Would probably try to address the following w/ my students. Was Brutus correct (in either the short term or the long run)? Did this clause of the Constitution supersede or usurp state gov't authority? If so, specific historical examples and or Supreme court precedent cases??

Absolutely love this passage! I think this document and the counterpoint found in the previous document would be very useful in helping students grasp what amendments 9 & 10 were all about. Students tend to really buy into Amendment one and four because they have immediate relevance to most teenagers. Amendment 2 always generates interest and disagreements between students and has, unfortunately been very much in the news each school year. Amendment 3 does not hold much allure, but is easy to comprehend. Older H.S. students tend to have enough life experience to understand how 5 - 8 might affect them, or at least have watched enough movies & television courtroom dramas to realize how the rights of the accused matter. When it comes to 9 & 10 they seem to be the quickest to forget after we've moved along through our coursework. I think these last two documents may help to resolve some of that.

It would be my hope that, if I had done my job correctly at this point, one of my students would raise the question of the elastic clause in response to Hamilton's repetition of "authority which was not given". If not, it would suggest the need to back up and work through that again!

Would lead the discussion in a couple of directions in my class. First, is Hamilton correct that a gov't couldn't usurp in an area it had not been given power? Has history borne him out? What would the anti federalist rebuttal probably sound like? What do you think?

Students might find it interesting, after spending time learning about the Bill of Rights, to then examine this document for similarities and possible origins. After teaching our U.S. Bill of Rights usually provide an outlined overview of the rights (& clauses) for students to use in reviewing for our exam. At that point in our class, I think students would be able to successfully comb the English Bill of Rights for similarities.

Also effective context for students, allowing them a sense of connection between this document and the Bill of Rights before they engage in the heavy lifting of close reading the document.

Appreciate that this passage clearly defines "Writs of assistance" for students and teachers, helping to get a class quickly launched into this reading and able to connect it to the evolution of the Bill of Rights.

It might be interesting to provide a synopsis of the patriot act alongside these remarks by Otis and ask students to answer the question (that may be overused in my classroom and in my editing of these documents) did Otis's fears come true? What might he say about the patriot act. Would there have been any counter arguments to Otis in his day and would those still serve as the counter arguments in our own time?

A very interesting passage. References to the central gov't, state gov't & the individual citizen concerning the right to self protection. Note the suggestion that it is a right provided to every individual by "Providence" This has implications in the debate over whether the right to arms is "collective" or individual (or both).

Once again, looking at things today, a good question for H.S. discussions = can the national government mobilize state reserve units today and, if so, can you find an example from the news or recent history?

An additional question, which also vexed the founders, = if the national government can call forth the militias - does that run the risk of militias being "morphed" into a standing army.

A kind of intriguing insight here might be what happened at Tiannamen square a few years ago. The first time the troops were sent in, they refused to crush the protesters violently, at least partially due to the fact that there were people among the demonstrators that the troops knew personally, or knew their parents and families. The subsequent troops were "imported" from more distant provinces, and of course, violent repression ensued. I regret that I do not have proper documentation of this phenomenon, merely my recollection of the events & my readings as things were happening in real time. I provide them, because I would be likely to share those remarks with students in the context of this reading and / or discussions of militias, standing armies , the use of Hessian mercenaries by the British during the revolution, etc, etc. I also like to point this out (among other things) when discussing Shay's rebellion.

This reference might deserve a footnote and citation of what legislation from 40 years before is being referenced

yeomanry defined? (simply as citizen farmers who worked their own land rather than plantation owners etc) Young readers unfamiliar with the term might be confused here.

I'm not understanding the distinction being made between a general or special verdict. It appears it would make the intent of the writer clearer.

Would be inclined to stop & "knowledge check" my students --> What does the writer mean by the phrase "democratic branch of the legislature"?

Would be inclined to have students lay Amendment 5 alongside this document (after gaining previous familiarity w/ amend 5) and look for ideas / passages that might be interpreted as providing the roots of amend. 5

In addition, a teacher might choose to point to the features of the Magna Carta that arguably reflect the nature of Grand Juries in the 20th century - this idea taken from attending the 2017 -18 American Democracy Educator Forum w/ Dr. John Zumbrunnen.

Happy this distinction was made here. I have bumped into many students who were under the impression when they arrived in my class that the Magna Carta gave rights to (all) the people in England. Glad that misconception is dispelled in the introduction.

I understand and appreciate this passage to provide context for 5th amendment protections against self incrimination. I think having it included may prove useful for some teachers. As for my classroom, I found this document very difficult to read, and I feel it is too convoluted or cryptic to be used with my high school students. Knowing the calculus involved in managing the amount of subject material within the school calendar, this work would take far too much "scaffolding" to make the investment of time worth the takeaway for students.

The protection against self incrimination found in Amendment Five is a critical understanding for all students and citizens. As I write this (4/26/18), the New York Times and Wall Street Journal both included articles this morning regarding President Trump's long time personal lawyer Michael D. Cohen's decision yesterday to "assert my 5th Amendment rights . . . " I do not believe a student reading Hobbes passage from chapter 14 here would be a good "cost / benefit" decision for a classroom.

I have highlighted numerous passages in this document as I would annotate for my students in A.P. Government class. We would probably use this in the very last unit of our course where we glance briefly at state governments, and revisit the nature of federalism.

Presumably the "takeaway" for the concept of quartering is pretty simple for most H.S. classrooms compared to the complexity and utility that H.S. teachers would plan for the other amendments. Therefore I would be inclined to highlight (as I've done here) a few lines that would help students jump to a useful understanding more quickly. This is simply the type of "triage" that teachers have to use if they are mindful of how much needs to be covered in the course of a year or semester.

Messy typo here

Within the collective vs. individual right debate is the issue of just what constitutes a militia. If one relies upon "originalism" then the definition of a militia during the founder's era would provide a useful insight.

Suggested resource to investigate that question = The Militia Act of 1792 to be found at "A Century of Lawmaking for the New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents & Debates 1774 - 1875 ----Statutes at Large, 2nd Congress, 1st Session (Ch. 33) "every citizen so enrolled . . . provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet, . . . ."

Hopefully this suggestion will be accepted in the spirit it is offered (gently!) and if acted upon, would not lengthen the intro too much, but rather help clarify the "anticipatory set" of the reading. Although the first sentence is quite accurate, as someone who has been doing extensive reading on the 2nd Amendment lately, I had to re - read this to be sure I understood the assertion. Bouncing back & forth from references to 1) gun control advocates 2) individual rights to gun ownership and back to 3) reference to a well regulated militia is likely to confuse H.S. readers who may have little interest or grasp of the ideas.

Suggest: First of all - since it is so brief, it might be useful to actually provide the complete wording of Amendment Two. (Perhaps above the green "About this text" box.)

Secondly - a note suggesting that gun control advocates tend to focus upon the "militia" clause while gun owner rights advocates often prefer to focus on the second clause re: right to own.

Thirdly - a (brief) suggestion that the two sides do not even agree upon what constitutes a "militia" and that the context and historical evidence for each side's arguments are lengthy and complex.

The second sentence beginning " In the excerpt below, is critical to help set the context of the reading, however, there seems to be room to minimize the verbiage without losing meaning.

It would be very interesting to discuss this and the surrounding passages in light of the armed standoff that occurred in either Oregon or Washington about a year ago regarding the use of federal lands for grazing purposes by the local ranchers.

Useful passage to point out the tension between "Civic virtue and the responsibility to the greater good (see end of passage) vs. individual property rights. Useful to frame discussions re: natural parks, utilitarian vs. preservationist perspectives on environmental policies, taxation policies & burdens, entitlements etc etc.

I was taken by just how clearly Locke, in the 17th century, speaks in support of religious diversity and a separation between church and state (I highlighted many remarks and passages in this work). This will be a powerful document to allow students to read in conjunction with the first amendment.

Animadversion ???????

I've often wondered why, and often had to be sure my students understood, that Jefferson used "the pursuit of happiness" rather than Locke's more direct reference to property rights. Obviously Mill wrote after Jefferson, so my question is did Jefferson borrow this "utilitarian" adaptation from any particular writer or thinker and were Mill & Bentham reading the same literature years later. Just curious.

Video will be useful, however, I would be inclined to use it only in segments rather than showing it in its entirety. While the eleven and one half minutes of background before actually getting to the Bill of Rights is justified, it makes the video too long for those of us who are inclined to use video as a class opener, quick review etc to supplement, rather than replace, a discussion. I will definitely use the assorted parts of this video for those purposes in my classroom.

Really liked the fact that it went on to bring in amendment 14 and the doctrine of incorporation.

 A mild, and hopefully constructive observation.  The video does a nice job of "clustering" some of the amendments suggesting that they were designed to work together or compliment each other (such as 3,4,& 5 or 5 - 8 etc) fair enough.  But significant by omission is the lack of that same suggestion re: that 1,2, 3, & 4 were intentionally grouped together as well (although that might raise controversy, however, so does its omission!) 

I offer the following passage from p. 89 the 2nd Amendment Primer by Les Adams in which he sights the musings of historian Don Kates (who in turn is referring to Blackstone) "It helps to explain . . . why the right of arms [of the 2nd Amendment] is preceded by the rights of religion expression, press & petition . . . then followed by the guarantee against quartering . . . follwed, in turn by protection vs. unreasonable searches and seizures . . ." Adams cites Kates" The Second Amendment and the Ideology of Self - Protection, 9 Const. Commentary 89

As with the other documents and writers, it is interesting to consider whether or not history has validated or contradicted the assertions of the author. Useful to remind students of the notion of "common law"

What does Bentham's continued use of this term suggest about his politics and his place in society. Are there analogous terms & usages today and do they reveal the same perspectives now as during Bentham's time?

Bentham's view of "state of nature" aligns nicely with Hobbes. It would be useful to remind students of the way in which the vision of "State of Nature" leads to conclusions regarding what Social Contract should be. I would ask students who Madison might agree with, or at least who he seems to have taken into consideration. ( "If men were perfect . . .")

Useful to ask students to examine this paragraph and compare it to Locke & his version of social contract or natural rights theory. Also useful in AP government when exploring elite, pluralist and super-pluralist models and of course, ask students to apply those understandings to analyze where Bentham may fit according to this passage.

Many useful and interesting ideas swirl around this and the nearby paragraphs and passages relating to the role of the media in American government. First - The A.P. Gov't exam, textbooks etc. The College board is fond of, and expects students to know and understand the following:

1. The role of media as a "linkage institution" between citizens and the gov't.
   1. The role of media in "agenda setting" i.e. deciding which issues / events will be put in front of the public.
   2. The tendency toward "horse race journalism" which focuses upon who leads in the polls rather than what their principles and positions on significant issues might be.

Secondly: I would be inclined to introduce students to this passage after a look at the history and influence of the media in politics & gov't especially as it has made political parties less crucial for candidates hoping to achieve nominations and elections (this is also a notion that the college board will deliver in its test questions)

Finally - in some of my other research, I came across this quotation by English editor Roger L'Estrange in THE INTELLIGENCER (Aug 3rd 1663) as quoted by Les Adams in his book THE SECOND AMENDMENT PRIMER on p. 115 "A public newspaper makes the multitude too familiar with the actions and councils of its superiors . . . and gives them, not only an itch, but a kind of colourable right and license to be meddling with the government" Perhaps a nice aristocratic counter position to lay alongside the remarks of Brutus concerning the media!

Useful to circle back to these remarks after introducing the concept of "unfunded mandates" to H.S. students.

Typo??

This passage seems to concur, and provide a specific example of Madison's assertion of the need for "ambition to counter act ambition". It might be fun for students to have the chance to see the convergence of these thoughts along the way!

Is this a typo that occurred during transcription?

This question works well to help students compare the ideas of Hobbes & Locke (which are part of what I ask students to think of as the "bookshelf" or perhaps today the twitter feeds, etc. of the founders)! When working with H.S. students, I find it is useful to ask them to point out specific evidence or passages from documents we are using to support their assertions. While this may go without saying for college students, high school students sometimes need that directive to help them develop that habit rather than offer a more "intuitive" contribution to the discussion or writing prompt.

For the high school student, many teachers (myself included) often ask the students early in the course to reflect upon, and define pivotal concepts such as "equality" to provide an anchor point before wrestling with what Hobbes, Locke, et. al have to say. It has been my experience that they are pleased with themselves any time their own thought process aligns with the political philosophers they are being introduced to. Any traction of that nature usually helps to encourage them to entertain the possibility that course content is relevant to their own lives.

Please advise if my suggestions regarding the high school classroom are not the direction you are seeking in this editing / reflection process.

Knowing that the founders were mindful of Hobbes, is it also possible that this (pessimistic) passage might have been among the considerations behind the second amendment? An additional document with an interesting passage relating to armed citizenry arguments (for those interested in that question) might be found in the English Bill of Rights (1689) " . . . subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense . . ." Does this passage have anything to do with the 2nd amendment appearing immediately after the establishment and free exercise clauses of Amendment one? http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp[](http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp)

Presumably a typo since the same sentence is printed twice??