OurCourts.Org and Ideas for Games About Constitutional Law:
Retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is behind a new website, OurCourts.Org, that is desiged to teach students abot the importance of the judicial system and constitutional rights. The site indicates that it will soon host two new games that students can play to learn about the Constitution and the Supreme Court:
Do I have a Right?This is a pretty interesting idea. Here are two more suggestions that I've come up with for games that the site might want to use:
In this game, students will advise fictional kids about their rights under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. As they advance, additional rights are unlocked and the scenarios get more complex. This short game will teach students that they have important rights grounded in the specific Amendments to the Constitution.
Supreme Decision: Freedom of Speech
In this game, students will work for a Justice of the Supreme Court. They will use the First Amendment of the Constitution to help their Justice decide whether a fellow student, Ben, can be suspended from school for wearing his favorite band t-shirt. If they demonstrate good reasoning, students earn the chance to write the majority opinion for the Supreme Court. This game will ask students to explore the parameters of the First Amendments free speech guarantee so that they can assist the Justices in performing their constitutional role.
Reasonable ObserverFeel free to offer your own ideas for new games in the comment thread.
In this game, students will advise a fictional client as to how to apply the "reasonable observer" test to determine when government conduct is an unconstitutional establishment of religion. At the end of the game, retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor will appear and tell students whether they are right or wrong.
Supreme Decision: Count to Five
In this game, students will work for a Justice of the Supreme Court. They will use personal advocacy and negotiation to try to get five votes for whatever result the Justice wants. If they demonstrate good political skills, students earn the chance to write the majority opinion for the Supreme Court. But be careful: Better write that opinion narrowly or you might lose Tony!
Indoctrination. Lets stick to the three-Rs.
Nine students, playing justices, are asked to author opinions deciding a legal question such as the one presented in Supreme Decision: First Amendment. Each writes whatever he or she wants, without consulting the others.
Nine other students, playing practicing lawyers, are asked to write briefs describing the holding and identifying and analyzing the import of any concurrences or dissents. Points awarded for creativity. There are no right answers.
Each student writes an online essay about their favorite Constitutional right. The names and social security numbers of all children who write about the Second Amendment are then forwarded to a database maintained by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
Students debate several issues of importance to them, vote on each one, and decide democratically how they should be resolved. Then nine students from a previous year's class return and tell them which of their decisions are disallowed because the previous class decided them differently. Sorry!
Each student is given several hundred sets of briefs to read and analyze in detail.
Based solely on the written analysis, the rest of the students vote on whether to read the full briefs of the case and then write their own analyses. Only cases getting at least 4/9ths of the vote in favor will get their briefs read.
Nick
Each of two children has his or her own large section of the woods to romp in. Each child is told that a candy treat is hidden somewhere in the other child's section. The child who tells the most imaginative and farfetched campfire story for why the other child should be compelled to search for the storyteller's candy wins the right to have the other child search. Ties are allowed and encouraged, in which case both children get to search. A child finding candy must turn it over to the owner (other child) unspoiled. Any dispute will be referred to a parent whose sole role is to tell the children to figure it out themselves.
Best played at night without flashlights (calamine lotion is a good idea, however). Keeps the little darlings occupied for hours enjoying the great outdoors, and, as long as you don't make the rookie mistake of actually hiding candy, it's low-cal. Also scalable, as anyone passing by can be assigned his or her own section of the woods, without any promise of candy.
The student is presented with a fact pattern in which a local government seizes the property of a politically weak person or group and hands it over to a large corporation. The task is to articulate a way in which this benefits the public. Any answer is acceptable. The reward is watching the land lie fallow for years, warmed by the glow of one's judicial modesty.
Children are given a random piece of contraband of varying sizes and are asked to hide it in one of several places, including their person, their luggage, their car, etc. They are then placed in a random situation, such as at an airport, at a criminal friend's house, at the US border, etc. The children must decide if they have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the random piece of contraband and, if so, whether that prevents search and seizure thereof in their random location. Other children will be given infrared monitoring devices and allowed to bump against and/or rub the exterior of the child's person, luggage, etc, in order to help the child decide.
In this game, children will play justices of the United States Supreme Court. They will watch video footage of car chases and determine whether the police acted reasonably. Because this game requires no reading of the opinions below and is best played by reacting viscerally to the images shown, this game is especially appropriate for younger children.
Seriously, as a long-time Civ fan, this sounds like a great idea.
Almost as good as #2, too bad I have to dock points for time.
Students will play on a bank of 5 seesaws designed by Justice O'Connor. You have the right at any given moment when at least 3 out of the 5 ends of the seesaws are in the air at their apex.
Oh law school.
Each child picks the next SC judge to die with their boots on.
Half the students are assigned to be judges. The other half each choose something that they would like to do but that their parents forbid. They write an essay explaining why this thing is deeply rooted in our history and tradition, including the tradtions from which we have broken as well as those to which he have adhered, such that ordered liberty could not exist without recognition of this thing as a fundamental right. Essays that deal with rights that the judges like are winners; the rest of the essays are losers unless they deal with a topic that is essential to understanding the sweet mystery of life, in which case they are winners. All ties will be broken by Justice Kennedy.
I'm certain O'Connor knows this answer herself and will be able to determine which students are correct.
A variation of NR's What's the Holding?
Players are given details of a hypothetical murder, the more heinous the better. The defendant has confessed, recanted, fired his court-appointed attorney, pled guilty, and now seeks a new trial based on, among other issues, incompetence of counsel and his deference to authority figures resulting from a repressive childhood. Find a basis for excluding any trial evidence. Bonus points for expanding what constitutes causal connection (between police actions and questionable evidence collection), and/or limiting exclusionary restrictions. A player finding a way to invalidate existing police procedurals and exclude any evidence gathered thereby is immediately elevated to the 9th CCA.
For the experienced gamer, the converse could be called "Roscoe Fell Down the Stairs." Assume the same hypothetical murder case, but add a very strong probability that the police beat a confession from the undoubtedly guilty defendant. Write an opinion that keeps the confession and all resultant evidence in, constructing your logic so that suppressing the confession will not deter future police misconduct. The winner in this category becomes Attorney General...oh, wait, that was the last administration. Never mind.
Students are given a copy of the Constitution. They are asked to identify the part that justifies randomly selected parts of federal law.
(Cheat code: "Commerce clause".)
That's my favorite so far, I think.
"'So is Scalia the end boss?'
Almost as good as #2, too bad I have to dock points for time."
He's been known to drop this:
***spoiler***
Exscaliabur (Legendary Gavel): bludgeoning damage, +3 DEX, +5 CON, -2 CHR, +50% .vs. Chaotic Good, -50% .vs. Clerics, +100% .vs. Trolls
***end spoiler***
So is there an easter egg that lets you play the Florida Supremes too?
As always, the question remains, is this a feature or this a bug?
Each round, players are each given a copy of a plurality opinion and must identify which opinion has precedential value for lower courts.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.