which shows that while 49 states have standards that address citizenship, fewer than half have any testing or assessment programs in place. And the National Center for Education Statistics in Washington, D. C.—which issues periodic progress reports on what students know in various subject areas, known informally as the Nation’s Report Card—found that only 27 percent of 12th graders in 2006 were proficient in civics and government. (The center reassessed students’ knowledge of civics and government in 2010; the results are due later this year.) The problem is exacerbated by evidence of what researchers describe as a growing “civic achievement gap” between white, wealthy, native-born youths—who demonstrate consistently higher levels of civic and political knowledge, skills, attitudes and participation—and poor, nonwhite and immigrant youths, who are thus at a disadvantage politically. Since the late 1990s, when American students tested poorly in reading, science and math against students from 20 other Western nations, federal educational policy has focused strongly on those three subjects at the expense of history, social studies, government and civics. That trend began in 2001 with the Bush administration’s landmark No Child Left Behind Act, which gives priority to federal funding for efforts to improve student performance in reading and math, skills that are considered fundamental to student success in the workplace. The program continues under the Obama administration’s support for so-called STEM programs, which reward student achievement in the fields of science, technology, engineering and math. Educators fear that this long-range focus on a few limited subjects that are considered fundamental to student success is squeezing out the amount of time and effort devoted to subjects considered nonfundamental, such as history, social science, government and civics. And they say the evidence of that continues to mount—both empirically and anecdotally. In 2006, the Center on Education Policy, an independent advocate for public education, conducted a survey on the effects of No Child Left Behind on elementary school instruction. Of the school districts surveyed, 71 percent said they were spending less time on subjects like social studies, music and art to devote more time to reading and math, the two subjects tested under NCLB. A 2007 survey of 350 school districts nationwide by the Center on Education Policy found that instructional time for subjects not tested by the NCLB had fallen by one-third since the law was passed. Adults, perhaps unsurprisingly, don’t appear to have a better grasp of law, history or government—all of which could be considered essential to civic responsibilities—than students do. A 2005 survey by the ABA, for example, found that nearly half of all Americans were unable to correctly identify the three branches of government. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, a possible Republican candidate for president in 2012, identified New Hampshire—instead of Massachusetts—as the “state where the shot was heard around the world.” And in 2008 when he was the Democratic candidate for vice president, Joe Biden declared that Franklin D. A Find Law survey that same year found that only 57 percent of Americans could name any Supreme Court justice. Roosevelt had educated the nation about the 1929 stock market crash—on television. Some public figures seem to know as little about history—and geography—as many private citizens. At least one expert says that the picture is not as bleak as others say. While it’s true that most young Americans don’t know all that much about politics and government, they know as much as their parents did and more than their peers in other countries, says Peter Levine, director of the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, and one of the leading researchers in the field. Though voter turnout among younger voters was down in 2010 from 2008, there is no evidence of a systematic decline in youth voting compared with the 1980s and 1990s, he says. Levine says that schools are still teaching civics as much as or more than ever before. The amount of time devoted to social studies in elementary and middle school has remained pretty constant over the years, he says, and the amount of time devoted to social studies in high school is up substantially, although the mix of courses has changed appreciably since the 1950s. Civics and problem- or discussion-oriented classes are less common today than they were in the 1950s, he says, but political science, economics and social studies classes are more common. That’s not to suggest that all is rosy, Levine cautions. Teaching civics is only partly the job of the schools. Other providers of such teaching—newspapers, unions, membership organizations and community groups— aren’t taking up the slack. People are sorting themselves into more politically and ideologically homogenous communities than they used to, he says. And the gap between the haves and the have-nots when it comes to opportunities for civic engagement is bad and getting worse. “Democracy depends on citizens who are motivated and able to participate effectively in the process,” Levine says. “Otherwise, we run the risk of replicating an unjust democracy in the future.” Advocates of better civic learning aren’t waiting around for that to happen. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan to make civic education a national priority. They say the cause is too important to ignore and the consequences of not acting too grave to contemplate. Zack, for one, has made the improvement of civic education in this country one of his top priorities. He also persuaded the ABA Board of Governors to create a Commission on Civic Education in the Nation’s Schools to serve as both an advocate for and a provider of effective, high-quality civic education programs. Zack says our country’s future as a democracy depends on the integrity of our legal institutions, our commitment to justice and our understanding of constitutional self-government. But he says that future is now being threatened by a basic lack of understanding among Americans about what a democracy is and how it’s supposed to work. He cites figures showing that two-thirds of all Americans can’t correctly identify the three branches of government, and that three out of four people don’t know that the Bill of Rights protects religious freedom. “It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic,” he says. “But the sad fact is this is a pervasive problem that starts in the schools and permeates our entire society.” Zack also notes the outrage many people feel when the U. Supreme Court issues a controversial First Amendment ruling, as it did in early March, when it upheld the right of hate groups to protest at military funerals; and in 1989, when it affirmed the right of an anti-war protester to burn the American flag. “People don’t realize that while the executive and legislative branches are based on majority opinion, the judiciary is beholden only to the Constitution,” he says. For Zack, who fled Cuba as a 14-year-old boy during the revolution there in 1961, the cause is personal. He still keeps a copy of the old Cuban constitution, which he says was nearly identical to ours, on his desk to remind him that words alone will not protect our rights. “We all need to do our part to ensure that the words in the Constitution are not just words,” Zack says. The ABA commission created by the board at Zack’s urging is sponsoring a series of civics and law academies at various locations around the country where lawyers, judges, teachers and other community leaders can teach students in middle and high school about the law and the Constitution, as well as the importance of civic engagement. The first such academy, co-sponsored by Florida International University’s College of Law, took place on the school’s Miami campus over the President’s Day weekend. A second—co-sponsored by Close Up, a Washington, D. C.-based citizenship education organization—was scheduled for the last week of April. The commission has also created a resource guide and a website where bar associations, law schools, courts, civic organizations, young lawyer affiliates and others interested in sponsoring such a program can find suggested curricula, formats, lesson plans, strategies and other information. In addition, the commission has conducted an online survey of bar associations and other organizations to compile a comprehensive and up-to-date database of existing civic education activities and to help identify what types of programs work best. Retired Justice O’Connor, a longtime champion of civic education, serves as a special adviser to the commission. She describes her duties in the role of special adviser as “putting my two cents’ worth in” and encouraging lawyers and others to do whatever they can to help. But she is also a tireless crusader and forceful advocate for the cause. O’Connor says she first began to realize how little people know about the way government works during her years as a judge, when she became increasingly alarmed by the efforts of lawmakers and others to politicize the judiciary and “punish” judges for their decisions. Breyer—to convene a conference on the state of the judiciary in 2006 to try to get to the root of the problem. The overwhelming consensus of the attendees was that public education is the key to preserving the independence of the judiciary and sustaining our constitutional democracy. “There are all kinds of polls out there showing that barely one out of three Americans can name the three branches of government, let alone describe what they do,” she says. To help fill that gap, O’Connor joined forces with experts at Georgetown University law school, Arizona State University and others to develop an interactive, Web-based educational project aimed at teaching students about civics and inspiring them to become active participants in our nation’s democracy. The website—at i Civics.org—features lesson plans, Web quests, discussion forums and games designed to teach students about the Constitution, the three branches of government, and the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. The project, which has been up and running for six years, is now being used in all 50 states, O’Connor says, though admittedly more so in some states than in others. But her goal is to get it into every school in America. The only thing standing in the way, she says, is bureaucracy. “It’s free, it’s teacher-friendly and it’s a lot of fun for the kids.” Sorely needed, too, as O’Connor is quick to point out. Because an understanding of and appreciation for democracy is not an inherited trait that is passed along through the gene pool, she says. “It has to be taught anew to each generation.” The ABA’s involvement in civic education dates back to the early 1920s, when it joined calls for the study of the Constitution in the nation’s schools as a bulwark against radicalism and for the “Americanization” of immigrants, according to R. Freeman Butts in his 1988 book, The Morality of Democratic Citizenship: Goals for Civic Education in the Republic’s Third Century. The committee also prepared a brief in a second flag-salute case that came before the court in 1943. That involvement continued in the 1930s, when the ABA, under President Frank J. This time, in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Hogan, created a special committee on the Bill of Rights to defend the rights and liberties of individuals. Barnette, the court reversed its earlier decision and sided with the students. The committee filed an amicus brief on behalf of two Jehovah’s Witness students who had been expelled from school for refusing to salute the American flag during the Pledge of Allegiance. World War II dampened whatever impetus there was at the time for teaching the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in the schools, according to Butts’ book. And the 1950s saw a resurgence of conservatism that helped drive progressive social studies teaching out of the schools and resulted in laws in 30 states requiring teachers to sign loyalty oaths. But the 1960s and 1970s brought about a renewed interest in the teaching of social studies and law-related education in the schools, with an emphasis on individual rights and liberties and the responsibilities of citizenship, Butts wrote. The ABA’s efforts on that front have been ongoing since 1971, when then-ABA President Leon Jaworski—who would later become famous as the Watergate special prosecutor—established a special committee on youth education for citizenship, the genesis for what 12 years later became the ABA’s Division for Public Education. The division, created to promote public understanding of the law and its role in society, today acts as a proponent of civic education and as a civic educator. It provides national leadership for law-related and civic education efforts in this country, conducts its own educational programs, develops resource material, offers technical assistance and information clearinghouse services, presents awards for civic activism, and fosters partnerships among like-minded bar associations, educational institutions, civic organizations and others. The ABA House of Delegates has been a longtime, consistent supporter of law-related civic education efforts, beginning in the 1970s. It has passed six such resolutions in the past seven years alone, including one at last year’s annual meeting in San Francisco urging all lawyers to consider it part of their fundamental duty to help ensure that students get a high-quality civic education, and one at this year’s midyear meeting in Atlanta urging the federal government to require the teaching of civics in public schools and to provide grant funding for such efforts. Do my college on founding fathers pay. history and government essay ghostwriting service write ecology article review research paper writer services us.
Why Do People Hate Jews? - The creation of quota systems regarding immigration is important to know. Answer is something like "to help the small guy and consumer out."15. must ratify (approve) another amendment (like the 18th and 21st for prohibition.) Speaking of ratifying ... These acts favored western Europeans who spoke English, NOT Eastern Europeans. Don't confuse federalism with Checks and Balances!!! National Gov, checks itself -- has nothing to do with states in terms of the Regents Exam. Answer should be: a move away from isolationism -- becoming less neutral. D-Day will usually have an answer about opening up a new front in Europe during the war.14. think Federalist Papers were for ratification of the Constitution.16. C and B is checking the three Branches (Legislative, Executive, Judicial) of Government! Manifest Destiny = led to the question -- should these states be slave or free??? Know the Homestead Act, and if you see Transcontinental Railroad, the answer is usually about increased trade, and settlement. If you see Unions (or AFL, Sherman Anti-Trust, or Arbitration) ... Note: Questions 1-3 usually have something to do with geography. Most notably: Mississippi River led to trade and navigation, New England had trade, the South was agricultural, and the Great Plains were flat. I know this may sound weird, but I have never seen the same choice 4 times in a row. Why are Jews hated by so many people? Why are so many people anti-Semitic? How and why did anti-Semitism start? Is there a solution to anti-Semitism?
Do my u.s. history and government article:
Rating: 88 / 100
Overall: 90 Rates