Question 3 of the AP U.S. Government and Politics free response section is the SCOTUS Comparison FRQ. It begins with a two-paragraph stimulus that describes the background and holding for a non-required Supreme Court case. Don’t worry: you are not expected to have any outside knowledge of the non-required case. All the information about the case needed to answer the question will be provided. (Note: Lists of College Board’s 9 foundational documents and 15 required SCOTUS cases, and some key information about each, are available in the back of this book.) Show
The prompts that follow the stimulus will ask you to relate the non-required case to one of the required SCOTUS cases. Specifically:
SCOTUS Comparison StrategiesBecause it compares the reasoning of two court cases, the SCOTUS Comparison question may be the most abstract and complex prompt you encounter on the free-response section. It is therefore extra important to use the Kaplan Method in order to organize your ideas and logically think through your response. Also, consider these factors that are specific to the SCOTUS Com- parison FRQ:
Since court cases involve abstract reasoning and many details, learning about new cases is a complex task. To help keep the information from the stimulus straight, underline or jot down the key facts and write a paraphrase of the ruling. The following is an example of brief notes a high-scoring writer might make. Key details:
Holding:
After analyzing the questions for the content and action words (in this case, identify, explain, describe), review the required SCOTUS case (introduced in the question stem). Consider writing a few quick notes to refresh your memory about the required case so that you can keep the cases straight and make a solid plan for answering the various parts of the prompt. Wisconsin v. Yoder:
Step 2: Plan Your ResponseThe following is an example of how a high-scoring writer might plan an answer to this question, including the writer’s thought process and notes. Part A: Free exercise clause.
Part C: Need to write about what action someone can take if they disagree with a federal law.
Step 3 & 4: Write Your Response and ProofreadUse your plan to write each part of the response, and briskly skim for errors when finished. See the following high-scoring response, and be sure to read the points in the explanation about what makes this response
effective. Think about what features you can incorporate into your own free-response answers. Sample High-Scoring ResponseBoth cases concern the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment, since both have to do with laws that prohibit acting in accordance with religious beliefs. However, the rulings in the cases differed due to the Court’s interpretation of the religious actions involved. In general, the government cannot pass a law that prohibits someone from exercising their religion. In Reynolds v. US, Reynolds argued that the federal law against bigamy violated his right to practice his religion, believing the practice to be a duty as a member of the LDS Church. In Wisconsin v. Yoder, some Amish parents had stopped sending their children to public school after 8th grade, believing that further education was unnecessary and even harmful to their faith. The Court sided against Reynolds, but with the Amish parents. In Reynolds, the Court determined that not all religious actions are protected by the 1st Amendment; otherwise, people could claim that any action, no matter how controversial, was necessary for practicing their religion. Although the government cannot legislate against belief, it could, in this case based on tradition, legislate against the action of bigamy. However, in Wisconsin, the Court held that the state could not force the students to continue in public education because the action was based on a sincere, non-harmful, religious belief. Thus, the Amish action, unlike bigamy, was a protected religious action under the 1st Amendment. As with any Court ruling about a federal law, citizens can take political action to protest it, such as trying to influence Congress. Citizens could attempt to get Congress to change the law by writing and trying to persuade their representatives. Also, citizens could draw attention to the issue during future elections and attempt to
elect candidates who would support changing the law prohibiting bigamy. Sample Response ExplanationNote a couple of the successful features of the high-scoring sample response:
Part A (1 point) Part B (2 points)
One point for explaining why the facts in both cases led to different holdings.
Part C (1 point)
Which of the following constitutional clauses does this case have in common with Wisconsin v Yoder 1972 )? Quizlet?Which of the following constitutional clauses does this case have in common with Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)? (The free exercise clause prohibits the government from interfering with someone's ability to practice their religion.
What was the Wisconsin vs Yoder case about quizlet?The Court ruled that the families' religious beliefs and practices outweighed the state's interests in making the children attend school beyond the eighth grade.
What constitutional clause did the Court rely most heavily on to reach this decision?What constitutional clause did the Court rely most heavily on to reach this decision? The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prevents public schools from segregating students by race. The United States Supreme Court reviewed state-mandated racial segregation in public schools.
What is the purpose of a shield law quizlet?Shield laws protect journalists' right to refuse to testify against their sources while gathering information in their role as journalists.
|