This lesson is based on an Annenberg Classroom video Habeas Corpus: The Guantanamo Cases that explores the four Supreme Court cases known as the Guantanamo cases. These cases are examples of how the Court, the president and even Congress fought to balance national security and civil liberties during the war on terror, a war that continues to this day. At the hear of each case was the constitutional right of habeas corpus, the right to have one's detention or imprisonment reviewed in court.
This lesson is aligned with the National Standards for Civics and Government and Common Core Standards. The estimated time of this lesson is two 50-minute classes.

This documentary explores the landmark Supreme Court decision Miranda v. Arizona that said criminal suspects, at the time of their arrest but before any interrogation, must be told of their Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination and Sixth Amendment right to an attorney. The decision led to the familiar Miranda warning that begins âYou have the right to remain silent … â

In these five videos, judges explain separation of powers and the roles of the three branches of government as well as landmark cases related to separation of powers. Judges also review the system of checks and balances, and why it's important to respect the nation's rule of law and the jurisdiction of the courts.

In 1957, Dollree Mapp stood up to police who tried to enter her home without a search warrant. Her act of defiance led to a landmark Supreme Court ruling in Mapp v. Ohio that limited police powers. This documentary explores the Fourth Amendment case in which the Court ruled that evidence illegally obtained by police is not admissible in state courts. The 1961 case redefined the rights of the accused.

This film examines the history of guns and gun ownership in our society from the Revolutionary War to modern times and the complicated debate over what the founders intended when they wrote the Second Amendment. Does it protect a right of individuals to keep and bear arms? Or is it a right that can be exercised only through militia organizations like the National Guard?

This tool allows students to explore the rights the Sixth Amendment grants to defendants in criminal trials by linking the text's most debated clauses to expert knowledge on their various interpretations.

This discussion guide is for use with the video âState vs. Federal Courts,â which features a conversation with the Hon. Renée Cohn Jubelirer of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, Robert Heim, Esq., and the Hon. Theodore McKee of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Lynn A. Marks, Esq., moderates the discussion at the Fair and Impartial Judiciary Symposium on October 26, 2019, at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

The story about the struggle over the Bill of Rights is told in this documentary, which explains how these individual freedoms that often are taken for granted today were controversial among the founding fathers and how they were eventually ratified. Ten short videos address each of the amendments.

The 14th Amendment granted U.S. citizenship to former slaves and contained three new limits on state power: a state shall not violate a citizen's privileges or immunities; shall not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; and must guarantee all persons equal protection of the laws. These limitations on state power dramatically expanded the protections of the Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court, in what is called âthe doctrine of incorporationâ has since interpreted the 14th Amendment to apply most provisions in the Bill of Rights against state and local governments as well.

Article I creates the two sections of Congress – the Senate and the House – and outlines its powers and limits.

Article I, Section 8, gives Congress the authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the states.

Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution gives the president the power to make treaties with other countries, with the approval of two-thirds of the Senate.

The Fifth Amendment addresses the right to a grand jury for serious federal criminal charges, protection against double jeopardy, the right against self-incrimination, the right to due process, and the takings clause.

This portion of the Fifth Amendment protects individuals from being punished more than once for the same criminal act.

This provision of the Fifth Amendment protects a person from being forced to reveal to the police, prosecutor, judge, or jury any information that might subject him or her to criminal prosecution.

The right of due process has grown in two directions: It affords individuals a right to a fair process (known as procedural due process) and a right to enjoy certain fundamental liberties without governmental interference (known as substantive due process). The Fifth Amendment's due process clause applies to the federal government's conduct. In 1868 the adoption of the 14th Amendment expanded the right of due process to include limits on the actions of state governments.

The takings clause in the Fifth Amendment strikes a balance between the rights of private property owners and the right of the government to take that property for a purpose that benefits the public at large. When the government takes private property, it is required to pay just compensation to the property owner for his or her loss.

This timeline addresses freedom of speech and the press, freedom of assembly and the right to petition the government, and freedom of religion.

The First Amendment's free exercise clause allows a person to hold whatever religious beliefs he or she wants, and to exercise that belief by attending religious services, praying in public or in private, proselytizing or wearing religious clothing, such as yarmulkes or headscarves. Also included in the free exercise clause is the right not to believe in any religion, and the right not to participate in religious activities. Second, the establishment clause prevents the government from creating a church, endorsing religion in general, or favoring one set of religious beliefs over another.