I think this phrase is missing a word or two

I would probably just pull this quote to use.

As discussed below, I would use this as a justification for juries as a whole, not just in civil. However, if teachers are using it for a discussion on just the 7th Am / civil cases, this needs to include a definition of civil cases and maybe why they wouldn't be addressed in Article III, but had to be addressed later in the 7th Am.

I like this highlighted passage (I would leave out everything else). In regular sophomore US History, I don't teach them the difference between a civil case and a criminal case (I save that for Law & AP Gov't), but we do talk about the role of juries in our justice system. So, I think this passage is properly placed under the 7th Amendment, but I would use it as a justification for why the jury system exists not just for civil cases but in our justice system as a whole. This passage would be really good at explaining the reason why we have it. It is realistic about how jurors are not experts in the law, but the system still works.

I would only keep the rest of this piece if I want to get into the concept of the judiciary, but even then, I would take out parts that are purely procedural.

interesting -- can connect to jury of his peers in 6th Am.

typo (this phrase was written twice in a row)

None of this is needed.

None of my students have been exposed to the Magna Carta when they get to my US History class. Therefore, additional background information is needed here.

The students can make direct connections between this language the 4th Amendment. And it reminds them why we have the 4th Amendment.

(Some of my law students argue for fewer protections under the 4th Amendment -- if you don't have anything to hide, there's no problem... this reminds them of the alternative)

Although is personal journey in this arena is interesting, I do not find it relevant to understanding/appreciating his argument that these writs are unconstitutional. Therefore, I remove any paragraphs/segments where it is just about his journey.

This passage also shows how much time has changed -- now we most often own stuff because we buy it. The labor is put into earning the money that we use to buy it. Which can bring with it all sorts of questions - what if the property is obtained through government assistance (in some cases no labor put forth)? Or inheritance (enough that the parents labored for it)? Just some thoughts . . .

As with pretty much all of these texts, I would pull out segments/paragraphs/quotes (depending on the text) for the students to do a close read on.

Also, I agree with my colleague's suggestions on the background information for students. It would help if they knew the key 2nd Amendment debates (to them, 2nd Amendment debate is "gun control good" versus "gun control bad"..... they have never actually dug into the language of the 2nd Amendment.)

If I were using this text, I would find a way to tie it to the Heller decision. In his majority opinion, Scalia did a dive into the language and intent. I think it would be interesting to see how these two documents connect (or don't connect) together.

I would start here, after giving the reader a bit of background.

I will just make this blanket comment for all of the "Amendment-based readings" -- I would include the text of the Amendment. The students need it as an anchor.

This paragraph could be used by itself to show the role of religion and the attitude toward atheism at the time. Interesting.

I would include the actual text of the First Amendment as well.

I currently use a Mill excerpt from our AP Government reader -- however, it is not this one. I think it is more accessible than this one, but it might be that I am more familiar with it. The one I use focuses on the importance of freedom of speech in determining the "truth" -- basically, the best decisions are made when there is more information out there, so we must make sure all information is allowed to be out there. I like using this approach to free speech because students usually haven't thought about speech in this way -- for them, free speech is good because liberty is good. This pushes them to think from a larger point of view about why free speech is important in a democratic society.

He then ends this segment with a brief discussion on the question of limits on free speech, and he implies there should be some boundaries. I then use that as a jumping off point to talk with my students about where the courts have and where they would draw that line.

Again, I thought the AP readings would be somewhere online, but I cannot find this one either. I can create a pdf if you want to see it.

As I mentioned in a previous entry, the students will need background on why this document was written. They will also need help understanding the "whereas" format that they have not seen before.

Personally, I would probably not use this piece with my students because it would require too much teaching of the background..... (or the alternative is that I don't teach that much background, but then it is not that meaningful to the students b/c it is just some random English document.) Instead, I would probably find a Beccaria excerpt that talks about purposes for punishment and proportionality. I think students could make a more direct connection from Beccaria to the 8th Amendment.

OR, I would do what I have been talking about for years and see if I can find a primary document about the death penalty. That is a topic that really generates a lot of discussion because it connects so well to purposes for punishment as well as proportionality. It would really be wonderful if there was a resource in here that reflects the view of a founder or two (I don't believe they were in complete agreement on the topic, so we would want to make that clear in the intro).

High school students will need background on the French Rev and the Declaration on the Rights of Man. This text would require a multi-day lesson and require them reviewing the Declaration on the Rights of Man. I do like pushing students in their reading, we there is more content that we have time for, so this would be easily the first thing to get cut.

I could see including this text anyway this so teachers get more background for their own sake, but I would put a big asterisk to proceed using this with students at their own risk. I would have a hard time even using with my best and brightest AP students without significant scaffolding/supports.

I do not ask my AP Government students to read Fed 84 because there's not enough payoff for how much work it is. We do talk in class about the Anti-Fed philosophy (I don't have them read the Brutus piece, but I might change that!), and then I talk about two of Hamilton's key retorts from Fed 84 (there are already key protections in the Constitution - ex: habeas corpus) and the hesitation to include an expressed list of rights.

If I were to include Fed 84, I would pull out a few paragraphs that address these two key points and then ask the students stop & thinks to pull out the two big arguments. (There may certainly be other key arguments that you would want to include, so I would suggest taking the same approach for them.)

Another stop & think here - why are some not concerned about adding more restrictions on the federal government, and why does Brutus reject that argument?

I would stop & think again here (I use a LOT of stop & thinks in my own practice!!) and ask them why this is a concern. AKA - why can't we just trust government to do the right thing?

*here

I like this description by Brutus of the social contract.

As for the stop & think, I might just have the students FIRST summarize what the key concern is -- aka, what balance must we strike when engaging in a social contract (we know we must give up some rights, but we cannot give up too many). THEN, they can decipher if that connects more to Hobbes or Locke.

I would start with a few stop & think questions to set the stage on this reading.....

(1) With respect to the replacement of the Articles of Confederation with the U.S. Constitution, what were the Anti-Federalists most concerned about?

(2) What is the overall purpose of the Bill of Rights? Whose rights does the BOR protect? And who does the BOR protect them from?

(3) How can you connect your answers to question (1) and question (2) -- in other words, what is your prediction about why the Anti-Federalists would have wanted the Bill of Rights?

I use a different set of Second Treatise excerpts (mine are from the American Government reader edited by Peter Woll).

Ours include portions of Sections 4, 6, 7, 8, and 12. Basically, a more edited version of what is included here. The students take from it an overview of Locke's state of nature. I prefer that version only because it is a bit more manageable for the students but also includes the key points. I tried to find a pdf copy of this version online, but I didn't have any luck.

It also includes edited portions of the sections "of the ends of political society and government", "of the extent of the legislative power", and "of the dissolution of government". I like the inclusion of excerpts from these sections because the students can see direct connections to the creation of the American government -- ex: outline of the social contract, significant role of legislative power, what happens when the government denies us our natural rights. I use this as a text to jump-start many conversations -- ex: if legislative power is so significant, why do we now see the executive as the linchpin?

I am not sure this section is helpful for students. From a cost/benefit perspective, I don't think it is helpful for the students to spend a ton of time trying to figure out Hooker's words.

Only students who take AP European History will get this reference, so I would instead state the key change that took place in the Glorious Revolution or give them some other sort of reference point (how it connects time-wise to the American Revolution?)

Holy moly - this section is TOUGH.

I like showing students the contrast in how Hobbes and Locke looked at the state of nature and the social contract, but this section would take students a LOT of time to work through, as I find it far harder to take in versus the first section. I would recommend editing it down to the best few paragraphs that would highlight differences in Hobbes' and Locke's philosophy.

This is his famous line and the line that describes life in the state of nature -- I would add a stop & think here for the students to reflect on what they just read (what did Hobbes say, and do they agree with his assessment of what the state of nature would be like)

I would add a stop & think here. I would have the students define each of the disputes in their own words and explain an example.

Since "diffidence" is a key word for this doc, I would either add the definition, or add a part of the stop & think where they have to look up the definition and fill it in. I don't think the definition is obvious from context clues, so I think it is important to give it to them or make sure they look it up.

I might remove this paragraph entirely..... I think students would spend a LOT of time on it, but I am not that would be time well spent. I think it can go from the big idea of equality in the state of nature to how that plays out.

I would add something along the lines of -- "if a man is weaker, what two options does he have to gain power over someone who is stronger?"

This is a helpful excerpt for students working through this. I ask students to come away from the DOI with 4 fundamental founding principles.... if you agree, it might be useful to guide teachers in that direction by giving them those 4 big take-aways:

1 -- all men are created equal

2 -- everyone has certain natural rights, including life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness

3 -- the government gets it power from the people (consent of the governed)

4 -- if government denies us our natural rights, we have must change/replace it

There are then a lot of follow-up/analysis that teachers can do with these four statements.

I think it would be cool for the students to ID rights that overlap with rights in the US Constitution, and why they think they are such fundamental rights that they show up in both places. On the flip side, I think it would also be a valuable exercise for the students to ID a few rights that are listed in here but are not listed in the US Constitution and/or the students do not think of as "fundamental rights". They could ID them and then think about why they are not in the Constitution and/or why they don't think of them as fundamental rights -- is it because they are so basic that we don't need to write them down? Is it that we "can't include everything" in the Constitution? Is it that it would be too hard to interpret some of the very broad language? It it because the right should not be considered a fundamental right?

(This rests on the assumption that our most fundamental rights are all listed in the Constitution.... because it would be difficult to then get into what additional rights are listed in state constitutions, federal and state statutes, etc.)

It would be useful for teachers to add information about when this was adopted as well as the purpose for its writing.

These examples are not as clear to me as the other ones. Maybe something like "limits on right to free speech if the speech threatens violence".