[kwgeralds]

I lit up when I heard that was my topic. I don’t know where to begin, my downfall… I only have 5-10 minutes. Any suggestions?

My plan:

After reviewing the definition and basic concept, we briefly discuss the 10th amendment, and how it enforces federalism and prevents tyranny.

Students then in groups make a list of everything they can think of that the Federal government does.

We move then to Article 1 section 8 and read the powers of congress. I have them highlight everything on their list not mentioned in Article 1 Section 8. (Page is covered!) I ask them what was not listed and they say EVERYTHING!

I head back to the 10th amendment and I ask them what happened to the tenth?

I then introduce the three clauses and their use. We see how they are used to justify everything they highlighted.

Lastly we research major tenth amendment issues in the news (guns, medical marijuana, national ID, nullification, national guard etc) using current news articles.

One topic I want to cover but I feel may not fit in 10 minutes: 17th amendment.

I could scrap the above and just do 17th.

[cboyack]

That sounds awesome…it’s a topic that deserves far more than 5-10 minutes. You’ve broken it down well, I think.

What sort of job are you interviewing for – a teaching position?

[gutzmank]

I would do it a different way: describe the Cabinet controversy over Hamilton’s Bank Bill, first in the House, then in the Cabinet. Then, tell them this remains the basic outline of constitutional disputation ever since. Throw in that Washington’s decision to have a Cabinet debate on his own treasury secretary’s favorite proposal reflects the very different conception of the presidency shared by the first six presidents. I think that giving the argument three famous faces (Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton) makes it far more memorable than straightforward talk about the Tenth Amendment — which describing Jefferson’s memo. allows you to work in anyway.

[kwgeralds]

Here is my presentation, made with Prezi.com

http://prezi.com/zosaalwfpqyk/10th-amendment/

If interested – Go to full screen mode and click your way through.

There is a guiding worksheet with more questions and the research project but I cannot attach it.

Mr. Gutzman, you make a cameo! Thank you for the advice by the way, I will incorporate the debate in a future lesson.

[gutzmank]

You’re welcome.

[gutzmank]

One comment on your lesson (which is very interesting, by the way; I wish I had had such lessons in high school): it wasn’t the Framers who included a Bill of Rights in the Constitution. They in fact decided by a 10-0 vote of the states voting not to include one, which helps to explain why Mason and Randolph refused to sign. This omission helps to account for the skepticism of Federalists’ motives that shaped the ratification debate — and helped spur organization of the Jeffersonian Republican Party.

[kwgeralds]

Thank you for that detail. My Madison quote is completely out of context as well. In #39 he goes back and forth pointing out which elements are national and which are federal. I threw it together real quick and I’ll clean up the details for a real lesson, but for interview purposes I think it went well.

[gutzmank]

You’re welcome.

The most important thing about Federalist 39 is that Madison says that ratification was a federal act — which means that it was the act of separate states, each acting for itself. That ratification was federal, not national, permanently answers the question what kind of government the US Constitution created.

[Author]

Posts