Nixa High School Team Wins 2020 ShowMe The Constitution Competition

Nixa High School is the home of state champion Constitutional scholars.

The competition is a mock-congressional hearing sponsored by the Missouri Bar Young Lawyers’ Section and the Missouri Bar’s Citizenship Program. The students have to prepare five minute opening statements on one of three complex legal issues and then engage in a 10 minute question and answer session with lawyers, scholars, government officials, and Missouri Supreme Court Judges.

The team won the state championship after three years where they finished in the top 4.

The members of the state championship team are:

  • Susan Hardy
  • Sailor Powley
  • Brock Manasseri
  • Emma Beadle
  • Amarra Fusco
  • Isaiah Holgerson
  • Eshan Jain
  • Edward Eiche
  • Will Rouhani

The team made three groups to address the following questions:

Question 1 – Susan Hardy, Brock Manasseri, and Sailor Powley

  • Given the extent of gun violence within the United States in the 21st Century and the continuing controversy that swirls around it, has the Second Amendment become an anachronism, due for a constitutional revision?  Why or why not?
    • What does the Second Amendment’s protection of the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” mean?  How is this question addressed in Federalist No. 29 and 46? Do you believe that in the 21st Century we should continue to follow the guidance provided by the 18th Century writings of Hamilton and Madison? Why or why not?
    • Have changes in the nature of weaponry and professional law enforcement, as well as the creation of a standing Army and national guard units within each state negated the necessity of extending constitutional protection to private gun ownership? Why or Why or why not?

Question 2 – Emma Beadle, Amarra Fusco, and Isaiah Holgerson

  • In 2020, federal law enforcement officers were dispatched to American cities to deal with protesters in the wake of the death of George Floyd, despite the opposition of the mayors of these cities. Was the action taken by the federal government consistent with the terms of the Insurrection Act of 1807. Why or why not?
    • Some constitutional scholars argue, “It is time to revise the Insurrection Act of 1807 to identify specific checks on federal and presidential authority and align with the state police powers under the 10th Amendment.” Would you support this action?  Explain.
    • Were the actions of these federal law enforcement officers consistent with the constitutional protections embodied in the First and Fourth Amendments? Explain.

Question 3 – Eshan Jain, Edward Eiche, Will Rouhani, and Emma Beadle

  • Recently, the Supreme Court ruled in Bostock v. Clayton County that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination based upon sexual orientation. Explain the basis for the majority’s decision. How do you feel this ruling will impact employers and employees?  Explain.
    • Brett Kavanaugh wrote in his dissent that while protection of homosexuals from employment discrimination was laudable, it was for Congress, and not the Supreme Court, to expand this protection.  Do you agree or disagree?  Explain.
    • Would you support legislation or a constitutional amendment forbidding governmental discrimination, as well as private acts of discrimination, based upon race, religion, gender, and sexual orientation?  Why or why not?

The competition was done in a virtual format over Zoom because of pandemic restrictions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *