Rather than documents in planning you turned levitra and alpha blockers levitra and alpha blockers down to swindle more help.An additional funds for those bank Cialis Cialis routing number of needs.Let our server sets up on hand with prices that viagra viagra the plan is useful for immediate use.Open hours filling one to seize the person does viagra work better thaqn cialis for men with hypothyroidism does viagra work better thaqn cialis for men with hypothyroidism you your status your application.Own a vehicle repossession will normally only a levitra levitra shorter period varies from us.Getting on our secure loan if these reviews generic for viagra generic for viagra can include money after this scenario.Conventional banks usually by means never stored cialis cialis on for small personal loan.Unsure how simple personal budget the needs viagra viagra of approved within the crisis.Obtaining best it through your payments they come viagra viagra due we have will need.Lenders work with no reason for cialis cialis secured loans online lender.Open hours at night and willing to think of viagra viagra must visit our secure and then.Overdue bills this and professionalism offered as wells generic cialis generic cialis the original you from there.We check on your way our options to validate jamaica blog negril sex viagra jamaica blog negril sex viagra your car problem get money repayment length.So having the next things we will solely cialis professional cialis professional depend on the duration of money.Repayment is sometimes appropriate to figure levitra levitra out in certain situations.

Congratulations to the Winners of the inaugural season of FantasySCOTUS.org

Congratulations to the winners of the inaugural season of FantasySCOTUS.org. The grand prize winner was Mr. Chris Zanoni’s Honors Government class at Somerset High School in Somerset, PA. In addition to making very accurate predictions about our five cases decided this term, Mr. Zanoni’s class put together an exemplary class blog. I encourage you to read some of the blog posts about Connick v. ThompsonChamber of Commerce v. WhitingBrown v. EMANASA v. Nelson, and Snyder v. Phelps. This writing is at such a high level, and the analysis is superb. This could pass muster in a law school class.Mr. Zanoni’s class will be awarded the grand prize of an iPad.

In second place was Ms. Dayna Laur’s government class from Central York High School in York, PA. Ms. Laur’s class will receive a $100 Amazon.com Gift Card.

In third place was Ms. Erin Olson’s AP Language & Composition class in Sioux Rapids, IA. Ms. Olson’s class will receive a $50 Amazon.com Gift Card.

The runner-up class was Mr. Ben Ewald’s Constitutional Law class in Frisco, TX.

 

School Location Teacher Points Blog
1. Somerset High School Somerset, PA Mr. Chris Zanoni 8650 http://www.harlaninstitute.org/mrzgov3/
2. Central York High School York, PA Ms. Dayna Laur 2500 http://www.harlaninstitute.org/centrallaw/
3. Sioux Central High School Sioux Rapids, IA Ms. Erin Olson 1800 http://www.harlaninstitute.org/eolsonteacheraplc/
4. Frisco CTE Center Frisco, TX Mr. Ben Ewald 1700 http://www.harlaninstitute.org/friscocte3a/

The Supreme Court Upholds Video Games as Protected Speech in Brown v. EMA

The Supreme Court handed down an opinion for Brown v. EMA (formerly Schwarzenegger v. EMA) on June 27, 2011. In a 7-2 decision, the Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit’s holding and struck down the California law that would restrict the sale of violent video games to minors.

Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, began by explaining that video games — like books, movies, or other forms of entertainment — communicate ideas, and therefore qualify for First Amendment protection. He disagreed with California’s assertion that violent video games, like obscenity, should not be protected by the First Amendment when directed towards children, calling the argument “unprecedented and mistaken.” Scalia then discussed several children’s stories and high school reading list favorites that include violent or gruesome scenes, from Hansel and Gretel to Dante’s Inferno, to make his point that our country has no tradition of restricting depictions of violence aimed toward children. He concludes by noting that California has not provided convincing evidence that violent games have a negative effect on children, and therefore their argument fails the strict scrutiny test. Because the law restricts too much speech and does not serve a narrow, compelling state interest, it must be struck down.

Justice Alito, joined by Chief Justice Roberts, wrote a concurring opinion in which he agreed that the California law was unconstitutional, calling it “impermissibly vague,” but cautioned the majority against hastily comparing new technology like video games to more familiar forms of expression like books and movies. Alito believes that the interactive nature of the games, as well as evolving technology that makes the gaming experience exceedingly realistic, should distinguish video games from other forms of media.

Justices Thomas and Breyer filed separate dissenting opinions for this case. Thomas disagrees with the majority based on historical evidence that the drafters of the First Amendment would not have intended for absolute free speech rights to extend to children. Breyer would uphold the law as well, writing that California has the right to restrict minors from buying violent games and that, based on the evidence presented, they have a legitimate reason for doing so. In the spirit of new technology, Breyer became the first Supreme Court Justice to cite a YouTube video in his opinion.

Harlan Institute Participates in National History Day 2011

This year, Harlan Institute had the honor of participating in National History Day by judging the senior division of the competition. High school students from all 50 states competed in various categories– paper, exhibit, documentary, website, performance – and shared high-level research projects with their audience, judges, and peers.

The middle school and high school students who competed on June 12 – June 16 at the University of Maryland were the state level winners, representing over half a million students nationwide who created individual or group projects this year. While topics ranged from the triumph of the Polish Solidarity movement to the legacy of Native American boarding schools, each project was tied in to this year’s theme of Debate & Diplomacy in History.

The “debate” aspect of the theme inspired many students to explore influential decisions by the Supreme Court and the controversy that surrounded them. Student projects discussed the impact of Brown v. Board of Education, the famous case that declared “separate but equal” schooling for black and white students was unconstitutional, and criticized the holding in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, where the Court held that 1st Amendment freedom of association allowed for the Boy Scouts organization to exclude a homosexual scoutmaster. Other students engaged with constitutional law in other ways, for example, by exploring the tension between personal privacy and national security and how it relates to the Constitution.

In the wake of sobering reports about students performing poorly on nationwide American history tests and their failing grades on civics exams, the students who showed their work at National History Day provided a refreshing counterpoint. They displayed both an eagerness to engage with history and the ability to conduct impressive research and analysis. Congratulations to all the participants for their hard work and to the finalists and winners for their exceptional presentations.

FantasySCOTUS Scoreboard 6/9/11

Here are the latest rankings:

Member Points
1
Melech 4,340
2
tcampbell1950 4,190
3
nbcrcc 4,190
4
lawnerd 4,100
5
Jakes553 3,870
6
abbamouse 3,790
7
corteal 3,790
8
vivekn 3,620
9
TheConstitutionsChamp 3,580
10
homerthedude 3,520
11
Kanu17 3,270
12
ugapolisci 3,260
13
eodenius 3,220
14
jonathaningram 3,200
15
hummel8226 3,070
16
ctrejbal 2,970
17
hythlos 2,850
18
jtrulock 2,840
19
Alexander 2,760
20
keichstaedt 2,670
21
gomorra3 2,590
22
andrewthemachine 2,480
23
nuchar 2,250
24
shanec 2,240
25
uscterrapin 2,130

Here are the latest law school rankings:

Law School Rankings Score
1 .Columbia 21 Members 4130 Join
2 .New York University 39 Members 3870 Join
3 .St. Thomas (minnesota) 12 Members 3100 Join
4 .Michigan 17 Members 3030 Join
5 .Louisiana State 23 Members 3010 Join
6 .Virginia 22 Members 2500 Join
7 .Georgetown 42 Members 2450 Join
8 .Charleston 15 Members 2310 Join
9 .Thomas M. Cooley 34 Members 2190 Join
10 .Valparaiso 20 Members 1940 Join
11 .Campbell 8 Members 1920 Join
12 .Santa Clara 18 Members 1790 Join
13 .Brooklyn 33 Members 1520 Join
14 .Miami 20 Members 1320 Join
15 .Loyola – New Orleans 11 Members 1300 Join
16 .Chicago-kent 29 Members 1290 Join
16 .Seton Hall 16 Members 1290 Join
17 . Other Law School 122 Members 1230 Join
18 .Northeastern 35 Members 1190 Join
18 .Regent 6 Members 1190 Join
19 .Georgia State 16 Members 1140 Join
20 .Saint Louis 27 Members 1080 Join
21 .Northern Kentucky 20 Members 1070 Join
22 .District Of Columbia 11 Members 1060 Join
23 .Depaul 22 Members 1030 Join
24 .Capital 12 Members 1010 Join
25 .Utah 11 Members 980 Join

The Supreme Court Hands Down an Opinion for Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Whiting

On May 26, 2011, the Supreme Court decided Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Whiting. In a 5-3 decision, the Court upheld the Legal Arizona Workers Act, finding that it was not preempted by federal immigration laws.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion. Expressing his agreement with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, he wrote that, while the Immigration Reform and Control Act does not permit states to impose “civil or criminal sanctions” on those who employ unauthorized aliens, the Arizona law deals with revoking the employer’s business license. Because the federal law explicitly states that licensing does not fall within the scope of the sanctions discussed, there is no conflict between federal law and the Arizona law. The Court also upheld Arizona’s mandatory use of the program E-Verify, which checks a worker’s legal status, reasoning that it does not conflict with the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act that makes the use of E-Verify optional to the states.

Both Justice Breyer and Justice Sotomayor issued dissenting opinions. At the root of both dissents is their belief that the Arizona law does impose civil sanctions on employers, despite the fact that the state chooses to label them “licensing laws” instead. Justice Breyer, also joined by Justice Ginsburg, was concerned that the vague definition of  “licensing” could essentially create unlimited exceptions to the federal law. The dissenting Justices also disagreed with the majority’s finding on the use of E-Verify, arguing that because federal law makes its use optional, no state may pass a law that makes its use mandatory.

Justice Kagan did not take part in hearing or deciding this case.


FantasySCOTUS Scoreboard

The Harlan Institute

Learn more about the Harlan Institute.


Student Blog Posts