Describe the Supreme Court’s use of legal reasoning

Describe the Supreme Court’s use of legal reasoning

In this lesson you will learn to describe the Supreme Court’s use of legal reasoning by analyzing how constitutional precedents are interpreted.

ADDITIONAL MATERIALS

STANDARDS

CCSS.RI.11-12.3 Analyze a complex set of ideas or sequence of events and explain how specific individuals, ideas, or events interact and develop over the course of the text.

CCSS.RI.11-12.1 Cite strong and thorough textual evidence to support analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text, including determining where the text leaves matters uncertain.

CCSS.RI.11-12.8 Delineate and evaluate the reasoning in seminal U.S. texts, including the application of constitutional principles and use of legal reasoning (e.g., in U.S. Supreme Court majority opinions and dissents) and the premises, purposes, and arguments in works of public advocacy (e.g., The Federalist, presidential addresses).

TEKS.E4.Figure 19.B make complex inferences (e.g., inductive and deductive) about text and use textual evidence to support understanding.

TEKS.E3.Figure 19.B make complex inferences (e.g., inductive and deductive) about text and use textual evidence to support understanding.

TEKS.E4.9.D synthesize ideas and make logical connections (e.g., thematic links, author analysis) among multiple texts representing similar or different genres and technical sources and support those findings with textual evidence.

TEKS.E4.9.C make and defend subtle inferences and complex conclusions about the ideas in text and their organizational patterns; and

TEKS.E4.9.A summarize a text in a manner that captures the author's viewpoint, its main ideas, and its elements without taking a position or expressing an opinion;

TEKS.E3.9.D synthesize ideas and make logical connections (e.g., thematic links, author analyses) between and among multiple texts representing similar or different genres and technical sources and support those findings with textual evidence.

TEKS.E3.9.B distinguish between inductive and deductive reasoning and analyze the elements of deductively and inductively reasoned texts and the different ways conclusions are supported;

TEKS.E3.10.B analyze historical and contemporary political debates for such logical fallacies as non-sequiturs, circular logic, and hasty generalizations.

TEKS.E3.9.C make and defend subtle inferences and complex conclusions about the ideas in text and their organizational patterns; and

TEKS.E3.9.A summarize a text in a manner that captures the author's viewpoint, its main ideas, and its elements without taking a position or expressing an opinion;

IN.11-12.RN.2.1 Cite strong and thorough textual evidence to support analysis of what a text says explicitly as well as inferences and interpretations drawn from the text, including determining where the text leaves matters uncertain.

IN.11-12.RN.4.1 Delineate and evaluate the arguments and specific claims in seminal U.S. and world texts, assessing whether the reasoning is valid and the evidence is relevant and sufficient; identify false statements and fallacious reasoning.

FL.LAFS.1112.RI.1.1 Cite strong and thorough textual evidence to support analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text, including determining where the text leaves matters uncertain.

FL.LAFS.1112.RI.3.8 Delineate and evaluate the reasoning in seminal U.S. texts, including the application of constitutional principles and use of legal reasoning (e.g., in U.S. Supreme Court majority opinions and dissents) and the premises, purposes, and arguments in works of public advocacy (e.g., The Federalist, presidential addresses).