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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Falk said “At this point, at this minute, we’ll savor this particular victory.” “It certainly is a historic week on this front,” Cockrum said. “What a delight ... “Happy Independence Day to the women of the state of Indiana,” WOW. So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)

  2. congratulations on such balanced journalism; I also love how fetus disposal affects women's health protection, as covered by Roe...

  3. It truly sickens me every time a case is compared to mine. The Indiana Supreme Court upheld my convictions based on a finding of “hidden threats.” The term “hidden threat” never appeared until the opinion in Brewington so I had no way of knowing I was on trial for making hidden threats because Dearborn County Prosecutor F Aaron Negangard argued the First Amendment didn't protect lies. Negangard convened a grand jury to investigate me for making “over the top” and “unsubstantiated” statements about court officials, not hidden threats of violence. My indictments and convictions were so vague, the Indiana Court of Appeals made no mention of hidden threats when they upheld my convictions. Despite my public defender’s closing arguments stating he was unsure of exactly what conduct the prosecution deemed to be unlawful, Rush found that my lawyer’s trial strategy waived my right to the fundamental error of being tried for criminal defamation because my lawyer employed a strategy that attempted to take advantage of Negangard's unconstitutional criminal defamation prosecution against me. Rush’s opinion stated the prosecution argued two grounds for conviction one constitutional and one not, however the constitutional true threat “argument” consistently of only a blanket reading of subsection 1 of the intimidation statute during closing arguments, making it impossible to build any kind of defense. Of course intent was impossible for my attorney to argue because my attorney, Rush County Chief Public Defender Bryan Barrett refused to meet with me prior to trial. The record is littered with examples of where I made my concerns known to the trial judge that I didn’t know the charges against me, I did not have access to evidence, all while my public defender refused to meet with me. Special Judge Brian Hill, from Rush Superior Court, refused to address the issue with my public defender and marched me to trial without access to evidence or an understanding of the indictments against me. Just recently the Indiana Public Access Counselor found that four over four years Judge Hill has erroneously denied access to the grand jury audio from my case, the most likely reason being the transcription of the grand jury proceedings omitted portions of the official audio record. The bottom line is any intimidation case involves an action or statement that is debatably a threat of physical violence. There were no such statements in my case. The Indiana Supreme Court took partial statements I made over a period of 41 months and literally connected them with dots… to give the appearance that the statements were made within the same timeframe and then claimed a person similarly situated would find the statements intimidating while intentionally leaving out surrounding contextual factors. Even holding the similarly situated test was to be used in my case, the prosecution argued that the only intent of my public writings was to subject the “victims” to ridicule and hatred so a similarly situated jury instruction wouldn't even have applied in my case. Chief Justice Rush wrote the opinion while Rush continued to sit on a committee with one of the alleged victims in my trial and one of the judges in my divorce, just as she'd done for the previous 7+ years. All of this information, including the recent PAC opinion against the Dearborn Superior Court II can be found on my blog www.danbrewington.blogspot.com.

  4. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  5. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

ADVERTISEMENT