Americanists....worldwide!

From Lugano to La Jolla....what a remarkable amalgam of ideas, insights, and perspectives. Welcome to this site. Mr. Izsa (TASIS) and Mrs. Shaul (LJCDS) invite you to join us in our conversations about the history and the realities of America's history and culture--from a decidedly international perspective.

Each month a new series of questions will be posted here by Mr. Izsa and Mrs. Shaul. Please click on the blog posts and write in your comments for the questions below, per your teacher's instructions.

Please make certain that entries are thoughtfully written (check for typos and grammatical faux pas), as erudite as you can make them, and appropriately worded for a school-related activity (note: students from other parts of the world may not share your same philosophies or your same sense of humor, so please be mindful of our differences).

With every blog session assigned, one or two can be direct responses to the questions, but at least one MUST respond directly to the students who have already written posts, answering one thread per question (more is welcome, this is the minimum requirement).Be specific. Explain why you might agree or disagree with their (his/her) opinions. Feel free to "debate" or "discuss" with your international counterpart. Make sure we can identify you with your name so you can receive credit for your contributions.


Monday, November 24, 2014

November question #2: Supreme Court

This year the Supreme Court made some powerful decisions regarding the Defense of Marriage Act.  In your studies, you have examined the Supreme Court cases that shaped the early decades of the court's existence.  Consider a series of Supreme Court decisions (from your own research, from your studies, or from the newspaper).  Do you feel like the court's inclinations have changed?  How so (or why not)?  Choose a court case that you think would have been decided differently in another age.
Posted by at

5 comments:

  1. AnonymousNovember 24, 2014 at 7:15 PM

    I don't really know a lot from the Supreme Court but I feel like some inclinations have changed and some have not. It really depends on the topic. For example, in the 19th century, I feel like African American people would not have been treated equally as White Americans. Now it changed, even though racism still exists. In class we studied the Marbury vs. Madison case. The Supreme Court decided not to be on the government's side to show that the President doesn't always win. I think that this case would have been treated differently today, but it also depends on who was concerned by the case. If it was a well appreciated President or a well favored political party that was in trouble, I feel like today, the Supreme Court would have been on the President's side and agree not to hold charges or something similar.
    -Mathilde Oberlé

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousDecember 8, 2014 at 12:34 AM

      I agree, the decision of the Supreme Court depends on the case and the topic. I think that nowadays, justices in the Supreme Court are different and have different moral values. Therefore, they will look at such a case, which is related to slavery, differently. However, cases related to politics are more complicated, because it depends on the authority of the President.

      Delete
  2. AnonymousDecember 7, 2014 at 11:15 AM

    Supreme Court has definitely changed, but, as said by Mathilde Oberlé, it depends on the case. Right now there is a big debate about gay marriage that is very controversial around the US. The Supreme Court tries to consider the opinions of all Americans, but the case is still very difficult. Similar case was in the 17th century in the United States considering slavery. Even though many abolitionists, both white and black, were trying to give African Americans liberty, the Supreme Court wouldn't allow it happen. The case of Dred Scott, for example, was one of those cases. He was a slave with his family living with their master in the South, which was slave territory. In 1834 Dred Scott moved to Illinois, a free state. He decided to go to Supreme Court to grant his and his family freedom by claiming that they are residents of a free state. However, the Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, denied his case and said that he is "property", not a citizen of the United States. The decision that today would be considered inhumane was a normal thing back then. Same problem is happening with gay marriage. However, this time the Supreme Court is more reasonable.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Liam Pitts USADecember 7, 2014 at 1:59 PM

    This summer the U.S. Supreme Court ruled section #3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unlawful. This section stated that a same-sex marriage would not be recognized by the Federal Government and not receive the same federal benefits as a heterosexual marriage. This includes tax benefits, social security benefits, and a load of other basic rights of a married couple.
    The justices of the United States Supreme court are exceptionally diverse compared to the members in the 19th century. in a perfect world the Supreme Court would set aside their personal beliefs and interoperate the Constitution with all citizens in mind. Unfortunately, we don't live in that world and most likely never will, but a court with two women, three ethnicities, and wide range of political stances, is extraordinarily better at understanding the community then nine, old, white, conservatives. The Justices today come together with contrasting viewpoints and backgrounds as a whole and rule in favor of justice rather than the agenda of the majority. The difference between the ruling of Dred Scott v Sandford and DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) shows how not only the court but the presidents who appoint them have moved passed personal agendas and aspire to serve and protect the rights and liberty of the people.

    ReplyDelete
  4. AnonymousDecember 8, 2014 at 8:16 AM

    Liam I agree with you because the evidence and content you provided for your answer is very precise. First of all, I totally agree with the paragon you made with the supreme court as it was perfect and how you explained the difference between the ruling Dred Scott and Doma since I believe is the best explanation to provide your point.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)