Thinking Moves

Observable Thinking
Behaviours
Observing closely Notice parts and
and describing
features
whats there
Take detailed notes to
record observations
Describe parts and
features in detail

Actions that Demonstrate Deep Thinking

Same-sex Marriage Articles:

On June of 2015, the United States Supreme Court ruled

that denying same-sex marriage was unconstitutional
in reference to the 14th Amendment

The Plainsman article has nothing against homosexual

marriage, however, he does believe that because the
Supreme Court is not representative of the whole
population, their ability to make the decision for the
whole country was wrong

Both the NPR and Plainsman article mentions the

opposition who, themselves may not necessarily have
anything against same-sex marriage, but believes its
abusing the Courts rights by not allowing the states to
decide on the issue themselves. Among these people is
Chief Justice John Roberts

Roberts dissent states the Court has taken an

extraordinary step and that it was deeply
disheartening because the, as Justice Scalia describes,
highly unrepresentative panel of nine, did not have
the right to decide for states

Theres evidence (all time high 60% supporting

extending rights to same-sex marriages 37% Repub.
64% Indep. 76% Democ.) that shows people are
supporting extending these rights but their argument is
that the Supreme Court has decided to ignore state
rights

States like Alabama have voted several times against

same-sex marriage and this judicial review is going
against all of that
Legality of Marijuana:

Making
connections

Connect new
information with
whats known
Identify patterns and
perspectives

Marijuana was first outlawed by the Controlled

Substance Act proposed during Nixons presidency
when an army sergeant in Vietnam apparently called a
mortar strike on his own men after took the substance

By getting rid of the act, states would be able to decide

whether or not they would want to legalize marijuana
and under what conditions, many of which have already
done so, against the national law

States defied the act simply because they were tired of

having to lock up their own people with small
possessions of a harmless drug and also because the
act made no sense (particularly the ranking of
marijuana on a scale)

However, even if the president has allowed it,

permitting marijuana is still considered a federal crime,
thus, they are technically at the mercy of the president

Should he decide one day to act, the states that have

permitted marijuana would cause catastrophic results
(including possible lengthy sentences for countless
people in a single state)
Power of the Senate for Small States:

Because of the number of representatives which is

fixed at 2 in the Senate, many people argue that the
upper house of the bicameral Congress is the least
democratic as it often ignores the essence of
democracy, which is majority rules

More conservative states have obviously had a history

against same-sex marriage and they are the ones that
have been most displeased with the new decision by
the Supreme Court

One such evidence was shown by a clerk in Kentucky

by the name of Kim Davis who refused to grant a

 Identify areas of
agreement and
disagreement
between sources
Wondering and
Imagine possible
asking questions
connections and
implications
Relate ideas to
emotions and values
Create questions to
propel further inquiry

Building
Examine similarities
explanations and
and differences
interpretations
Hypothesize and test
ideas

Summarize the main

idea

marriage license to a homosexual couple despite threat

to be imprisoned
Contrary to the previous article on same-sex marriage
where there is an apparent violation of state rights by
the Supreme Courts part, this article is showing
outright defiance against federal law and states taking
the lead
How will states that are particularly against same-sex
marriage respond to the judicial review? By nullifying
the federal decision?
Would this defiance for an albeit ridiculous act be a
stepping stone for future rebellious behaviour (most
notably the recent same-sex marriage debate)?
How can smaller states, as mentioned by Liptak in his
New York Times article, be so influential in the Senate
seeing as they still do not stand for the majority?
How much has cooperative federalism expanded today
to support the idea that Klein believes in which the
country has abandoned federalism?
The main idea in the two articles regarding the samesex marriage is that, while the majority of people in the
United States have become more open to the extension
of same-sex rights, the real problem is not a publics
consent but violation of state rights, especially when
HALF the states do not have such laws. As the swing
Justice Kennedy stated, marriage has long evolved
based on the changing roles and legal status of
different groups of people, including women.
This article is providing an example of states still
having, to some extent, authority over the national
government. Theyve ignored federal law and 35 states,
including the District of Columbia, have committed

Reasoning with
evidence

Search for evidence to

support claims

Check for validity and

soundness

Verify sufficiency of
detail to support
claims

Uncovering
complexity and
going below the
surface

Identify and reject

simplistic
explanations
Search for alternative

federal crime, and will most likely get away with it.
While the president is indeed allowing the continuation
by consent, even if he didnt, he would find throw the
country into a pit if he decided to act because that
would be a lot of jailing and fines for a lot of people,
causing a public outrage.
The womens rights movements gave strength to
women in their decision of who to marry, and the
spouses were more so beginning to be viewed as
equals and wives not as property
If couples decided to divorce, the women have say in
the marriage as well, not only men, and these were all
possible due to a change in social values, thus, the
same could be utilized to describe same-sex marriage
The nature of injustice is that we may not always see
it in our own times
The federal penalty for growing more than 1,000
cannabis plants is a minimum of 10 years in prison, so
if the national government decides to enforce the
Controlled Substance Act, many people will be thrown
in jail for possible decades.
Marijuana, in the CSA, has been ranked as part of
Schedule I, comparable to heroin, LSD, and other
serious hallucinogens, which is obviously ridiculous
while Methamphetamine and cocaine have both been
placed in Schedule II, and this poor judgment of the
danger of drugs adds to the hysteria of the act
Perhaps the biggest reason for the opposition against
same-sex marriage is not a party difference, but a
religious conflict. The clerk in Kentucky was a democrat
but her refusal to grant the marriage license was due to
her religion and the Bibles alleged condemnation on

evidence and
explanations

Examine all parts of

issues to explore
complexity

Search for deep causes

Considering
different
viewpoints and
perspectives

Search for alternative

explanations
Evaluate the evidence
of opposing
perspectives
Self-assess and revise
own arguments in
light of alternative
viewpoints

those who engage in such acts (Sodom and Gomorrah)

More conservative states in the Mid-West have been
shown to be less open to legalizing marijuana, possibly,
and most likely having to do again to religion and abuse
of drugs
However, the nations have significant control over the
decisions over the states by using their powers such as
funding only under certain conditions, effectively giving
the national government control over the states, and
theyre known as categorical grants
While creating marriage laws is under the jurisdiction of
the state government, the Supreme Court did not add a
new law/legislation, it merely interpreted refusal to
grant same-sex marriages as unconstitutional to the
14th Amendment, hence, it really isnt violating any
state rights as both articles claim
If marijuana in federal law is not allowed, should the
president allow for states to openly defy them? This
could pose as a possible stepping stone for future
opposition against federal decisions. A better approach
would be to simply eliminate the original act

Higher Order Questions:

1) Based on the evidences provided in these articles, has federalism shifted to give the national government
more power over the states? And if so, how?
2) Should the Senate continue to be structured in such a way as to be advantageous for the smaller states,
seeing as removing it will obviously threaten the voice of those aforementioned states?
3) To what extent is the argument that Klein argues, where some power should be shifted back to the state,
undermined by the recent judicial review regarding same-sex marriage?
4) Would this defiance for an albeit ridiculous act be a stepping stone for future rebellious behaviour (most
notably the recent same-sex marriage debate)?