Interactive Video Activity Storyboard

8/9/2019 Interactive Video Activity Storyboard

1/19

Richard Jones

EdTech 533

Interactive Video Activity Storyboard

Major Supreme Court Cases

Introduction

This storyboard was created to assist with the design and implementation of an interactive videoactivity that I created as part of my EdTech 533 course. The activity requires students to watchvideos about major Supreme Court cases and make rulings based on their knowledge of the

Constitution. The goal is to provide students with knowledge about these controversial cases,

help them understand the role of the Supreme Court in our system of government, and to allowfor the development of critical thinking skills through the process of analysis and choice.

Video Segment or Topic Production Notes

Branching Structure and Overall Design

The overall structure of this activity can best be

described as a blend of out-and-back and

choose your own adventure branching. It is

out-and-back because all videos branch out and

eventually return to the introduction video. It is

choose your own adventure branching because

there is a portion of the activity that allows

students to make a choice as to which path to

follow (constitutional or unconstitutional).

The activity contains 16 videos in total. These 16

videos can be broken down into 3 categories. Thefirst category simply contains the introduction

video where all of the branching begins. The

second category contains five instructional videos

that teach students about the five court cases

involved in the activity. The last category involves

the 10 videos that students select (they actually

only select five) based on their view of the cases

constitutionality. Videos in the third category

complete the out-and-back because they end

with a deep link that returns them to the

introduction video.

A mock illustration of this branching structure can

be found in the next cell of this storyboard. The

category 1 video is in gray, category 2 videos are in

green, and category 3 videos are in yellow.

Software Used in Activity Production

1)Adobe Premiere Prowas used to compile the

introductory video and five instructional case

videos.

2) Windows Movie Makerwas used to create the

10 constitutional or unconstitutional

videos.

3) Microsoft Wordwas used to create the

background images where students select

constitutional or unconstitutional. It was

also used to create the background on the

introductory video where students select the

case videos.4) Microsoft Snipping Toolwas used to capture

the images that were created in Microsoft

Word.

5) Microsoft Voice Narratorwas used to capture

the voice narrations within the videos.

California Content Standards Addressed

12.5.4Explain the controversies that have resulted

over changing interpretations of civil rights,

including those in Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown v.Board of Education, Miranda v. Arizona, and

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke


2/19

Role of YouTube in the Activity

YouTube was used as way to facilitate the process

of watching informational videos, making

decisions, and learning about the controversies

surround several of our nations biggest court

cases. All 16 videos in this activity were uploaded

and posted to YouTube. My YouTube channel can

be located by clickinghere. All videos in this series

are listed as public.

YouTube Annotations as Links

Each video in this interactive activity contains

multiple links that branch off to other videos

within the series. The links were all created

through the use of YouTube annotations. To be

more specific, they were created using the

Spotlight option that exists for placing

annotations in the video clips. The Spotlight tool

was used to overlay a linkable hotspot over images

that I had already integrated during the video

production process. The 10 videos in categorythree also contain deep links that allowed them to

return to the correct spot in the introduction video

thus saving the user time when trying to access

the next case. All of these links are discussed in

more detail later in this storyboard.

Introductory

Video

Plessy

Video

Brown

Video

Miranda

Video

Bakke

Video

Sebelius

Video

l

ii

l

l

i

i

l

ii

l

i

i

l

i

i

i

l

ii

l

i

i

l

li

i

i

l

i

i
https://www.youtube.com/user/richardjones533/videoshttps://www.youtube.com/user/richardjones533/videoshttps://www.youtube.com/user/richardjones533/videoshttps://www.youtube.com/user/richardjones533/videos


3/19

Informational Sources

Several websites were visited in order to collect

the information that was used in this interactive

video activity. Keep in mind that much of the

information that was used in the creating the

videos came from knowledge that I already had

obtained from years of studying and discussing

these topics. You can access the same pages that I

used by clicking the hyperlinks in the next column.

Website Addresses and Details (Sources)

Introductory Video Sources

Wikipedia:This site provides a decent background

leading up to the case.

Our Documents:This site provides an excellent

explanation about the ruling. It also has an

original copy of the court ruling.

Plessy v. Ferguson Video Sources

PBS:This site provides an account of the events

that led to Homer Plessys arrest.

Street Law: This site contains an excellent quote

from the Supreme Court Justice (Harry Billings

Brown) with regards to his reasoning for the

decision.

Brown v. Board of Education Video Sources

US Courts:This site provides a thorough

chronology of this topic going all the way back to

the Plessy v. Ferguson case.

Street Law:This site has an excellent excerpt from

the case ruling as written by Chief Justice Earl

Warren.

Miranda v. Arizona Video Sources

OYEZ:This site has an explanation of the cases

background. It also has multimedia copies of oralarguments.

US Courts:This site does an excellent job of

detailing the facts involved in this case as well as

other connected cases. It also provides details

about the ruling.

Bakke v. UC Regents Video Sources

InfoPlease:This site details the case and the

impact of the ruling.

PBS:This site describes the case and the

affirmative action policy.

NFIB v. Kathleen Sebelius Video Sources

Wikipedia:This site offers a thorough description

of the arguments and ruling in this case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madisonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madisonhttp://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=19http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=19http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_events_plessy.htmlhttp://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_events_plessy.htmlhttp://www.streetlaw.org/en/landmark/cases/plessy_v_fergusonhttp://www.streetlaw.org/en/landmark/cases/plessy_v_fergusonhttp://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/get-involved/federal-court-activities/brown-board-education-re-enactment/history.aspxhttp://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/get-involved/federal-court-activities/brown-board-education-re-enactment/history.aspxhttp://www.streetlaw.org/en/landmark/cases/brown_v_board_of_educaationhttp://www.streetlaw.org/en/landmark/cases/brown_v_board_of_educaationhttp://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_759http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_759http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/get-involved/constitution-activities/fifth-amendment/miranda-criminal-defense/facts-case-summary.aspxhttp://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/get-involved/constitution-activities/fifth-amendment/miranda-criminal-defense/facts-case-summary.aspxhttp://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar32.htmlhttp://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar32.htmlhttp://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_regents.htmlhttp://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_regents.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Federation_of_Independent_Business_v._Sebeliushttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Federation_of_Independent_Business_v._Sebeliushttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Federation_of_Independent_Business_v._Sebeliushttp://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_regents.htmlhttp://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar32.htmlhttp://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/get-involved/constitution-activities/fifth-amendment/miranda-criminal-defense/facts-case-summary.aspxhttp://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_759http://www.streetlaw.org/en/landmark/cases/brown_v_board_of_educaationhttp://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/get-involved/federal-court-activities/brown-board-education-re-enactment/history.aspxhttp://www.streetlaw.org/en/landmark/cases/plessy_v_fergusonhttp://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_events_plessy.htmlhttp://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=19http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison


4/19

The remaining portion of this storyboard will focus on the videos that were created for this

interactive activity. This includes screenshots of each video, a description of their content,

special effects that were integrated during the video production process, notes regarding theannotations within the videos, and other individual topics that apply. This has all been broken

down by category and video.

Introductory Video

Screen or Video Segment Production Notes

Video 1: Introductory Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuXZLQIf2yo

Overview of Introductory Video

The introductory video is titled Interactive Video

Activity: Major Supreme Court Decisions. It is

00:03:33 in length. The purpose of this video is to

introduce students to the lesson topic as well as to

provide instructions about how to complete theactivity. This is why it was divided into separate

parts: 1) Introduction 2) Instructions 3) Sources.

Segment Details

The introduction portion of the video was created

to introduce students to the topic of Supreme

Court cases. It also includes the announcement

that the viewer (student) was just appointed to

the Supreme Court and that the entire activity is

meant to prepare them to take the bench. This

was done to increase student buy-in and

engagement. The introduction portion runs from

00:00:00 to 00:01:44.

The instructions portion of the video was created

to inform viewers about how to complete the

activity. It runs from 00:01:44 to 00:03:17.

Students are shown screenshots of the videos to

help them in the process. The final portion of the

instructions section is the most important part

because it contains the links to the 5 court cases

that students have to visit as part of this activity.

These links were placed in YouTube using theSpotlight tool within annotations. The

annotations start at 00:02:57.5 and end at

00:03:17.9. I have provided 20 seconds of silent

time for students to click on these annotated links.

10 other videos have a deep link that bring viewers

back to this point (discussed later in the

storyboard).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuXZLQIf2yohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuXZLQIf2yohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuXZLQIf2yo


5/19

The remainder of this introductory video contains

recognition for the image sources that I used in

creating this introductory video. These sources

include the following:

Wikipedia.org

Flickr.com

Archives.gov

Special Effects

1.

Panning and Zooming effects were used in

the introduction portion of this video.

2.

Ellipse overlays were used to highlight

features during the instructions portion of

this video.

Video Script

Here is a copy of the script that I wrote when

creating this video:

I must start with a big congratulation on yourrecent appointment to the United States

Supreme Court. We wanted to make sure that

you are prepared for the job, so we puttogether an interactive video activity to help

get you up to speed for what you are going to

be required to do after you take the bench. The

Supreme Court is our nations highest court asit serves as the final stop for any legal

challenges within our country. The Supreme

Court has not always been as powerful as it istoday. In fact, it wasnt until Marbury v.

Madison in 1803 that the Supreme Court took

on the role of judicial review or deciding theultimate constitutionality of a law. Marbury v.

Madison was the first time that the Supreme

Court ruled a law, passed by Congress, to bein violation of the Constitution and thus

prevented it from taking effect. This wouldserve as the basis for much of what the

Supreme Court does today.

In this interactive activity, you get to practice

the role of Supreme Court Justice as you

preside over five of the most important andcontroversial cases in US history. You will


6/19

hear the basic arguments involved in each

case. After you have heard the arguments, youmust provide your vote to either allow the law

to exist or to declare it unconstitutional. Once

you have placed you vote, you will be able to

see how your vote compared to the actualruling on the case from the Supreme Court that

heard it. Now lets spend a few moments going

over how the video activity works.

Interactive video links have been placed at the

end of this introduction video. Clicking on oneof the links will take you to the information

about that Supreme Court case. This will

provide you with the background knowledge

necessary to make your ruling. You can make

your ruling by clicking the Constitutional orUnconstitutional link at the end of the case

information video. This will take you to thefinal video for the case that explains whether

or not you were on the same page as the

Supreme Court who ruled over the decision.You can then click the Return to Start link to

return to the main video and examine the rest

of the cases.

Here are a couple of final notes that I wanted

to share with you about this activity. Pleaseremember, this is not about being right or

being wrong. This interactive video activity ismeant to provide you with a background on

each of these cases as well as some firsthand

experience in what you about to go through inyour new position. After all, you are the

newest Supreme Court Justice and wouldnt

want to let it show too much. With that said,good luck and happy learning!


7/19

5 Supreme Court Videos

Screen or Video Segment Production Notes

Video 2: Plessy v. Fergusonhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKx51YhcPNo

Overview of Plessy v. Ferguson VideoOne of the case videos that viewers have been

asked to watch is titled Interactive Video

Activity: Plessy v. Ferguson. It is 00:01:25 in

length. The purpose of this video is to briefly

describe the background and arguments involved

in this court case. The video itself is broken down

into three parts: 1) Case information 2) Student

decision prompt 3) Sources.

Segment Details

The first part of this video is dedicated to

describing the background of this case. It

attempts to explain how Homer Plessy goes from

a man who boards a white-only train car to being

the center of a landmark Supreme Court case. It

is meant to provide students with enough

information to allow them to compare it with the

amendments we have studied in class. This

section of the video runs from 00:00:00 to

00:01:02.

The second part of this video is the student choice

prompt. It runs from 00:01:03 to 00:01:17. Thisis where I ask viewers to decide whether or not

they feel the actions taken against Homer Plessy

contradict the language of the US Constitution.

Two links have been placed in this section to

allow students to select constitutional or

unconstitutional. Their selection will take them

to the final video in that cases series.This was

done using the Spotlight tool in YouTube

annotations. The annotation timings match the

timing of this video segment.

The remaining portion of this video has been set

aside for recognizing the image sources that I

used when creating this video. These sources


Wikipedia.org

Flickr.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKx51YhcPNohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKx51YhcPNohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKx51YhcPNo


8/19

Archives.gov

Video Script



The case of Plessy v. Ferguson was one ofthe most controversial cases in American

history because it represented how deeply

divided our nation was with regards to the

issue of equality. The central question facingthe Supreme Court in this case was whether

or not it was constitution to have segregation

based on race. It began when Homer Plessy,

an African American, purchased a train ticketfor the whites only section of the train.

After boarding the train, Plessy was asked to

leave the car and move to the area designatedfor blacks. When he refused, he was arrested

and thus, the case was set on the journey that

eventually brought it to the Supreme Court.Plessys argument was that segregation was a

violation of the 13th

and 14th

Amendments to

the US Constitution. They argued that

segregation violated the equal protectionguaranteed by these amendments. Now you

get to decide. Do you think a law that

separates races is unconstitutional? Youshould only use the 13thand 14thAmendments

as your guide to making this decision.

Video 3: Brown v. Board of Education

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IzfyselxgY

Overview of Brown v. Board Video

One of the case videos that viewers have been


Activity: Brown v. Board of Education. It is

00:01:15 in length. The purpose of this video is to

briefly describe the background and arguments

involved in this court case. The video itself can be

broken down into three parts: 1) Caseinformation 2) Student decision prompt 3)

Sources.

Segment Details



attempts to explain how the Brown v. Board of
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IzfyselxgYhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IzfyselxgYhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IzfyselxgY


9/19

Education case represented several that were

being taken up by the Supreme Court regarding

the issue of segregation in public schools. It is

meant to provide students with enough

information to allow them to compare it with the

amendments we have studied in class. This

section of the video runs from 00:00:00 to

00:00:47.


prompt. It runs from 00:00:48 to 00:01:07. This

is where I ask viewers to decide whether or not

they feel the actions taken against minority

students contradict the language of the US

Constitution. Two links have been placed in this

section to allow students to select constitutional

or unconstitutional. Their selection will take

them to the final video in that cases series. Thiswas done using the Spotlight tool in YouTube







Wikipedia.org

Flickr.com Archives.gov

Wikimedia.org

Video Script



The central question facing the Supreme

Court in this case was whether or not it wasconstitutional to have racial segregation in

public schools. It was basically a challenge tothe original ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson that

allowed for segregation in public facilities.The challenge originated when about a dozen

families sued the Board of Education in

Topeka, Kansas. The individuals arguing tooverturn the case claimed that the 14

th

amendment to the constitution guaranteed


10/19

everyone equal protection and treatment

under the law. Thus, segregation created asituation that was unequal. Now you get to

decide. Do you think segregation in the

public school system breaks peoples 14th

amendment rights to equal protection underthe law? You should use the text of the 14th

amendment when reaching your decision.

Video 4: Miranda v. Arizona

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouqhLDjwQBg

Overview of Miranda v. Arizona Video



Activity: Miranda v. Arizona. It is 00:01:50 in



in this court case. The video itself can be broken

down into three parts: 1) Case information 2)

Student decision prompt 3) Sources.

Segment Details



attempts to explain how Ernesto Miranda got

arrested and confessed to rape and kidnapping. It

goes on to discuss his lack of knowledge about

the right to not answer questions and his right to

have an attorney present during the

interrogation. It is meant to provide studentswith enough information to allow them to

compare it with the amendments we have

studied in class. This section of the video runs

from 00:00:00 to 00:01:23.




they felt the actions taken against Ernesto

Miranda contradict the language of the US

Constitution. Two links have been placed in thissection to allow students to select constitutional

or unconstitutional. Their selection will take

them to the final video in that cases series. This

was done using the Spotlight tool in YouTube


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouqhLDjwQBghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouqhLDjwQBghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouqhLDjwQBg


11/19





Wikipedia.org

Archives.gov

Wikimedia.org

Video Script



The central question facing the Supreme

Court in this case was whether or not it was

constitutional to get a confession out ofsomeone without first telling them about their

constitutional right to not incriminate

themselves. It was basically a challenge tolaw enforcement officials to force them to

notify individuals of their right to a lawyer

and to refuse to answer questions that might

incriminate them. The case originated whenErnesto Miranda was arrested for rape,

robbery, and kidnapping. It was during a

two-hour interrogation that Mirandaconfessed to these crimes. The prosecution

was able to get a conviction from the jury in

this case based on the confession. The casewas eventually appealed for two reasons. Thefirst reason is that the 5

thamendment allows

people to refuse to answer questions that

might incriminate themselves. The secondwas that the 6

thamendment guarantees the

right to a lawyer. The lawyers for Miranda

argued that he (and millions of otherAmericans) didnt necessarily know about

these constitutional protections. Thus, they

felt it should be necessary for law enforcement

to provide a statement about these rightsbefore questioning suspects. Eventually, the

case made it to the Supreme Court of the

United States. Now you get to decide. Do youthink should be constitutional to question

someone without first telling them about the

right to not answer the questions that might

incriminate themselves?


12/19

Video 5: Bakke v. UC Regents

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6s1wIVX3i1U

Overview of Bakke v. UC Regents Video



Activity: Bakke v. Regents of the University of

California. It is 00:01:41 in length. The purpose

of this video is to briefly describe the background

and arguments involved in this court case. The

video itself can be broken down into three parts:

1) Case information 2) Student decision prompt

3) Sources.

Segment Details



attempts to explain how Allan Bakke comes to

challenge the practices of the UC Davis Medical

School for using a racial quota system in itscollege acceptance process. It is a practice

known as affirmative action. It is meant to

provide students with enough information to

allow them to compare it with the amendments

we have studied in class. This section of the video

runs from 00:00:00 to 00:01:12.




they feel the actions taken against Allan Bakkecontadict the language of the US Constitution.

Two links have been placed in this section to

allow students to select constitutional or

unconstitutional. Their selection will take them

to the final video in that cases series. This was

done using the Spotlight tool in YouTube







Wikipedia.org

Wikimedia.org
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6s1wIVX3i1Uhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6s1wIVX3i1Uhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6s1wIVX3i1U


13/19

Video Script



The central question facing the SupremeCourt in this case was whether or not it was

legal for colleges to use a racial quota systemto guarantee enrollment for minority students.

It was basically a challenge to the practice of

reserving seats for individuals who might notbe as qualified as other applicants in the

racial majority. It was a practice known as

affirmative action. The case originated

when Allan Bakke, a white applicant, sued theUniversity of California, Davis Medical

School for denying him entrance while

granting admission status to less-qualifiedminorities. Like many of the other cases you

have heard about in this activity, Bakke used

the equal protection clauseof the 14th

amendment as the basis of his argument that itwas unconstitutional to use race as a means of

qualification for college admission. Those

arguing against Bakke claimed the practicewas meant to help increase diversity and that

it was not done in a manner that violated the

constitution. Eventually, the case made it to

the floor of the Supreme Court. Now you getto decide. Do you feel it is acceptable to

guarantee a specific number of enrollment

spots for racial minorities or do you feel thisviolates the equal protection clause of the US

constitution?


14/19

Video 6: NFIB v. Kathleen Sebelius

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgnnFO6PDTo

Overview of NFIB v. Kathleen Sebelius Video



Activity: National Federation of Independent

Businesses v. Kathleen Sebelius. It is 00:01:41 in



in this court case. The video itself can be broken

down into three parts: 1) Case information 2)

Student decision prompt 3) Sources.

Segment Details



attempts to explain how this case represented

several smaller cases that all had the goal of

eliminating the Affordable Care Act. The videodiscusses several of the challenges that were

made to this government action. It is meant to

provide students with enough information to

allow them to compare it with the amendments

we have studied in class. This section of the video

runs from 00:00:00 to 00:01:15.




they felt the actions taken by Kathleen Sebeliusand the federal government contradicts the

language of the US Constitution. Two links have

been placed in this section to allow students to

select constitutional or unconstitutional. Their

selection will take them to the final video in that

cases series. This was done using the Spotlight

tool in YouTube annotations. The annotation

timings match the timing of this video segment.





Wikipedia.org

Wikimedia.org

Flickr.com

Archive.org
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgnnFO6PDTohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgnnFO6PDTohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgnnFO6PDTo


15/19

Video Script



The central question facing the SupremeCourt in this case was whether or not it was

legal for the United States government toforce individuals to purchase a service. The

case originated after the federal government

passed the Affordable Care Act requiringnearly all US citizens to purchase health

insurance or face a fine. There were actually

several lawsuits against the act, but they were

combined under this case. The parties againstthe ACA had a number of reasons why the law

was unconstitutional; however, the basic

premise was that the government could notforce people to purchase a something. They

argued that it was different than issues like

car insurance because in those casesindividuals could simply avoid the purchaseby not using a car. The lawyers in favor of

the ACA argued that people could be forced to

purchase goods and services. In addition,they argued that the penalty was not a fine,

but was instead a tax. This is a very

simplified version of the case, but these are

the basics of what was at stake. Now you getto decide. Do you think it is constitutional for

the government to require individuals to

purchase a good or service against theirwill?


16/19

10 Student Choice Videos (Constitutional or UnconstitutionalThis portion of the storyboard will have a slightly different design when compared the other

sections listed above as I am going to group these together to discuss some of their commoncharacteristics as well as provide some individual details where applicable.

Scene or Video Segment Production Notes

Video Links

These videos are categorized as constitutional or

unconstitutional based on what the students

decide and not how the case was actually ruled. A

sample screenshot has been listed below the links.

Plessy v Ferguson Constitutional

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xng_bPYRDOE

Plessy v. Ferguson Unconstitutional

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MruJxkWqS0Q

Brown v. Board Constitutional

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmouMjg8Em4

Brown v. Board Unconstitutional

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAULIXJWJMs

Miranda v. Arizona Constitutional

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wq2phCiXlDY

Miranda v. Arizona Unconstitutional

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez7xoLvkmYo

Bakke v. UC Regents Constitutional

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kv2Hl2ZmndIBakke v. UC Regents Unconstitutional

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oU79zkW883A

NFIB v. Sebelius Constitutional

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ra_Sw_o2FHc

NFIB v. Sebelius Unconstitutional

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3YWZi6Ooow

Overview of All 10 Videos in this Category

These 10 videos represent the 10 potential

choices that students can make when deciding

whether or not their feel the governments

actions were constitutional or not. They are all

identical in appearance; however, their contents

have been individualized based upon the case.

Video Content

Each video in this series describes the eventual

outcome of the court cases that were examined in

this activity. However, the results were

individualized based on whether the student

chose constitutional or unconstitutional. I did it

this way so that the responses could both match

the student selection while still providing details

about whether their choices matched the actual

Supreme Court rulings.

Deep Link Annotations

Each of these videos ends with a deep link thatreturns viewers back to the introduction video.

The annotations were set so that they begin at

00:02:57 in the introduction video. This was done

to save viewers from having to re-watch the

entire introduction when they simply want to go

back to the case selections.

Image Sources

All background images in these videos were

designed in Microsoft Word.

Video Script

All of the scripts for these videos will be listed in

the next row of this table. They have been

categorized by case.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xng_bPYRDOEhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xng_bPYRDOEhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MruJxkWqS0Qhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MruJxkWqS0Qhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmouMjg8Em4http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmouMjg8Em4http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAULIXJWJMshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAULIXJWJMshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wq2phCiXlDYhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wq2phCiXlDYhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez7xoLvkmYohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez7xoLvkmYohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kv2Hl2ZmndIhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kv2Hl2ZmndIhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oU79zkW883Ahttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oU79zkW883Ahttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ra_Sw_o2FHchttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ra_Sw_o2FHchttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3YWZi6Ooowhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3YWZi6Ooowhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3YWZi6Ooowhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ra_Sw_o2FHchttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oU79zkW883Ahttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kv2Hl2ZmndIhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez7xoLvkmYohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wq2phCiXlDYhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAULIXJWJMshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmouMjg8Em4http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MruJxkWqS0Qhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xng_bPYRDOE


17/19

Plessy v Ferguson Video

Constitutional

You have selected Constitutional, meaning the law should remain in effect. In other words, you felt the

constitution does not ban racial segregation in public facilities. You are actually in agreement with the

original Supreme Court ruling in this case. By a vote of 7 to 1, the Supreme Court ruled that segregated

facilities could exist so long as they are equal for minorities. This is where the phrase separate but

equal came into our nations vocabulary. The ruling only worked to divide our nation on the topic of

equal rights as it ushered in thousands of Jim Crow laws throughout the South.

Unconstitutional

You have selected Unconstitutional, meaning the law should not remain in effect. In other words, you

felt it was unconstitutional to allow the practice segregated public facilities. You actually did not vote

with the majority in this case because the Supreme Court ruled, by a 7-1 vote, that the policy was

constitutional. This is where the phrase separate but equal came into our nations vocabulary. The

ruling only worked to divide our nation on the topic of equal rights as it ushered in thousands of Jim Crow

laws throughout the South.

Brown v. Board of Education Video

Constitutional

You have selected constitutional meaning the law should remain in effect. This means you believe

segregation is acceptable despite the claim that it breaks the 14th

amendment rights of all people. You

actually voted against the Supreme Courts actual decision because they voted 9-0 to eliminate the

practice of segregation in public facilities. Sadly enough, even this ruling did not end the practice of

segregation; however, it did make it illegal and paved the way for the advancement of civil rights for all

Americans.

Unconstitutional

You have selected unconstitutional meaning you think segregation should not remain in effect. You

actually voted with the majority in this case because the Supreme Court ruled, by a vote of 9-0, that the

policy was unconstitutional. Sadly enough, even this ruling did not end the practice of segregation;

however, it did make it illegal and paved the way for the advancement of civil rights for all Americans.

Miranda v. Arizona Video

Constitutional

You have selected constitutional meaning the practice of questioning without notifying people of their

5th

amendment rights should be allowed to continue. This means you believe law enforcement should be

able to question people who may not know about this constitutional protection. You actually voted

against the Supreme Courts actual decision because they voted 5-4 to require law enforcement officials

to notify people of these rights before questioning them. This led to the creation of Miranda Rights.

This is very common today as most people have probably heard phrases like right to remain silent or

right to an attorney.


18/19

Unconstitutional

You have selected unconstitutional meaning the practice of questioning without notifying people of

their 5th

amendment rights should not be allowed to continue. This means you believe law enforcement

should not be able to question people without notifying them of their rights to not answer the questions

or to have an attorney present during questioning. You voted with the Supreme Courts actual decision

because they voted 5-4 to require law enforcement officials to notify people of these rights before

questioning them. This led to the creation of Miranda Rights. This is very common today as most

people have probably heard phrases like right to remain silent or right to an attorney. This all came

from the case of Miranda v. Arizona.

Bakke v. Regents of the University of California Video

Constitutional

You have selected Constitutional meaning the practice of guaranteeing enrollment spots for racial

minorities should be allowed to continue. This means you feel it should be legal for colleges to admit

minority students over non-minority students who might be more qualified. You actually voted both with

and against the Supreme Court in this case. What do I mean? Well, the Supreme Court ruled itconstitutional to consider racial diversity in their enrollment process; however, they ruled it

unconstitutional to put a specific quota number in place like the one challenged by Bakke. This has

continued to be a hot-button issue even with the Supreme Court having ruled on this case.

Unconstitutional

You have selected unconstitutional meaning the practice of guaranteeing enrollment spots for racial

minorities should not be allowed to continue. This means you feel it should be illegal for colleges to

admit minority students over non-minority students who might be more qualified. You actually voted

both with and against the Supreme Court in this case. What do I mean? Well, the Supreme Court ruled it

constitutional to consider racial diversity in their enrollment process; however, they ruled it

unconstitutional to put a specific quota number in place like the one challenged by Bakke. This hascontinued to be a hot-button issue even with the Supreme Court having ruled on this case.

National Federal of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius

Constitutional

You have selected Constitutional, meaning the government can require individuals to purchase a good

or service against their will. By voting in favor of the law, you have also approved of the penalty, or tax,

that people have to pay when they do not purchase health insurance. You actually voted the Supreme

Court in this case as they ruled in favor of the law with a 5-4 decision. This was seen as the final step in

the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. There are some other challenges that exist regarding

certain components of the law; however, the Supreme Court has ruled that the government action was

constitutional.

Unconstitutional

You have selected unconstitutional meaning the government cannot require individuals to purchase a

good or service against their will. By voting against the law, you have also denied the penalty aspect of

this law that taxed individuals who did not purchase health insurance. You actually voted against the

Supreme Court in this case as they ruled in favor of the law with a 5-4 decision. This was seen as the final

step in the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. There are some other challenges that exist


19/19

regarding certain components of the law; however, the Supreme Court has ruled that the government

action was constitutional.