Teachers Diary Experience In Task Based Education English Language Essay

Teachers Diary Experience In Task Based Education English Language Essay Many areas of education are undergoing changes in the way teaching and learning is perceived. Teacher-centered lecturing and structural-syllabus instruction are giving way to a more student-centered, hands-on, practical, and flexible approaches (Shank and Cleary, 1994). The field of English language teaching is no exception in this paradigm shift. One of the areas, which came under this paradigm shift, is the traditional Present-Practice-Produce method of teaching English. It has been replaced by Communicative Language Teaching. An offshoot of Communicative Language Teaching is Task-Based Teaching. The teacher has been identified to be a learning facilitator. He does this largely through the medium of communication, verbal and non-verbal. The quality and effectiveness of such communication have a lot to do with the amount and quality of learning that takes place. This paper talks about a teachers experience in a mixed/heterogeneous classroom situation. Introduction The classroom, a small social structure, but sometimes large, is a working group of students coming from different socioeconomic background, tribes and cultural affinities, mixing with some friends, some strangers and the indifferent. These differences become complex in pluralistic societies including India. Their common task is learning a given content. It is the teacher who is the enabling agent for these socialization and learning. The teacher is the expert (at most in his field), the leader, the more mature mind and wiser. This is the idea of traditional pedagogy. During instruction in the classroom, it is the intent of the teacher to impact information and knowledge to the students and on many occasions such information and knowledge are designed to change the behavior of the learners. However, before a teacher can change the behavior of his students, he must not only possess adequate knowledge of the subject matter, he must be able to communicate his massage effectively. The teacher must have the ability to persuade his students to accept his ideas and arguments and not to leave them wondering at the end of the lesson whether to accept or reject them. The teacher should be able to use the classroom as a social system that breads atmosphere for meaningful social interactions and conducive learning environment. This brings us to the question, What is Communication? There dare many definitions of communication, as there are experts in the field. Oxford English Dictionary defines communication as the imparting, conveying or exchange of ideas, knowledge etc. (whether by speech, writing or signs). It has also been defined as the process of attempting to share with another person or other persons, ones knowledge, interests, attitudes, opinions and ideas (Ralph, Hance, and Wiksell 1975:4). Farrant (1980) also defined communication as the process of passing an understandable message from one person to another (P. 186). Every language teacher today realizes the importance and the relevance of the student-centered, hands-on, practical and flexible approach (Shank and Cleary, 1994), and the worldwide demand for Communicative Language Teaching, which helps to understand the language in context and to use it effectively in situations outside the classroom. As a result, changes have been taking place in many areas of education. The field of second/foreign language teaching is no exception in this paradigm shift. But for ELT, it has become a challenge to accommodate the changes due to various reasons. The most important factor is that one cannot ignore the practical aspect of every existing education system. This paper deals with students from mixed backgrounds who come under one roof to learn English. This paper deals with teaching methodology undertaken in CELT, O.U, Hyderabad, India, to see how a short term program can benefit students improve their communication skills. As they are mixed background students it became necessary to see how the merits of different language learning frameworks like Communicative Language Learning and Task-Based Learning can be put together to achieve the best result. As Joanne Pettis, quoting Henry Widdowson comments, If you say you are eclectic but cannot state the principles of your eclecticism, you are not eclectic, merely confused. (Pettis, 2003). Roger Dunne from Universidad Veracruzana, Mexico rightly states, In any event, most language teachers are probably influenced more by course books than by manuals and training courses and most popular course books are decidedly eclectic in their approach. It is probably these pragmatic market forces that will determine the future direction of language teaching in many parts of the world rather than a fight to death between academic fundamentalists (Dunne, 2003). This paper was set within the dual framework of Communicative Language Teaching and Task-Based Learning. Theories of language use in context play important roles in Communicative Language Teaching and theories of language learning play important roles in Task-Based Learning. Hence, the merits of both were used. Howatt (1984) distinguishes between the weak and the strong versions of Communicative Language Teaching. The weak version stresses the importance of providing learners with opportunities to use English for communicative purposes and therefore attempts to integrate communicative activities into the programme of language teaching. This is the version followed in most learning contexts, especially in Asian countries. As different from this, the stronger version of communicative language teaching claims that language can be acquired only through communication. This would mean that teaching involves not just activating an existing knowledge of the language, but stimulating the development of the language system itself (Howatt, p. 279). However, whether it is the weak or the strong version, the proponents of Communicative Language Teaching have always viewed learning a second/foreign language as acquiring the linguistic means to perform different functions. Some principles of Communicative Language Teaching include: 1. Language should be a means to an end and the focus should be on meaning, not on the form. 2. The learner has to formulate and produce ideas, information, opinions and so on. 3. Teacher intervention to correct mistakes should be minimal as this distracts from communication. (Richards and Rodgers, 1994) As David Nunan (1989) says, Task based teaching and learning is teaching and learning a language by using language to accomplish open ended tasks. Learners are given a problem or objective to accomplish but are left with some freedom in approaching this problem or objective. A task is defined by David Nunan as, an activity (or technique) where students are urged to accomplish something or solve some problem using their language. Preferably, this activity is open-ended; there is no set way to accomplish their goal (1989). According to Jane Willis, a task is a goal-oriented activity with a clear purpose. Doing a communication task involves achieving an outcome, creating a final product that can be appreciated by others. Tasks can be used as the central component of a three-part framework: pre-task, task cycle, and language focus. These components have been carefully designed to create four optimum conditions for language acquisition, and thus provide rich learning opportunities to suit different types of learners (Willis, 1996). Learners get exposure at the pre-task stage, and an opportunity to recall things they know. The task cycle gives them speaking and writing exposure with opportunities for students to learn from each other. The task cycle also gives students opportunities to use whatever language they have, both in private (where mistakes, hesitations, and approximate renderings do not matter so long as the meaning is clear) and in public (where there is a built-in desire to strive for accuracy of form and meaning, so as not to lose face). Motivation (short term) is provided mainly by the need to achieve the objectives of the task and to report back on it. Success in doing this can increase longer term motivation. Motivation to listen to fluent speakers doing the task is strong too, because in attempting the task, learners will notice gaps in their own language, and will listen carefully to hear how fluent speakers express themselves. A focus on form is beneficial in two phases in the framework. The planning stage between the private task and the public report promotes close attention to language form. As learners strive for accuracy, they try to organize their reports clearly and check words and patterns they are not sure of. In the final component, language analysis activities also provide a focus on form through consciousness-raising processes. Learners notice and reflect on language features, recycle the task language, go back over the text or recording and investigate new items, and practice pronouncing useful phrases. Components of a Task Tasks contain some form of input that may be verbal (a dialogue/role play/reading) or, nonverbal (pictures/a gesture) followed by an activity, which is in some way derived from the input. This activity sets out what learners need to do in relation to the input. Tasks have also goals and roles for both teachers and learners. Components of a Task (Nunan: 1989) From the above diagram, a task can be viewed as a piece of meaning focused work, involving learners in comprehending, producing and/or interacting in the target language. Before taking up the task of converting the textual content into various tasks, the following points were noted and kept in mind by the investigators: -The objective of the task must be stated very clearly -The task must be appropriate for the level of the learners -The task must equip the learners with the ability to apply classroom learning in new situations. -Tasks must be interesting and motivating to the students -The form the input takes, must be clear to the teacher -The roles of teachers and students must be specified clearly -Through the task, learners must be encouraged to negotiate meaning -The language that will be generated by the task must be predicted -There should be variety and flexibility in the tasks Few strategies for classroom practice to improve verbal, non-verbal and interpersonal communication Materials needed: Paper and pencil for each participant. I am going to describe a drawing I have made of a bug. Without seeing the drawing, you are to draw the bug that I describe. You may not ask questions or talk to each other. Describe the bug. The bug is round. The bug has eight legs, grouped in pairs with four legs on the left and four legs on the right. In the pairs, one leg is longer than the other. The bug has two eyes on top of the body. The bug has two squiggly antenna. The bug has two pea-pod shaped wings. The bug has a spot next to each wing. The bug has a triangular stinger on the bottom of the body The bug has two feelers on each foot one longer than the other, both coming from the same side of the leg. The bug has a round mouth, placed between the two eyes. The bug laid five square eggs to the left of the stinger. After everyone is finished. Hold up your bug so others in your group can see. Note some of the similarities and differences. Show the drawing to the entire group. Discussion questions: -Why dont all the bugs look like mine? (Interpretation: everyone has a different interpretation, based on his or her experiences.) -What did you think of first when you were told to draw a bug? What did you see in your mind? -What could we have done differently so that your drawings and mine would have looked more alike? -What would have been the advantages of allowing questions to be asked? -How many of you wanted questions to be asked? Adapted from A Kaleidoscope of Leadership, Minnesota Extension Service Words Alone Purpose: To demonstrate how important words are when the person talking and the listener cannot see each other. Materials Needed: Small pieces of paper with one of the following words on each: Procedure: Ask one person from the group to take a paper with one of the words on it and give a verbal description of what is on the paper (no hands allowed). Tell them to concentrate on the careful choice of words, avoiding non-verbal signals. Use descriptive words relating to all five senses (smell, touch, etc). Example: ice cream cold, smooth, soft, fluffy- looking, sweet, flavors. Process Questions: 1. How efficient were words alone in expressing ideas? 2. How did you feel doing this activity? (talker and listener) 3. What does this remind us to do in our own communication? Reference: Internet Conclusion Students showed interest in learning English. The reasons they gave were, classes are full of activities and play. Noted that students started talking in English openly without any apprehensions. They were highly motivated by the tasks and were encouraged to participate in doing the tasks. Though it is time consuming it is quite a rewarding experience as they gain useful insights by working through activities. They improve in their language as well as personality traits like team building, interpersonal relations, adaptability etc. Even with the existing constraints, classroom teaching can be given a communicative orientation, giving enough opportunities to students to use the language creatively. Teaching can be made learner-centered; with more emphasis on the learning process any given text may be re-created into various tasks and activities. Task-based teaching enhances the language proficiency of learners.

Women: Their Freedom, And How They Got It :: Expository Essays Research Papers

Women: Their Freedom, And How They Got It The Light at the End of the Tunnel In the past, women have been oppressed to a point where they were treated as a completely different species. They were in a country that seemed to be a dark tunnel with no hope, dreams, or sense of fulfillment. Now, women have been given their natural birthrights, and they are now able to do everything males can do. As the United States of America was building, women for some reason were not treated like they should have been. Strong women like Sojourner Truth stood up for what they knew was right. She was able to fight for all women, represent a whole "race" and take control, she was one of the very few women who had the strength and will power to face this problem head on, and win. She was able to take on an entire nation and voice her opinion regardless of what her consequences could have been. That is what it takes to free yourself and or other people from the hold of injustice. Not too many people have the quality to be able to stand up in such harsh situations but because of some brave women all of the women are able to walk down the street and feel as equal as any man passing by. They can vote, hold office, get high paying jobs, and be independent women, with independent thoughts. In the lights of the horrible past, women were able to build a defense system far better than any army or navy that any country could produce. The women were able to attack with intelligence, perseverance, and being able to bring up common sense that seemed to have been missing before. With this defense, they were able to produce an illustrious history. Now, women can linger with their pasts, and with the memories of the women who preceded them, and look towards a bright future, where people like Eleanor Roosevelt and Hillary Rodham Clinton exemplify the American women, who can live out the American Dream, once only available to males. No longer do women write books depicting their insecurities and injustices. Now women are writers of Pulitzer Prize winning works and teach aspiring male authors how to be the best they can be. In a society where it was once unheard of for women to even be educated, women take up the majority of grade school teachers, and many more have blossomed into college professors with Ph D's and MD's.

How Did the Constitution Guard Against Tyranny Essay

Abraham Lincoln was Born on February 12, 1809 in Kentucky. Lincoln Died on April 15, 1865 at the age of 65 Lincoln’s Formal education was limited to 18 months of schooling. Prior to politics Lincoln was a lawyer Lincoln served as an Illinois state legislator, member of the House of Representatives and was an unsuccessful candidate for the Senate. Elected President in 1860; Lincoln served from 1861-1865 as the 16th President of the United States. Lincoln wanted to evoke a Spirit of reconciliation with the states that had seceded! because he didn’t want to dissolve the union IN COMPLIANCE with a custom as old as the Government itself, I appear before you to address you brieï ¬â€šy and to take in your presence the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States to be taken by the President â€Å"before he enters on the execution of this office.† I do not consider it necessary at present for me to -Timeliness discuss those matters of administration about which there is no special anxiety or excitement. Apprehension seems to exist among the people of -Lincoln Openly Addresses prominent issues of the Southern States that by the accession of a the time. Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that I have no purpose, directly or -Antithesis indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no -Parallelism lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read: Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes. I now reiterate these sentiments, and in doing so I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause—as cheerfully to one section as to another. There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions: No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due. It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution—to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause â€Å"shall be delivered up† their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath? There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by national or by State authority, but surely that difference is not a very material one. If the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him or to others by which authority it is done. And should anyone in any case be content that his oath shall go unkept on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept? Again: In any law upon this subject ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not in any case surrendered as a slave? And might it not be well at the same time to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in the Constitution which guarantees that â€Å"the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States†? I take the ofï ¬ cial oath to-day with no mental reservations and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules; and while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in ofï ¬ cial and private stations, to conform to and abide by all those acts which stand unrepealed than to violate any of them trusting to ï ¬ nd impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional. It is seventy-two years since the ï ¬ rst inauguration of a President under our National Constitution. During that period ï ¬ fteen different and greatly distinguished citizens have in succession administered the executive branch of the Government. They have conducted it through many perils, and generally with great success. Yet, with all this scope of precedent, I now enter upon the same task for the brief constitutional term of four years under great and peculiar difï ¬ culty. A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted. Lincoln’s Inaugural had many important points that are critical to understanding the time. Point One: He promoted and promised-Strongest possible federal support for the Fugitive Slave Law and the service/labour clause. There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions: No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due. It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution—to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause â€Å"shall be delivered up† their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath? There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by national or by State authority, but surely that difference is not a very material one. If the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him or to others by which authority it is done. And should anyone in any case be content that his oath shall go unkept on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept? Again: In any law upon this subject ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not in any case surrendered as a slave? And might it not be well at the same time to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in the Constitution which guarantees that â€Å"the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States†? Timeliness There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions: No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due. Here Lincoln uses a direct reference to a portion of the constitution under debate. -Timeliness. . Lincoln wanted to see that the Laws of the Union, be abided by all states. Being The President-Elect, Lincoln knew it was his job to uphold the laws. I take the ofï ¬ cial oath to-day with no mental reservations and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules; and while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in ofï ¬ cial and private stations, to conform to and abide by all those acts which stand unrepealed than to violate any of them trusting to ï ¬ nd impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional. It is seventy-two years since the ï ¬ rst inauguration of a President under our National Constitution. During that period ï ¬ fteen different and greatly distinguished citizens have in succession administered the executive branch of the Government. They have conducted it through many perils, and generally with great success. Yet, with all this scope of precedent, I now enter upon the same task for the brief constitutional term of four years under great and peculiar difï ¬ culty. A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted. I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself. I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself. Eloquence Timelessness Perpetuity. The Constitution was established â€Å"to form a more perfect union† than the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union had been, which was explicitly perpetual in name and text, and thus the Constitution too was perpetual. He added that even were the Constitution construed as a simple contract, it could not be legally rescinded without an agreement between all parties. Lincoln didn’t recognize the Confederacy and attempted to reunite the Union in his 1st inaugural He looked at the Constitution as a contract and that A group can breach a contract but legally they are still bound to it. Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it? Descending from these general principles, we ï ¬ nd the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual conï ¬ rmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And ï ¬ nally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was â€Å"to form a more perfect Union.† But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity. It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances. Lincoln during his speech told his audience that there wouldn’t be an invasion of the southern territory unless it were necessary for him to uphold his obligation to hold, occupy and possess the property and places belonging to the Federal government. Therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the -Timeliness laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in -Civil war was about to begin all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will -Subtle Warning constitutionally defend and maintain itself. -Timeliness In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, -Lincoln is Speaking Directly to Secession and occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the approaching Civil War. Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior -Here we See Lincoln’s point that locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there would be no invasion for the there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may south unless it were necessary to do exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so so to uphold the government or to nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices. defend the union. There would be no invasion of the South unless such were necessary for him as President to fulfill his obligation to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the federal government. The Mail would Continue The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the Union. So far as possible the people everywhere shall have that sense of perfect security which is most favorable to calm thought and reï ¬â€šection. The course here indicated will be followed unless current events and experience shall show a modiï ¬ cation or change to be proper, and in every case and exigency my best discretion will be exercised, according to circumstances actually existing and with a view and a hope of a peaceful solution of the national troubles and the restoration of fraternal sympathies and affections. That there are persons in one section or another who seek to destroy the Union at all events and are glad of any pretext to do it I will neither afï ¬ rm nor -Antithesis deny; but if there be such, I need address no word to them. To those, however, who really love the Union may I not speak? Friday, November 7, 2008 23 Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our national fabric, with all its beneï ¬ ts, its memories, and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it? Will you hazard so desperate a step while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you ï ¬â€šy from have no real existence? Will you, while the certain ills you ï ¬â€šy to are greater than all the real ones you ï ¬â€šy from, will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake? Reconciliation Timely All profess to be content in the Union if all constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right plainly written in the Constitution has been denied? I think not. Happily, the human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might in a moral point of view justify revolution; certainly would if such right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by afï ¬ rmations and -Periodic Sentence negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the Constitution that controversies never arise concerning them. But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision speciï ¬ cally applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. No foresight can anticipate nor any document of reasonable length contain express provisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The -Parallelism Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the Government must cease. There is no other alternative, for continuing the Government is acquiescence on one side or the other. If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them, for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority -Timeless refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not Speaks to nation at anytime anyplace. any portion of a new confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to About unity. secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this. Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a new union as to produce harmony only and prevent renewed secession? Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, -Periodic and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Sentence Whoever rejects it does of necessity ï ¬â€šy to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible. The rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left. I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be -Parallelism decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect -Periodic following it, being limited to that particular Sentence case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably ï ¬ xed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes. One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be -Antithesis extended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive-slave clause of the Constitution and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave trade are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of the people abide by the dry legal >Timely- obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. This, I think, Slavery-Major debate in country. can not be perfectly cured, and it would be worse in both cases after the separation of the sections than before. The foreign slave trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived without restriction in one section, while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all by the other. Physically speaking, we can not separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each other nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of >Timelessness our country can not do this. They can not but remain face to face, and -Unity intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is -Separate it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties -relevant-still today easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you cannot ï ¬ ght always; and when, after much loss on both sides and no gain on either, you cease ï ¬ ghting, the identical old questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you. This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I cannot be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the National Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it. I will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others, not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse. I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution— which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable. The Chief Magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have referred none upon him to ï ¬ x terms for the separation of the States. The people themselves can do this if also they choose, but the Executive as such has nothing to do with it. His duty is to administer the present Government as it came to his hands and to transmit it unimpaired by him to his successor. Antithesis – I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battleï ¬ eld and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our ELOQUENCE- nature. Friday, November 7, 2008 30 Effectiveness -One month Later the Civil War Began. -Awkward, what Lincoln had to say to the audience was irrelevant. -Shortly After his speech many of the southern states seceded. -Rather Tedious and Defensive. -In the Shadow of future speeches, Gettysburg, Lincoln second inaugural. -They didn’t have that much effectiveness for what ensued. Abraham Lincoln Transformation Period 1861-1865. The South wasn’t thrilled with Lincoln’s Election. Lincoln’s election left the south with no other option but secession-out of dislike or fear of Lincoln. Over the next four years the country would experience wars that impacted not only the ideologies of countrymen but President Lincoln as well. Through these events we see how Lincoln’s role as President led to the transformation of a nation and himself as a public ï ¬ gure. Timeline of Events April 12, (4:30A.M.) 1861 — Attack on Fort June 1861 — Four Slave States Stay in the Sumter. President Lincoln planned to send Union. Despite accepting slavery, Delaware, supplies to Fort Sumter, he alerted the state in Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri didn’t join advance as an attempt to avoid hostile actions. the Confederacy. Although divided in their South Carolina didn’t trust Lincoln; the loyalties, a combination of political commander of the fort, Robert Anderson, was maneuvering and the Union military asked to surrender immediately. Anderson maneuvered these states from secession. offered to surrender, only once his supplies had been exhausted. His offer was met with rejection and The Civil War began when Ft. Sumter was ï ¬ red on. April 1861 — Four More States Join the Confederacy. The attack Sumter prompted four more states to join the Confederacy. With Virginia’s secession, Richmond was named the Confederate capitol. Emancipation Proclamation January 1, 1863 Emancipation Proclamation. Lincoln didn’t want to upset bordering slave- holding states so in an attempt to soothe things over, Lincoln resisted the demands of many Republicans for complete abolition. In 1861, Congress had passed an act stating that all slaves employed against the Union were to be considered free. In 1862, another act stated that all slaves of men who supported the Confederacy were to be considered free. Gettysburg July 1-July 3 1863 — Gettysburg. Lincoln’s Second Inaugural November 1864 — Abraham Lincoln Is Re-Elected. The Republican party nominated President Abraham Lincoln as its presidential candidate, and Andrew Johnson for vice-president. Context The country had been through terrible conditions due to the war. The ground was muddy- wet weather was uncomfortable and it was cold – yet thousands upon thousands arrived on capitol grounds in Pennsylvania to hear Lincoln speak in hopes for change and an end to war. Context Continued Times had changed. For the ï ¬ rst time ever, Black Soldier’s were allowed to attend a presidential Inaugural – a monumental change in American History. Licoln’s Second Inaugural Fellow-Countrymen: At this second appearing to take the oath of the Presidential ofï ¬ ce there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the ï ¬ rst. Then a statement somewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemed ï ¬ tting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public -Periodic declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which Sentences still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chieï ¬â€šy depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured. Past history of the war On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to -Antithesis avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, urgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.! -Timeliness Hopes for the Future One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which -Will of the God the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conï ¬â€šict might cease with or even before the conï ¬â€šict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. â€Å"Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.† If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God -Timelessness wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and ï ¬ fty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said â€Å"the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.†! With malice toward none, with charity for all, with ï ¬ rmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to ï ¬ nish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may – achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.! Timelessness -Effectiveness

Graham v. Connor The Case and Its Impact

Graham v. Connor ruled on how police officers should approach investigatory stops and the use of force during an arrest. In the 1989 case, the Supreme Court ruled that excessive use of force claims must be evaluated under the objectively reasonable standard of the Fourth Amendment. This standard requires courts to consider the facts and circumstances surrounding an officers use of force rather than the intent or motivation of an officer during that use of force. Fast Facts: Graham v. Connor Case Argued: Feb. 21, 1989Decision Issued: May 15, 1989Petitioner: Dethorne Graham, a diabetic who had an insulin reaction while doing auto work at his homeRespondent: M.S. Connor, a Charlotte police officerKey Questions: Did Graham have to show that the police acted â€Å"maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm† to establish his claim that Charlotte police used excessive force? Should the claim of excessive force be analyzed under the Fourth, Eighth, or 14th Amendment?Majority Decision: Justices Rehnquist, White, Stevens, OConnor, Scalia, Kennedy, Blackmun, Brennan, MarshallDissenting: NoneRuling: The Supreme Court ruled that excessive use of force claims must be evaluated under the objectively reasonable standard of the Fourth Amendment, which requires courts to consider the facts and circumstances surrounding an officers use of force rather than the intent or motivation of an officer during that use of force. Facts of the Case Graham, a diabetic man, rushed into a convenience store to buy orange juice to help counteract an insulin reaction. It only took him a few seconds to realize that the line was too long for him to wait. He abruptly left the store without purchasing anything and returned to his friend’s car. A local police officer, Connor,  Ã‚  witnessed Graham entering and exiting the convenience store quickly and found the behavior odd. Connor made an investigative stop, asking Graham and his friend to remain in the car until he could confirm their version of events. Other officers arrived on the scene as  backup  and handcuffed Graham. He was released after the officer confirmed that nothing had occurred within the convenience store, but significant time had passed and the backup officers had refused him treatment for his diabetic condition. Graham also sustained multiple injuries while handcuffed. Graham filed a suit in a district court alleging that Connor had â€Å"used excessive force in making the investigatory stop, in violation of ‘rights secured to him under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.† Under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a jury found that the officers had not used excessive force. On appeal, judges could not decide whether a case of excessive use of force should be ruled based on the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendments. The majority ruled based on the Fourteenth Amendment. The case was ultimately taken to the Supreme Court. Constitutional Issues How should claims of excessive use of force be handled in court? Should they be analyzed under the Fourth, Eighth, or Fourteenth Amendment? The Arguments Grahams counsel argued that the officer’s actions violated both the Fourth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The stop and search itself was unreasonable, they argued, because the officer did not have sufficient probable cause to stop Graham under the Fourth Amendment. In addition, counsel contended that the excessive use of force violated the due process clause, because an agent of the government had deprived Graham of liberty without just cause. The attorneys representing Connor  argued that there was no use of excessive force. They contended that, under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, excessive use of force should be judged by a four-prong test found in the case Johnston v. Glick. The four prongs are: The need for the application of force;  The relationship between that need and the amount of force that was used;The extent of the injury inflicted; andWhether the force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain and restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm Connors attorneys stated that he had only applied force in good faith, and that he had no malicious intent when detaining Graham. Majority Opinion In a unanimous decision delivered by Justice Rehnquist, the court found that excessive use of force claims against police officers should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment. They wrote that the  analysis  should take into account the â€Å"reasonableness† of the search and seizure. To determine if an officer used excessive force, the court must decide how an objectively reasonable another police officer in the same situation would have acted. The officer’s intent or motivation should be irrelevant in this analysis. In the majority opinion, Justice Rehnquist wrote: â€Å"An officers evil intentions will not make a Fourth Amendment violation out of an objectively reasonable use of force; nor will an officers good intentions make an objectively unreasonable use of force constitutional.† The court struck down previous lower court rulings, which used the Johnston v. Glick test under the Fourteenth Amendment. That test required the court to consider motives, including whether the force was applied in â€Å"good faith† or with â€Å"malicious or sadistic† intent. Eighth Amendment analysis also called for subjective consideration because of the phrase â€Å"cruel and unusual† found in its text. The Court found that objective factors are the only relevant factors when evaluating claims of excessive use of force, making the Fourth Amendment the best means of analysis. The court reiterated previous findings in Tennessee v. Garner to highlight jurisprudence on the matter. In Tennessee v. Garner, the Supreme Court had similarly  applied the Fourth Amendment to determine whether the police should have used deadly force against a fleeing suspect if that suspect appeared unarmed. In that case as well as in Graham v. Connor, the court decided that they must consider the following factors to determine whether the force used was excessive: The severity of the crime at issue;  Whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others; and  Whether [the suspect] is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.   The Impact The Graham v. Connor case created a set of rules that officers abide by when making investigatory stops and using force against a suspect. Under Graham v. Connor, an officer must be able to articulate the facts and circumstances that led up to a use of force. The finding invalidated previously held notions that an officer’s emotions, motivations, or intent should affect a search and seizure. Police officers must be able to point to objectively reasonable facts that justify their actions, rather than relying on hunches or good faith. Key Takeaways In Graham v. Connor, the Supreme Court determined that the Fourth Amendment is the only amendment that matters when deciding whether a police officer used excessive force.In other words, when evaluating whether an officer used excessive force, the Court must take into account the facts and circumstance of the action, rather than the officers subjective perceptions.The ruling also rendered the Fourteenth and Eight Amendments irrelevant when analyzing an officers actions, because they rely on subjective factors. Sources Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989).