Writing Prompt 1- The Bill of Rights The Bill of Rights includes both provisions to protect individual liberties (such as freedom of speech, the press, and religion) as well as the Tenth Amendment, which states that powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states. Which part of the Bill of Rights do you think poses a greater limit on the power of the national government, provisions about individuals or about states? Why? Which amendment in the Bill of Rights do you think is the most important to preserve? Why? Provide an example of at least one Supreme Court case that tested this right. Writing Prompt 2- The Mass Media and an Enlightened Public: The freedom of the press was included in the First Amendment to guarantee citizens access to news and information. Americans largely rely on the mass media to learn about what is going on in government and in the wider world. Throughout American history, the publics access to objective reporting has been threatened by partisan bias in the press, sensationalism, and attempts by the government to regulate the media. Additionally, political campaigns and politicians have long attempted to circumvent and control media coverage. And, in the contemporary era, new trends such as narrowcasting and media consolidation are seen by some as threats to the publics ability to become informed. Your essay must contain the following information: What about todays media environment do you believe is the greatest obstacle to an enlightened public? Why? Provide a definition of this obstacle. Use references from the text. Provide two (2) recent examples of this threat. Describe how it impeded the public from becoming informed. Writing Prompt 3 Immigration in American Society: In the 2008 election, immigration became one of the most controversial issues, arousing passionate debate on different sides of the topic. After efforts to reform immigration law failed in 2006, many states and localities enacted their own tough laws, punishing employers who hired undocumented workers and landlords who rented to them. The new laws reflected fears that immigration had gotten out of control and was harming America. Opponents of tougher laws argued that they unfairly punish law-abiding people who have been in the United States working and paying taxes, many of them for much of their lives. Moreover, they argue, the American economy depends on the work that undocumented immigrants do and the taxes they pay. These two poles in the immigration debate reflect starkly different views about the costs and contributions of the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. Those who advocate taking a tough stand on immigration emphasize the fundamental importance of securing the nations borders in an era of unprecedented threat from terrorists. To reduce the number of illegal immigrants currently living in the United States and to discourage others from coming, illegal immigrants should be treated as the lawbreakers that they are, in this view. In 2006, Congress passed legislation that reflected this line of reasoning. The bill approved construction of a 700-mile fence along the Mexican border. Proponents of getting tough on immigration also point to the problems that the large immigrant community pose for American society. Noting that the vast majority of illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central America are low-wage workers, they cite studies showing that immigrants depress the wages of low-skilled American workers.a They also highlight the financial burdens that immigrants place on state and local governments with their use of social services and schools. Finally, those who favor getting tough on immigration often express fears about the difficulty of assimilating such a large group of newcomers. At worst, they fear that the United States will become partitioned into areas dominated by Spanish-speaking immigrants whose culture is fundamentally different from that of the rest of Americans. The existence of such different social groups in one country will undermine American political culture and American democracy. Pro-immigration advocates argue that it is impractical to seal off the Mexican border. Instead, the United States needs to find ways to regulate the entry of noncitizens to work in the United States. Proponents of this view contend that illegal immigrants do not harm native workers because they are doing jobs that Americans will not do. They point to studies showing that illegal immigrants have minimal impact on the wages of less-skilled American workers.b They also emphasize that many illegal workers pay income taxes and Social Security taxes, as well as sales taxes. The central policy goal of immigrant advocates is to create a path to earned citizenship for undocumented immigrants living in the United States. Although proposals differ, most would require immigrants to demonstrate proficiency in English and pay a fine for having entered the country illegally. Such a path toward citizenship is essential to the health of American democracy, which suffers from having large communities of people who cannot vote and are fearful of public authorities. There is much less agreement on the pro-immigrant side about how or whether the United States should regulate the entry of noncitizen workers. Some support a guest worker program, which would allow noncitizens to work temporarily in the United States. Others oppose creating a guest worker program, fearing that it could create a permanent subclass of workers in the United States.a. Kathleen Pender, Labors Complex Situation, San Francisco Chronicle, April 27, 2006, p. C1.b. Pender, Labors Complex Situation. What are the arguments for significantly tightening border security? What do you think is the most effective way to secure the border? Why? What are the arguments in favor of a path toward earned citizenship for immigrants? Do you think that a provision for a path toward earned citizenship would help or hurt American society in the long run? Why or why not? Click on the file to view 3 paper prompts. Pick one (and ONLY one) and write a 2-3 page paper.

Writing Prompt 1- The Bill of Rights The Bill of Rights includes both provisions to protect individual liberties (such as freedom of speech, the press, and religion) as well as the Tenth Amendment, which states that powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states. Which part of the Bill of Rights do you think poses a greater limit on the power of the national government, provisions about individuals or about states? Why? Which amendment in the Bill of Rights do you think is the most important to preserve? Why? Provide an example of at least one Supreme Court case that tested this right. Writing Prompt 2- The Mass Media and an Enlightened Public: The freedom of the press was included in the First Amendment to guarantee citizens access to news and information. Americans largely rely on the mass media to learn about what is going on in government and in the wider world. Throughout American history, the publics access to objective reporting has been threatened by partisan bias in the press, sensationalism, and attempts by the government to regulate the media. Additionally, political campaigns and politicians have long attempted to circumvent and control media coverage. And, in the contemporary era, new trends such as narrowcasting and media consolidation are seen by some as threats to the publics ability to become informed. Your essay must contain the following information: What about todays media environment do you believe is the greatest obstacle to an enlightened public? Why? Provide a definition of this obstacle. Use references from the text. Provide two (2) recent examples of this threat. Describe how it impeded the public from becoming informed. Writing Prompt 3 Immigration in American Society: In the 2008 election, immigration became one of the most controversial issues, arousing passionate debate on different sides of the topic. After efforts to reform immigration law failed in 2006, many states and localities enacted their own tough laws, punishing employers who hired undocumented workers and landlords who rented to them. The new laws reflected fears that immigration had gotten out of control and was harming America. Opponents of tougher laws argued that they unfairly punish law-abiding people who have been in the United States working and paying taxes, many of them for much of their lives. Moreover, they argue, the American economy depends on the work that undocumented immigrants do and the taxes they pay. These two poles in the immigration debate reflect starkly different views about the costs and contributions of the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. Those who advocate taking a tough stand on immigration emphasize the fundamental importance of securing the nations borders in an era of unprecedented threat from terrorists. To reduce the number of illegal immigrants currently living in the United States and to discourage others from coming, illegal immigrants should be treated as the lawbreakers that they are, in this view. In 2006, Congress passed legislation that reflected this line of reasoning. The bill approved construction of a 700-mile fence along the Mexican border. Proponents of getting tough on immigration also point to the problems that the large immigrant community pose for American society. Noting that the vast majority of illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central America are low-wage workers, they cite studies showing that immigrants depress the wages of low-skilled American workers.a They also highlight the financial burdens that immigrants place on state and local governments with their use of social services and schools. Finally, those who favor getting tough on immigration often express fears about the difficulty of assimilating such a large group of newcomers. At worst, they fear that the United States will become partitioned into areas dominated by Spanish-speaking immigrants whose culture is fundamentally different from that of the rest of Americans. The existence of such different social groups in one country will undermine American political culture and American democracy. Pro-immigration advocates argue that it is impractical to seal off the Mexican border. Instead, the United States needs to find ways to regulate the entry of noncitizens to work in the United States. Proponents of this view contend that illegal immigrants do not harm native workers because they are doing jobs that Americans will not do. They point to studies showing that illegal immigrants have minimal impact on the wages of less-skilled American workers.b They also emphasize that many illegal workers pay income taxes and Social Security taxes, as well as sales taxes. The central policy goal of immigrant advocates is to create a path to earned citizenship for undocumented immigrants living in the United States. Although proposals differ, most would require immigrants to demonstrate proficiency in English and pay a fine for having entered the country illegally. Such a path toward citizenship is essential to the health of American democracy, which suffers from having large communities of people who cannot vote and are fearful of public authorities. There is much less agreement on the pro-immigrant side about how or whether the United States should regulate the entry of noncitizen workers. Some support a guest worker program, which would allow noncitizens to work temporarily in the United States. Others oppose creating a guest worker program, fearing that it could create a permanent subclass of workers in the United States.a. Kathleen Pender, Labors Complex Situation, San Francisco Chronicle, April 27, 2006, p. C1.b. Pender, Labors Complex Situation. What are the arguments for significantly tightening border security? What do you think is the most effective way to secure the border? Why? What are the arguments in favor of a path toward earned citizenship for immigrants? Do you think that a provision for a path toward earned citizenship would help or hurt American society in the long run? Why or why not? Click on the file to view 3 paper prompts. Pick one (and ONLY one) and write a 2-3 page paper.