Catsandbeer.com

Constitutional law is boring!!!! Here’s a way to make it fun – Supreme Court Mad Libs!

Let’s rewrite some famous opinions in our own wacky way! Can we get sued for calling these “Mad Libs?” Maybe the Supreme Court can tell us! Today’s fun case is the Court’s opinion on Federal Commuications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation (1978).

1. Your name _________________
2. Job title ___________________
3. Silly name __________________
4. Adverb ____________________
5. Adjective___________________
6. Verb ______________________
7. Noun ______________________
8. Adjective ___________________
9. Noun ______________________
10. 2 Plural nouns ______ ,� _______
11. Adjective ___________________
12. Supreme Court Ruling _________
13. 2 Numbers _______ , __________
14. Year _______________________
15. Noun ______________________
16. Noun ______________________
17. Adjective ___________________
18. Plural Noun _________________
19. Adverb _____________________
20. Verb ______________________
21. Noun ______________________

Justice (__1__) delivers the opinion of the Court, with whom the (__2__) and Justice (__3__) join.

…Second, broadcasting is (__4__) (__5__) to children, even those too young to (__6__). Although Cohen’s written message might have been incomprehensible to a first grader, Pacifica’s broadcast could have enlarged a child’s (__7__) in an instant. Other forms of (__8__) expression may be withheld from the young without restricting the expression at its (__9__). (__10__) and (__10__), for example, may be prohibited from making (__11__) material available to children. We held in (__12__), (__13__) U.S. (__13__) [(__14__)], that the government’s interest in the “well-being of its (__15__)” and in supporting “parents’ claim to (__16__) in their own household” justified the regulation of otherwise (__17__) expression. The ease with which (__18__) may obtain access to broadcast material, coupled with the concerns recognized in (__12__), (__19__) (__20__) special treatment of indecent (__21__).