Ch 4- Civil Liberties-Test 1 Gov

Front 1

civil liberties

Back 1

protections of citizens from unwarranted gov't action

Front 2

Civil Rights

Back 2

gov't's responsibility to protect citizens. has to do w/ whether members of certain groups are treated equally

Front 3

1st amendment

Back 3

speech assembly, religion, petition, press

Front 4

5th amendment

Back 4

self-incrimination, double jeopardy, due process

Front 5

6th amendment

Back 5

counsel, prompt & reasonable proceedings

Front 6

8th amendment

Back 6

bail, cruel & unusual punishment

Front 7

Barron v. Baltimore

Back 7

1st 10 amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to state government

Front 8

due process clause

Back 8

"no state shall...deprive any person of life liberty or property w/o due process of law.

Front 9

Gitlow v. NY

Back 9

upheld NY law that made it illegal to advocate the violent overthrow of the U.S. Government.

Front 10

Selective Incorporation

Back 10

process where certain parts of the rights contained in the Bill of Rights become applicable through the 14th amendment to action by the state government

Front 11

clear & present danger test

Back 11

gov't has to clearly demonstrate that spoken or written expression presents a clear & present danger before it can prohibit expression

Front 12

imminet lawless action

Back 12

refinement of clear & present danger test that allows individuals more latitude in what they say.

1) speech must be "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action.

2) must be "likely to produce such action"

Front 13

prior restraint

Back 13

gov't prohibition of speech or publication before it occurs

Front 14

libel

Back 14

written/published speech

Front 15

slander

Back 15

spoken speech

Front 16

establishment clause

Back 16

gov't may not favor 1 religion over another or support region over no religion

Front 17

Engel V. Vitale

Back 17

prohibits reciting prayer in public schools. establishment clause,

Front 18

Lemon v. kurtzman

Back 18

court case involving state funding of the salaries of religious instructors who teach secular subjects, (ex. math & english). articulated a 3-prong test

Front 19

lemon test

Back 19

1) must have a secular purpose.

2) Principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances or inhibits religion

3) Statute must not foster "an excessive gov't entanglement w/ religion.

Front 20

procedural due process

Back 20

refers to procedures that authorities must follow before a person can lawfully be punished for an offense.

Front 21

exclusionary rule

Back 21

bars use of evidence obtained in violation of the defendan't's rights

Front 22

4th amendment

Back 22

protects Americans from unreasonable searches, seizure, &arrest

Front 23

substantive liberties

Back 23

restraints on what the government shall and shall not have the power to do

Front 24

proceduarl liberties

Back 24

how the gov't is supposed to act when it acts

Front 25

14th amendment

Back 25

Everyone (including former slaves) born or naturalized in the U.S. is a citizen of the country, as well as the state they live in.

Front 26

free-excercise clause

Back 26

prohibits the gov't interference w/ "exercise of religion

Front 27

9th amendment

Back 27

1.

Front 28

scheck v. US

Back 28

invented the famous "clear and present danger" test to determine when a state could constitutionally limit an individual's free speech rights under the First Amendment.

Front 29

brandenburng v. ohio

Back 29

held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action

Front 30

protected speech

Back 30

the truth, political speech, symbolic speech

Front 31

unprotected speech

Back 31

libel, slander, obscenity, fighting words, imminent lawless action

Front 32

2nd Amendment Cases

Back 32

-DC v. Heller

-Mcdonald v. Chicago

Front 33

4th amendment cases

Back 33

-Katz v US

-Mapp V Ohio

Front 34

"reasonable expectancy of privacy" test

Back 34

legal test which is crucial in defining the scope of the applicability of the privacy protections of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Front 35

5th amendment cases

Back 35

-Miranda v. Arizona

-Griffin v. California

Front 36

6th amendment cases

Back 36

Gideon v. Wainwright

Front 37

8th amendment cases

Back 37

-Witherspoon v. IL

- Panetti v. Quarterman

Front 38

miranda rule

Back 38

warning given by police in the United States to criminal suspects in police custody (or in a custodial interrogation) before they are interrogated to preserve the admissibility of their statements against them in criminal proceedings

Front 39

right to privacy

Back 39

human right and an element of various legal traditions which may restrain both government and private party action that threatens the privacy of individuals.

Front 40

Griswold v. Connecticut

Back 40

ruled that a state's ban on the use of contraceptives violated the right to marital privacy.

Front 41

Roe V. Wade

Back 41

ruled unconstitutional a state law that banned abortions except to save the life of the mother. The Court ruled that the states were forbidden

Front 42

Planned Parenthood v. Casey

Back 42

ruled, however, that states may regulate abortions so as to protect the health of the mother and the life of the fetus, and may outlaw abortions of "viable" fetuses.

Front 43

zone of privacy

Back 43

refers to a set of distinctive privacy rights that are protected by the constitution

Front 44

Katz v. US

Back 44

-ruled that a search occurs when 1) a person expects privacy in the thing searched and 2) society believes that expectation is reasonable

Front 45

Mapp v. Ohio

Back 45

decided that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures," may not be used in state or federal law criminal prosecutions

Front 46

Miranda v arizona

Back 46

ruled that detained criminal suspects, prior to police questioning, must be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self-incrimination.

Front 47

griffin v. california

Back 47

it is a violation of a defendant's Fifth Amendment rights for the prosecutor to comment to the jury on the defendant's declining to testify, or for the judge to instruct the jury that such silence is evidence of guilt.

Front 48

Gideon v Wainwright

Back 48

ruled that the Constitution requires the states to provide defense attorneys to criminal defendants charged with serious offenses who cannot afford lawyers themselves.

Front 49

DC v. Heller

Back 49

that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

Front 50

Mcdonald v. Chicago

Back 50

determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states.

Front 51

Miller v. California

Back 51

decision wherein the court redefined its definition of obscenity from that of “utterly without socially redeeming value” to that that lacks "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."

Front 52

Witherspoon v. IL

Back 52

ruled that a state statuteproviding the state unlimited challenge for cause of jurors who might have any objection to the death penalty gave too much bias in favor of the prosecution.

Front 53

Panetti v. Quarterman

Back 53

decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, ruling that criminal defendants sentenced to death may not be executed if they do not understand the reason for their imminent execution, and that once the state has set an execution date death-row inmates may litigate their competency to be executed in habeas corpus proceedings.

Front 54

New York Times v. US

Back 54

gov't can't stop you from publishing leaked info, (prior restraint)