ILNews

Chinn: A Civics Lesson for All of Us

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

iba-chinn-scott“Do you trust the courts to be an effective check on the executive and legislative branches given your view that the protections of the 4th and 5th Amendments have been inadequate to stop the creation of a ‘National Surveillance State’,” I asked.

“While we don’t think that Congress should pass a so-called ‘superstatute’ that preempts other federal and state laws establishing protections for individuals against the government and private actors, we do think that Congress, and not the courts, should take the leading role on balancing the competing interests at stake in the National Security State – for example, by curbing the reach of the Patriot Act,” responded the constitutional expert.

The setting was a classroom at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia on April 30. The event was the national finals of the We the People Competition, sponsored by the Center for Civic Education. I was a judge for that competition. The constitutional expert was a high school student from one of the 49 jurisdictions represented at the competition (47 states, the District of Columbia, and the Northern Mariana Islands).

So let’s start there – that this high school student, representing a panel of four students assigned to the topic of “Twenty-first Century Challenges to American Constitutional Democracy” was more articulate on the issue than most of the lawyers I know. And through the course of my two days judging the student panels, it is fair to say that this knowledgeable student wasn’t alone. Many of his peers from across the country met and exceeded what we would think even most enlightened Americans would know about the Constitution, the principles it is based on, and its historical application. Being a judge for a competition like this is one of the best things you’ll ever do to promote your faith in America and its values. (The other one is to take part in or observe a naturalization ceremony.)

For an appeal to your home state pride, you should know that the Indiana team (from Munster High School) finished a lofty fifth out of the 56 teams participating. Because they made it to the final round, they competed in a Congressional hearing room at the U.S. Capitol. Indiana has a strong network of We the People teams and the Indiana Bar Foundation coordinates this and other civic education programs around the state.

But there is something even more challenging on the horizon for civic education than the competition itself. You guessed it: funding. There is probably more money spent copying the paperwork for the Defense Reauthorization Act (seriously . . . it is $662 Billion in 2012) than it would take to fund every well-known civic education program in the country. Yet federal funding has been cut for civic education in recent years. (Next time someone tells you Congressional earmarks are always bad, think about losing the ones supporting civic education.) This has led to canceled and diminished programs and has also led to competition among civic education providers for precious grant dollars. Competitive grant funding may make sense for encouraging the development of the best ideas in new spheres or in ones needing reform. But does that really fit civics education? Don’t we want more organizations teaching more kids the things that renew American Democracy?

The American Bar Association too has a major commitment to promoting civic education, having established the ABA Commission on Civic Education in the Nation’s Schools in 2010. My sense is that this Commission is also caught up in the debates over funding. I respectfully submit that the Commission’s special advisor, former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, is wrong when she excuses federal and state law makers for budget cuts to civic education programs arguing that civic educators should be doing more with less. I think we should challenge ourselves to do more with less, but that we should also just have more to do more with.

Above, I said that judging high school civic competitors and attending naturalization ceremonies were the two most affirming things to promote your faith in American values. The third, in my book, is a combination of the first two — judging high school civics competitors who are first-generation children of immigrants on a constitutional question regarding immigration. I got to do that over the national finals weekend. It was just one part of my civics lesson.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT