Categories
American Studies

Using examples from the Wamponoag (Makepeace 2010), and Southern Lushootseed (Ho

Using examples from the Wamponoag (Makepeace 2010), and Southern Lushootseed (Hohn 2021) languages, describe aspects of Indigenous language revitalization efforts today.

Categories
American Studies

Description: You are asked to write a roughly 7-page case study research essay d

Description: You are asked to write a roughly 7-page case study research essay due as your final assignment for the course. The case study for this assignment is of your choice but must address a current issue in federal Indian policy and provide background/historical information on the topic. As you’ve noticed in the readings for this course, federal Indian policy has a long and complicated history. Your essay should show how a current issue is connected to the past.
Format: The essay should provide an overview of the current issue and how it is connected to past events, laws, or policies.
Choosing your topic: To Choose the topic you are interested in based on the reading material. Also, I’d recommend doing some online news reading to familiarize yourself with recent or current issues in the Native community. I recommend visiting online sources like Indian Country Today, Native News Online, and News from Native California.
Examples: Students have previously chosen a range of topics for this assignment, from a water rights issue, tribal jurisdiction, hunting and fishing, issues in the Supreme Court, etc. The topic can be an issue mentioned in previous readings. Recently, I’ve seen great assignments on the Standing Rock protest, domestic abuse in Indian Country, and environmental sustainability in Native communities of California.
Sources: The essay should reference 5-7 sources, and I’d recommend considering both academic and non-academic resources.
Additional requirements:
Size 12 Times New Roman/Garamond
Double-spaced
Citations required; any citation format is acceptable
No cover page is required

Categories
American Studies

Double-spaced

Description: You are asked to write a roughly 7-page case study research essay due as your final assignment for the course. The case study for this assignment is of your choice but must address a current issue in federal Indian policy and provide background/historical information on the topic. As you’ve noticed in the readings for this course, federal Indian policy has a long and complicated history. Your essay should show how a current issue is connected to the past.
Format: The essay should provide an overview of the current issue and how it is connected to past events, laws, or policies.
Choosing your topic: To Choose the topic you are interested in based on the reading material. Also, I’d recommend doing some online news reading to familiarize yourself with recent or current issues in the Native community. I recommend visiting online sources like Indian Country Today, Native News Online, and News from Native California.
Examples: Students have previously chosen a range of topics for this assignment, from a water rights issue, tribal jurisdiction, hunting and fishing, issues in the Supreme Court, etc. The topic can be an issue mentioned in previous readings. Recently, I’ve seen great assignments on the Standing Rock protest, domestic abuse in Indian Country, and environmental sustainability in Native communities of California.
Sources: The essay should reference 5-7 sources, and I’d recommend considering both academic and non-academic resources.
Additional requirements:
Size 12 Times New Roman/Garamond
Double-spaced
Citations required; any citation format is acceptable
No cover page is required

Categories
American Studies

Do not include an abstract.

Purpose
The purpose of this assignment is a 2-3 page paper and it is designed to familiarize your with how a bill becomes a law in the State of Nevada. Part of being the resident of a state is participating in how the laws that govern us come into being. Using Nevada Legislature 81st session (because bills from 82nd are not yet available) choose one bill and respond to the below criteria. You can choose a bill that passed to law or did not, it is up to you!
Bills can be found here: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/NELIS/REL/81st2021/Bills/List
Task
Select one of the bills that have been proposed so far and answer the following questions:
1) Review and become familiar with all the actions that have been taken on the bill.
2)In your own words, summarize what the bill is meant to do passed into law (remember you can choose a bill that did not pass).
3) What impacts could your bill have on the following? (Hint: The bill may not have all of the following types of impact, but will touch on at least one.)
Fiscal Impact (State and Local)
Social Impact (State and Local)
Economic/ Business Impact (State and Local)
Rights Impact (Does this change how a resident would do/ be able to do something in the state?)
Note: Keep in mind that some bills as proposed may have unintentional impacts that may not have been considered yet. There may also be existing evidence you can locate of some of these effects. Use your critical thinking and back it up with sources.
4) In your own words/summarize what the arguments are for and against the passage of this bill?
4) If you were going to make a public comment at a bill hearing would you have argued for or against it? Explain your choice and support it with points to consider.
Criteria
Your response must be 2-3 pages in length, written. (Your title page and reference page do not count toward page total.)
Include the Assembly Bill or Senate Bill number in your response AND LINK to this bill.
Use proper grammar and punctuation in your response.
APA Format includes: double-spaced, one-inch margins on all sides, 12 point Times New Roman font, a title page, and a reference page.
APA format for this assignment DOES NOT include an abstract. DO NOT include an abstract.
Pay special attention on how to write a law or bill in APA format.
Think critically, clearly describe and explain your ideas. Do NOT use analogies.

Categories
American Studies

The weekly reading is joanne barker, “for whom sovereignty matters” (from the textbook) and the film is “tending the wild”.

The first writing is a weekly response that should be 1000 words and provide a summary of the weekly readings. The weekly reading is Joanne Barker, “For Whom Sovereignty Matters” (from the textbook) and the film is “Tending the Wild”. The response should include three parts: (1) a summary of the readings, (2) a connection to other course topics, and (3) a personal response to the reading.
Another writing is to submit an original post of 200-words that summarizes the film. This is the film:

Categories
American Studies

This practice exam will focus on political parties, nominations, elections, campaigns, and interest groups.

I am needing help for a practice exam focusing on American National government. NOTE: This is NOT an easy (practice) exam. You should be well versed in American Government as this practice exam is a part of an “upper division” course. This practice exam will focus on political parties, nominations, elections, campaigns, and interest groups. The practice exam has 30 questions and you will have 75 minutes to complete and this must be done in one sitting (meaning you can’t start the practice exam and come back and finish at a later time).
A few things to note:
– In order to accept this role, you must be willing to download Respondus Lockdown Browser. It takes 1-2 minutes to download, it’s free, and you can delete after.
– Upon accepting, I will give you credentials that will give you access to do this task.
– If this task is done exceptionally well, then I will have more to offer in the coming days!
– Attached are the study materials that will help.
Thank you for your help!

Categories
American Studies

Note: this is not an easy (practice) exam.

I am needing help for a practice exam focusing on American National government. NOTE: This is NOT an easy (practice) exam. You should be well versed in American Government as this practice exam is a part of an “upper division” course. This practice exam will focus on political parties, nominations, elections, campaigns, and interest groups. The practice exam has 30 questions and you will have 75 minutes to complete and this must be done in one sitting (meaning you can’t start the practice exam and come back and finish at a later time).
A few things to note:
– In order to accept this role, you must be willing to download Respondus Lockdown Browser. It takes 1-2 minutes to download, it’s free, and you can delete after.
– Upon accepting, I will give you credentials that will give you access to do this task.
– If this task is done exceptionally well, then I will have more to offer in the coming days!
– Attached are the study materials that will help.
Thank you for your help!

Categories
American Studies

Explain, using two major concepts from class.(0-2 points)

You are to read and review the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Employment Division v. Smith (1990). This case is listed below for your convenience.
After reading the case, you will need to write a 250-word essay on the case– be sure to use your own words, and don’t simply copy what’s in the case. This essay must answer each of the following questions, with points awarded as indicated:
What is the case about (summarized in your own words)? (0-1 points)
What is Employment Division’s argument? (0-1 points)
What is Smith’s argument? (0-1 points)
What does the Court decide, and why? What was the vote? Who wrote a dissenting opinion? (0-1 points)
In your opinion, was justice served or not? Explain, using two major concepts from class.(0-2 points)
If there were 80 million members of the Native American religion discussed in this case, why would the Supreme Court make the same ruling (0-2 points)?
If there were 80 million members of the Native American religion discussed in the case, why would the Supreme Court make a different ruling (0-2 points)?
Points will be awarded for this activity as follows:
The essay is at least 250 words long (no points will be awarded for this activity if the essay is shorter);
Your essay answers the questions thoroughly, and provides the required information (Points listed above).
The essay concludes with a list of references and uses paragraphs (no points will be awarded if this condition is not met)
To submit to Dropbox, prepare your submission as a PDF (preferred) or Word document and save it to your computer. Then click the link below to upload it through Dropbox.
Here is the Supreme Court Case you are to analyze:
Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) (USSC+)
Syllabus
Respondents Smith and Black were fired by a private drug rehabilitation organization because they ingested peyote, a hallucinogenic drug, for sacramental purposes at a ceremony of their Native American Church. Their applications for unemployment compensation were denied by the State of Oregon under a state law disqualifying employees discharged for work-related “misconduct.” Holding that the denials violated respondents’ First Amendment free exercise rights, the State Court of Appeals reversed. The State Supreme Court affirmed, but this Court vacated the judgment and remanded for a determination whether sacramental peyote use is proscribed by the State’s controlled substance law, which makes it a felony to knowingly or intentionally possess the drug. Pending that determination, the Court refused to decide whether such use is protected by the Constitution. On remand, the State Supreme Court held that sacramental peyote use violated, and was not excepted from, the state law prohibition, but concluded that that prohibition was invalid under the Free Exercise Clause.
Held: The Free Exercise Clause permits the State to prohibit sacramental peyote use, and thus to deny unemployment benefits to persons discharged for such use. Pp. 876-890 .
(a) Although a State would be “prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]” in violation of the Clause if it sought to ban the performance of (or abstention from) physical acts solely because of their religious motivation, the Clause does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a law that incidentally forbids (or requires) the performance of an act that his religious belief requires (or forbids) if the law is not specifically directed to religious practice and is otherwise constitutional as applied to those who engage in the specified act for nonreligious reasons. See, e.g., Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 166-167. The only decisions in which this Court has held that the First Amendment bars application of a neutral, generally applicable law to religiously motivated action are distinguished on the ground that they involved not the Free Exercise Clause alone, but that Clause in conjunction with other constitutional [p*873] protections. See, e.g., Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 , 304-307 ; Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205. Pp. 876-882 .
(b) Respondents’ claim for a religious exemption from the Oregon law cannot be evaluated under the balancing test set forth in the line of cases following Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 , 402-403 , whereby governmental actions that substantially burden a religious practice must be justified by a “compelling governmental interest.” That test was developed in a context — unemployment compensation eligibility rules — that lent itself to individualized governmental assessment of the reasons for the relevant conduct. The test is inapplicable to an across-the-board criminal prohibition on a particular form of conduct. A holding to the contrary would create an extraordinary right to ignore generally applicable laws that are not supported by “compelling governmental interest” on the basis of religious belief. Nor could such a right be limited to situations in which the conduct prohibited is “central” to the individual’s religion, since that would enmesh judges in an impermissible inquiry into the centrality of particular beliefs or practices to a faith. Cf. Hernandez v. Commissioner, 490 U.S. 680, 699. Thus, although it is constitutionally permissible to exempt sacramental peyote use from the operation of drug laws, it is not constitutionally required. Pp. 882-890 .
307 Or. 68, 763 P.2d 146, reversed.
Opinions
SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and WHITE, STEVENS, and KENNEDY, JJ., joined. O’CONNOR, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in Parts I and II of which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, and BLACKMUN, JJ., joined without concurring in the judgment, post, p. 891 . BLACKMUN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BRENNAN and MARSHALL, JJ., joined, post, p. 907 . [p*874]

Categories
American Studies

Summarize the argument of the book in the first two paragraphs.

Summarize the argument of the book in the first two paragraphs. After the first two paragraphs, your response paper should be a mixture of analysis and summary. Use your response to raise questions; explore theoretical and methodological issues; connect the week’s reading to reading done in earlier weeks; identify critical gaps (as well as accomplishments) in the readings. Make sure you are using quotes and including the page numbers.

Categories
American Studies

What is smith’s argument?

You are to read and review the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Employment Division v. Smith (1990). This case is listed below for your convenience.
After reading the case, you will need to write a 250-word essay on the case– be sure to use your own words, and don’t simply copy what’s in the case. This essay must answer each of the following questions, with points awarded as indicated:
What is the case about (summarized in your own words)? (0-1 points)
What is Employment Division’s argument? (0-1 points)
What is Smith’s argument? (0-1 points)
What does the Court decide, and why? What was the vote? Who wrote a dissenting opinion? (0-1 points)
In your opinion, was justice served or not? Explain, using two major concepts from class.(0-2 points)
If there were 80 million members of the Native American religion discussed in this case, why would the Supreme Court make the same ruling (0-2 points)?
If there were 80 million members of the Native American religion discussed in the case, why would the Supreme Court make a different ruling (0-2 points)?
Points will be awarded for this activity as follows:
The essay is at least 250 words long (no points will be awarded for this activity if the essay is shorter);
Your essay answers the questions thoroughly, and provides the required information (Points listed above).
The essay concludes with a list of references and uses paragraphs (no points will be awarded if this condition is not met)
To submit to Dropbox, prepare your submission as a PDF (preferred) or Word document and save it to your computer. Then click the link below to upload it through Dropbox.
Here is the Supreme Court Case you are to analyze:
Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) (USSC+)
Syllabus
Respondents Smith and Black were fired by a private drug rehabilitation organization because they ingested peyote, a hallucinogenic drug, for sacramental purposes at a ceremony of their Native American Church. Their applications for unemployment compensation were denied by the State of Oregon under a state law disqualifying employees discharged for work-related “misconduct.” Holding that the denials violated respondents’ First Amendment free exercise rights, the State Court of Appeals reversed. The State Supreme Court affirmed, but this Court vacated the judgment and remanded for a determination whether sacramental peyote use is proscribed by the State’s controlled substance law, which makes it a felony to knowingly or intentionally possess the drug. Pending that determination, the Court refused to decide whether such use is protected by the Constitution. On remand, the State Supreme Court held that sacramental peyote use violated, and was not excepted from, the state law prohibition, but concluded that that prohibition was invalid under the Free Exercise Clause.
Held: The Free Exercise Clause permits the State to prohibit sacramental peyote use, and thus to deny unemployment benefits to persons discharged for such use. Pp. 876-890 .
(a) Although a State would be “prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]” in violation of the Clause if it sought to ban the performance of (or abstention from) physical acts solely because of their religious motivation, the Clause does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a law that incidentally forbids (or requires) the performance of an act that his religious belief requires (or forbids) if the law is not specifically directed to religious practice and is otherwise constitutional as applied to those who engage in the specified act for nonreligious reasons. See, e.g., Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 166-167. The only decisions in which this Court has held that the First Amendment bars application of a neutral, generally applicable law to religiously motivated action are distinguished on the ground that they involved not the Free Exercise Clause alone, but that Clause in conjunction with other constitutional [p*873] protections. See, e.g., Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 , 304-307 ; Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205. Pp. 876-882 .
(b) Respondents’ claim for a religious exemption from the Oregon law cannot be evaluated under the balancing test set forth in the line of cases following Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 , 402-403 , whereby governmental actions that substantially burden a religious practice must be justified by a “compelling governmental interest.” That test was developed in a context — unemployment compensation eligibility rules — that lent itself to individualized governmental assessment of the reasons for the relevant conduct. The test is inapplicable to an across-the-board criminal prohibition on a particular form of conduct. A holding to the contrary would create an extraordinary right to ignore generally applicable laws that are not supported by “compelling governmental interest” on the basis of religious belief. Nor could such a right be limited to situations in which the conduct prohibited is “central” to the individual’s religion, since that would enmesh judges in an impermissible inquiry into the centrality of particular beliefs or practices to a faith. Cf. Hernandez v. Commissioner, 490 U.S. 680, 699. Thus, although it is constitutionally permissible to exempt sacramental peyote use from the operation of drug laws, it is not constitutionally required. Pp. 882-890 .
307 Or. 68, 763 P.2d 146, reversed.
Opinions
SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and WHITE, STEVENS, and KENNEDY, JJ., joined. O’CONNOR, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in Parts I and II of which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, and BLACKMUN, JJ., joined without concurring in the judgment, post, p. 891 . BLACKMUN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BRENNAN and MARSHALL, JJ., joined, post, p. 907 . [p*874]