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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I like the concept. Seems like a good idea and really inexpensive to manage.

  2. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

  3. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

  4. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  5. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

ADVERTISEMENT