Chapter 4

Front 1

incorporation doctrine

Back 1

the legal concept under which the supreme court has nationalized the bill of rights by making most of its provisions applicable to the states through the 14th amendment

Front 2

establishment clause

Back 2

part of the first amendment stating that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

Front 3

free exercise clause

Back 3

a 1st amendment provisions that prohibits governement from interfering with the practice of religion

Front 4

lemon v kurtman

Back 4

the 1971 supreme court decision that established that aid to church related schools must have a secular legislative purpose have a primary effect that neither advances no inhibits religion and not foster excessive government entanglement with religion

Front 5

zelman v simmons harris

Back 5

the 2002 supreme court decision that upheld a state providing families with vouchers that could be used to pay for tuition at religious schools

Front 6

engel v vitale

Back 6

the 1962 supreme court decision holding that state officials violated the 1st ammendment when they wrote a prayer to be recited by new yorks schoolchildren

Front 7

school district of abinton township pennsylvania v schempp

Back 7

a 1963 supremem court decision holding that a pennsylvania law requiring bible reading in schools violated the establishment clause of the first amendment

Front 8

prior restraint

Back 8

a governemnt preventing material from being published. this is a common method of limiting the press in some nations, but it is usually unconstitutional in the us according to the first amendment and as confirmed in the 1931 supreme court case of near v minnesota

Front 9

near v minnesota

Back 9

the 1931 supreme court decisions holding that the first amendment protects newspapers from prior restraint

Front 10

schenck v us

Back 10

a 1919 decision upholding the conviction of a socialist who had urged young men to resist the draft during ww1. justice holmes declared that government can limit speech if the speech provokes a "clear and present danger" of substantive evils

Front 11

Zurcher v Stanford daily

Back 11

a 1978 supreme court decision holding that a proper search warrant could be applied to a newspaper as well as to anyone else without necessarily violating the 1st amendment rights to freedom of the press

Front 12

Roth v us

Back 12

a 1957 supreme court decision ruling that "obscenity is not within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press"

Front 13

miller v california

Back 13

a 1973 supreme court decision that avoided defining obscurity by holding that community standards be used to determine whether materials to obscene in terms o appealing to a "prurient interest" and being "patiently offensive" and lacking in value

Front 14

libel

Back 14

the publication of false or malicious statements that damage someone's reputation

Front 15

New York Times v Sullivan

Back 15

this case established the guidelines for determining whether public officials and public figures could win damage suits for libel. To do so, individuals must prove that the defamatory state,emts were made with "actual malice" and reckless disregard for the truth

Front 16

Texas v Johnson

Back 16

a 1989 case in which the supreme court strucks down a law banning the burning of the american flag on the grounds that such action was symbolic speech protected by the first amendment

Front 17

symbolic speech

Back 17

nonverbal communications such as burning a flag or wearing an armband, the supreme court has accorded some symbolic speech protection under the 1st amendment

Front 18

miami herald publishing company v tornillo

Back 18

a 1974 case in which te supreme court held that a state could not force a newspaper to print replies from candidates it had criticized illustrating the limited power of government to restrict the print media

Front 19

red lion broadcasting company v federal communications commission

Back 19

a 1969 case in which the supreme court upheld restrictions on radio and television broadcasting. these restrictions on the broadcast media print media because there are only a limited number of broadcasting frequencies available

Front 20

NAACP V. Alabama

Back 20

supreme court protected the right to assemble peaceably in this 1958 case when it decided the NAACP did not have to reveal its membership list and this subject its members to harassment

Front 21

probable cause

Back 21

the situation occuring when the police have reason to believe that a person should be arrested. In making the arrest the police are allowed legally to search for seize incriminating evidence

Front 22

unreasonable searches and seizures

Back 22

obtaining evidence in a haphazard or random manner a practice prohibited by the 4th amendment probable cause and/or a search warrant are required for a legal and proper search for and seizure of incriminating evidence

Front 23

search warrant

Back 23

a written authorization from a court specifying the area to be searched and what the police are searching for

Front 24

exclusionary rule

Back 24

the rule that evidence no matter how incriminating cannot be introduced into a trial if it was not constitutionally obtained. the rule prohibits use of evidence obtained through unreasonable search and seizures

Front 25

mapp v ohio

Back 25

the 1961 supremem court decision ruling the the 4th amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures must be extended to the states as well as to the federal government

Front 26

5th amendment

Back 26

constitutional amendment designed to protect the rights of persons accused of crimes including protection against double jeopardy self incrimination and punishment without due process of law

Front 27

self incrimination

Back 27

the situation occurring when an individual accused of a crime is compelled to be a witness against himself or herself in court. the 5h amendment forbids self incrimination

Front 28

miranda v arizona

Back 28

the 1966 supreme court decision that sets guidelines for police questioning of accused persons to protect them against self incrimination and to protect their right to counsel

Front 29

6th amendment

Back 29

a constitutional amendment designed to prtect individuals accused of crimes. it includes the right to counsel the right to confront witnesses and the right to specify and public trial

Front 30

gideon v wainwright

Back 30

the 1963 supreme court decision holding that anyone accused of a felony where imprisonment may be imposed however poor he or she might be has a right to a lawyer 6th amendment.

Front 31

plea bargaining

Back 31

a bargain struck between the defendant's lawyer and the prosecuter to the effect that the defendent will plead guilty to a lessor crime in exchange for the state's promise not to prosecute the defending for a more serious crime

Front 32

8th amendment

Back 32

forbids cruel and unusual punishment

Front 33

cruel and unusual punishment

Back 33

8th amendment

Front 34

gredd v georgia

Back 34

decision that upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty stating it is an extreme sanction suitable to the most extreme of crimes the court did not therefore believe that the death sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment

Front 35

McCleskey v kemp

Back 35

upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty against charges that it violated the 14t amendment because minority defendants were more likely to receive the death penalty that were white defendants

Front 36

right to privacy

Back 36

the right of a private personal life free from the intrusion government

Front 37

roe v wade

Back 37

holding that a state ban on all abortions was unconstitutional. the decision forbade state control over abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy

Front 38

Planned parenthood v casey

Back 38

a 1992 case in which supreme court loosened its standards for evaluating restrictions on abortion from one of strict scrutiny of any restraints on a fundamental right to one of undue burden that permits considerably more regulation