16 May How would you explain the lawmaking structure of the United States to someone totally unfamiliar with the Constitution? Specifically, what is feder
Answer TWO of the question sets below:
- How would you explain the lawmaking structure of the United States to someone totally unfamiliar with the Constitution? Specifically, what is federalism and why does it create fifty-two lawmaking jurisdictions in the United States?
- Find an article online that discusses the duties of the three branches of government and the three branches of the criminal justice system. How might the three branches of government be related to or directly affect each of the three branches of the criminal justice system?
- After reading Duncan v. Louisiana (1968), explain the following:
- Which constitutional amendment is at issue in the case, and what right(s) does it encompass?
- What did the United States Supreme Court decide in this case and why?
- Pro Tip: When reading and analyzing a written decision (a case), use I.R.A.C. as a framework. Issue Rule Analysis Conclusion. What is the Issue (the legal question) the Court is deciding which determines the result of the case? What Rule or law is the Court applying? How did the Court apply the Rule or law to the facts of the case and the Issue to be decided (Analysis)? What did the Court ultimately decide and what was the result, i.e. Defendant was deprived of her 4th Amendment right against unlawful search and seizure. (Conclusion)?
Answer TWO of the question sets below:
1. How would you explain the lawmaking structure of the United States to someone totally unfamiliar with the Constitution? Specifically, what is federalism and why does it create fifty-two lawmaking jurisdictions in the United States?
2. Find an article online that discusses the duties of the three branches of government and the three branches of the criminal justice system. How might the three branches of government be related to or directly affect each of the three branches of the criminal justice system?
3. After reading Duncan v. Louisiana (1968), explain the following:
· Which constitutional amendment is at issue in the case, and what right(s) does it encompass?
· What did the United States Supreme Court decide in this case and why?
· Pro Tip: When reading and analyzing a written decision (a case), use I.R.A.C. as a framework. Issue Rule Analysis Conclusion. What is the Issue (the legal question) the Court is deciding which determines the result of the case? What Rule or law is the Court applying? How did the Court apply the Rule or law to the facts of the case and the Issue to be decided (Analysis)? What did the Court ultimately decide and what was the result, i.e. Defendant was deprived of her 4th Amendment right against unlawful search and seizure. (Conclusion)?
|
Actively contributes to classroom discussions |
Minimum participation; writes very general conclusions; does not connect or contrast any principles in discussion areas of course |
Candidate follows classroom discussions and offers thoughts during some of the Discussion Modules. |
Candidate actively contributes to discussions in a variety of ways including a personal reflection of how the constitutional issues reflect in own work |
|
Displays comprehension of assigned reading |
Contributions displays lack of comprehension of or awareness of the readings and their relationship to the justice system. |
Contributions display tangential awareness of assigned readings and relationship to life/work or justice system. |
Contributions connected to assigned readings. Candidate able to reference ideas from the readings and relate to justice system or legal issues. |
|
Generates questions and/or challenges the facts or challenges the applied constitutional principle |
Candidate passively accepts, passively rejects, or gives up on ideas from the readings |
Candidates participates in discussions of questions related to assigned readings or testing ideas |
Candidate initiates discussions arising from the readings or challenges the principles or the facts by contrasting Amendment principles or facts against the other |
|
Presents areas of confusions and/or "misunderstandings" |
Candidate presumes that confusion is a statement about their own inadequacies or the difficulty of the content, or remains silent; does not fully read cases. |
Candidate actively participates in candidate discussions about her/his areas of confusion or "misunderstandings" regarding principles or facts/ Has some connection problems |
Candidate raises areas of confusion and collaborates with candidates or teacher to think through confusions and "misunderstandings". Evidence that previous errors are are corrected. |
Rubric for Writing in Discussion Area or in Essays
|
Presents own ideas, thoughts, questions around personal reflection on life, the course or other relevant matters stemming from participation in the course. |
Paper is based solely on course content, e.g. a summary of one of the chapters or articles |
Some, thin discussion of personal reflections based on the course content |
Paper reflects personal considerations of personal reflections on life, therapy relationships, the course or other relevant matters stemming from participation in the course. |
|
Relates own thoughts to specific course content, particularly readings and understanding of principles and related ideas. |
Reflections are entirely personal without evidence of engagement with course readings or experience. |
Personal reflections related to course materials, but course materials not specifically cited. |
Personal reflections are founded in course materials, particularly based on specific references to course readings. References to class discussions may be included. |
|
Adheres to format, well written. |
Multiple error in format; errors from previous papers not corrected in subsequent papers. Writing poorly edited, awkward construction or poor flow of ideas. |
Some errors. Writing shows evidence of self-editing with some construction problems, however definite connection is demonstrated and evident. |
Accurate use of format with minimal errors. Evidence that previous errors were corrected. Coherent development of the ideas using well-formed sentences and following paragraphs. |
