Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key


Play button


Play button




Click to flip

213 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Who chooses the members of the House of Representatives?
Art 1, Sect 2 All members shall be selected by the people
What was the "three-fifths clasue?"
Three fifths of the slave population will be counted towards state size in the house of representatives (Art 1. Sect. 2)
Who originally appointed Senators
Originally, senators were selected by the state legislatures
What did the 17th amendment of 1913 change?
It created direct elections for Senators
What is the term of a member of the House of Representatives
There are not term limits, but each representative must be re-elected every 2 years
What is the term of a Senator?
There is not a term limit of senators, but each must be re-elected every 6 years
What proportion of the Senate can be chosen every two years?
How does staggered term limits effect popular sovereignty?
It makes it so that the people can only gradually change the senate, and in turn the nation.
Who appoints the electors for the President?
Party leaders pick the most senior, unbiased electors who will faithfully fulfill their duty.
How many terms can a president serve?
2 terms total
What did the 15th amendment do?
Gave blacks the right to vote
What did the 19th amendment do?
Gave women the right to vote
What did the 24th amendment do?
Lowered the voting age to 18
Which branch government makes laws?
The legislative branch, comprised of the House and Senate
How do federal judges get their jobs?
They are recommended by the President and approved by the senate.
What branch of government exercises the executive powers?
The Presidency
Which branch of government exercise the judicial powers?
The Judicial branch
What does the 1st amendment do?
First Amendment protects freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and freedom to petition gov'
What does the 2nd amendment do?
Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, though it seems to focus on organized militias
What does the 3rd amendment do?
Third amendment prohibits government from forcing citizens to house soldiers in peacetime
What does the 4th amendment do?
Fourth amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures
What does the 5th amendment do?
• Fifth amendment protects citizens from unfair criminal prosecution:
○ Requires indictment by grand jury
○ Prohibits double-jeopardy
○ Prohibits forced self-incrimination
○ Prohibits taking of life, liberty or property without due process of law
○ Prohibits taking private property for public use without compensation
What does the 6th amendment do?
• Sixth Amendment guarantees a fair trial
○ Guarantees speedy and public trial
○ Guarantees trial by jury in criminal cases
○ Requires notice of charges
○ Guarantees right of accused to confront witnesses against him or her
○ Provides right of defendant to subpoena witnesses
○ Guarantees right to council
what does the 7th amendment do?
Seventh Amendment guarantees right to trial by jury in cases exceeding twenty dollars
What does the 8th amendment do?
Eight Amendment prohibits excessive bail, excessive fines, and cruel and unusual punishment
What does the 9th amendment do?
Ninth Amendment: "There might be more…"
What does the 10th amendment do?
Tenth Amendment: Reserved Powers
What does the 14th amendment do?
Creates incorporation, equal protection clause, and destroys 3/5 clause
Why was the Bill of Rights added to the Constitution?
To appease the people as well as the anti-federalists, who wanted the protection of the state and individuals
How many times has the Constitution been amended in order to overturn Supreme Court decisions?
How many times has the Constitution been amended in all?
When was the Bill of Rights added to the Constitution?
December 15, 1791
What courts do the Supreme Court’s cases usually come
Most cases come to the Supreme Court on appeal from lower federal courts or state supreme courts.
What is the role of the President in amending the Constitution?
The President has no formal role in amending the constitution, but can put his weight behind an amendment to help it pass
What are the two ways in which amendments to the Constitution can be ratified?
The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states.

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments.
Who may propose amendments to the Constitution?
Congress or a national convention called for by the state legislatures.
What is the Bill of Rights?
The First 10 amendments to the Constitution
1. Did the Bill of Rights originally apply to the states, or only to the national government?
The Federal Government only
In Barron v. Baltimore (1883), how had the city of Baltimore harmed Barron?
Barron sued the mayor of Baltimore for damages, claiming that when the city had diverted the flow of streams while engaging in street construction, it had created mounds of sand and earth near his wharf making the water too shallow for most vessels.
In Barron v. Baltimore (1883), what part of the Bill of Rights did Barron claim that Baltimore had violated?
The Fifth Amendment
In Barron v. Baltimore (1883), did the Supreme Court rule that states and cities must abide by the limitations in the Bill of Rights?
No, the court ruled that the Constitution only applied to the Federal Government
In Barron v. Baltimore (1883), what reasons did Chief Justice Marshall give to justify this decision?
Chief Justice John Marshall held that the first ten "amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them."
In Hurtado v. California (1884), what crime was Joseph Hurtado accused of?
Hurtado was accused of fatally shooting Estuardo.
In Hurtado v. California (1884), what right did Hurtado claim that California had deprived him of?
The right to indictment by Grand Jury
In Hurtado v. California (1884), did the Supreme Court agree that California had violated the 14th Amendment’s requirement of due process?
The Supreme Court ruled 7-1 that Hurtado’s due process right was not violated by denial of a grand jury hearing and that the 14th Amendment was not intended to work retroactively to apply the 5th Amendment to state criminal trials.
In Hurtado v. California (1884), did the Court agree that the “due process” clause of the 14th amendment placed any enforceable restrictions on states?
The Supreme Court has held that the amendment's Due Process Clause incorporates all of the substantive protections of the First, Fourth and Sixth Amendments, the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment (except for its Grand Jury Clause). The Seventh Amendment has not been held to be applicable to the states.
In Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad v. Chicago (1897), how did the railroad claim that Chicago had mistreated it?
They claimed that the state had been compensating citizens more than the railroads.
In Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad v. Chicago (1897), what element of the Bill of Rights did the railroad claim Chicago had violated?
Through the Due Process Clause, Chicago violated the railroad's Fifth Amendment right to just compensation.
In Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad v. Chicago (1897), did the Supreme Court agree that states must abide by this element of the Bill of Rights?
This case marked the first time that the Court 'incorporated' a specific provision of the Bill of Rights – the "just compensation" requirement of the Fifth Amendment – through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applied that requirement to the states. This approach set the stage for further incorporation of other Bill of Rights provisions.
In Twining v. New Jersey (1908), how did the Court’s opinion in this case move toward selective incorporation?
The court cited the decision in the Slaughter-house cases that the language in the 14th Amendment, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...", did not curtail state power. The Supreme Court voted 8 to 1 that the 5th Amendment rights to not self incriminate applied only to federal court cases.
Which limitation in the Bill of Rights did Gitlow v. New York (1925) apply to the states?
Does the First Amendment apply to the states? Yes, by virtue of the liberty protected by due process that no state shall deny (14th Amendment). On the merits, a state may forbid both speech and publication if they have a tendency to result in action dangerous to public security, even though such utterances create no clear and present danger. The rationale of the majority has sometimes been called the "dangerous tendency" test.
In Palko v. Connecticut (1937), of what crime was Frank Palka accused?
Frank Palko had been charged with first-degree murder.
In Palko v. Connecticut (1937), what action by the state of Connecticut did Palka claim had violated his rights?
Palko was convicted instead of second-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The state of Connecticut appealed and won a new trial; this time the court found Palko guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced him to death. Palko argues that his second conviction violates the protection against double jeopardy guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment because this protection applies to the states by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause
In Palko v. Connecticut (1937), did the Supreme Court agree that Connecticut had violated his rights?
The Supreme Court upheld Palko's second conviction.
In Palko v. Connecticut (1937), according to the Court’s opinion in this case, does the 14th amendment incorporate all the elements of the original Bill of Rights?
The Supreme Court upheld Palko's second conviction. In his majority opinion, Cardozo formulated principles that were to direct the Court's actions for the next three decades. He noted that some Bill of Rights guarantees--such as freedom of thought and speech--are fundamental, and that the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause absorbed these fundamental rights and applied them to the states. Protection against double jeopardy was not a fundamental right.
In Palko v. Connecticut (1937), according to the Court’s opinion in this case, what distinguishes the elements of the Bill of Rights that are incorporated into the 14th amendment from those that the states are not required to obey
They must be fundamental human rights
Who sets the qualifications to get to vote in elections for the House of Representatives?
The Constitution
What are the Legislative Powers of Congress?
1. Expressed Powers:
* Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution state the Exact Powers of Congress
*The Powers Stated in the Constitution are called Expressed Powers
*The most Important Powers deal with Raising Money and Deciding how the Money is Spent.

All Bills that concern Money are called Appropriation Bills and must start in the House.
2. Implied Powers
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 states....
Congress shall make all laws which shall be
Necessary and Proper for carrying into Execution....

This Gives Congress a lot of Power
For Example:
* Building roads for the Post Office
* Buying Trucks and Airplanes for Postal Service
* Hiring People to work -- etc
Non-Legislative Powers:
1. Impeaching Officials
2. Amending the Constitution
2/3 Vote by Members of Congress
3/4 Approved by State Legislatures
3. Giving Advice and Consent
4. Conduction Investigations
5. Choosing Executive Leaders
Powers Denied Congress
Congress Cannot
1. Pass Ex Post Facto Laws
2. Withhold a Writ of Habeas Corpus
What are the Executive Powers of the Presidency?
○ Formal Powers
§ Specific Powers
□ Head of State
□ Veto Power
§ Power to Pardon
□ Ford pardoned Nixon
□ Carter pardoned Draft Dodgers
□ Bush I and Weinberger
□ Clinton and Mark Rick
□ Bush II and Scooter Libby
§ Powers Shared with Senate
□ Power to make appointments
® Federal Judges
® Cabinet Members
® Ambassadors
□ Power to make treaties
® 2/3 requirement for ratification
○ Vague Formal Powers
§ The Executive Power
□ "The executive power shall be vested in a president of the united states of America" Article II, Section 1
§ The Executive Order
□ A signed presidential directive that has the force of law
® The Emancipation Proclamation
® Executive Order 9066: The Internment of Japanese Americans
□ Harry Truman
® Integration of the U.S. Military
® Seizure of the Steel Plants
◊ Due to a planned strike
◊ Youngstown v. Sawyer, 1952
► Ruled unconstitutional
□ Kennedy and Public Housing
® Fair housing only in the public housing sphere
□ Bush I and the Gag Rule
® Abortion
□ Bush II and Presidential Documents
® Froze access to all presidential documents going back to Reagan
§ Commander in Chief
□ The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States, Article I, Section 2
In Duncan v. Louisiana (1968), what was the maximum sentence for simple battery, the crime of which Gary Duncan was accused?
Duncan was arrested and ultimately charged with simple battery. As it is punishable by no more than two years, simple battery is a misdemeanor under Louisiana law and therefore not subject to trial by jury.
In Duncan v. Louisiana (1968), what right had Louisiana failed to furnish to Duncan?
Duncan's request for a jury trial was denied. He appealed on the grounds that the state had violated the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments guaranteeing his right to a jury trial.
In Duncan v. Louisiana (1968), did the Supreme Court rule in favor of Duncan or of Louisana?
In a 7-to-2 decision, the Court held that the Sixth Amendment guarantee of trial by jury in criminal cases was "fundamental to the American scheme of justice," and that the states were obligated under the Fourteenth Amendment to provide such trials.
In Duncan v. Louisiana (1968), what element of the Bill of Rights did this case incorporate into the 14th Amendment?
The case incorporated the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury through the 14th amendment
What does the text of the Second Amendment say?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Which part of the text is emphasized by advocates of gun control?
Gun control emphasizes the first half of the text "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"
Which part of the text is emphasized by advocates of gun ownership?
Gun Right activists emphasize the second half of the text of the amendment "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
In United States v. Miller (1939), what sort of weapon were Layton and Miller carrying?
Sawed off shotguns
In United States v. Miller (1939), what law were they charged with violating?
Transporting guns across state lines.
In United States v. Miller (1939), according to the Court’s decision in this case, what is the “obvious purpose” of the Second Amendment?
With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
In United States v. Miller (1939), did the Court rule that Layton and Miller’s possession of this weapon was protected by the Second Amendment?
The Supreme Court declared that no conflict between the NFA and the Second Amendment had been established
In D.C. v. Heller, what did the DC gun law prohibit?
In D.C. v Heller, according to Scalia’s opinion, does the Second Amendment guarantee an individual’s right to own and possess weapons outside of an organized militia?
The Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The Court based its holding on the text of the Second Amendment, as well as applicable language in state constitutions adopted soon after the Second Amendment.
In U.S. v. Carolene Products (1938), What does footnote 4 identify as situations in which the Court may scrutinize laws especially aggressive.
1. On its face violates a provision of the Constitution (facial challenge).
Attempts to distort or rig the political process.
Discriminates against minorities, particularly those who lack sufficient numbers or power to seek redress through the political process.
According to the Court’s decision in U.S. v. Ballard (1944), what is the criterion for determining whether a “religion” qualifies for protection under the first amendment?
Freedom of religious belief... embraces the right to maintain theories of life and of death and of the hereafter which are rank heresy to followers of the orthodox faiths.
What sort of belief must a person have in order to qualify for an exemption to military service based on religious grounds?
Beliefs which qualify a registrant for conscientious objector status may be religious in nature, but don't have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical; however, a man's reasons for not wanting to participate in a war must not be based on politics, expediency, or self-interest. In general, the man's lifestyle prior to making his claim must reflect his current claims.
Has religious freedom always been respected in the United States? What laws did the early colonies and states have that restricted religious freedom?
A lot of mormons and other odd ball religions were persecuted in the early colonies
What was the limit of the government’s authority to regulate religion, according to Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association?
Jefferson wished for a wall of separation between church and state, neither helping nor hindering a religion in any way.
In Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940), what religion did Cantwell and his sons follow?
They were Jehovah's Witnesses
In Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940), what law had the Cantwell’s broken?
he Cantwells were subsequently arrested for violating a local ordinance requiring a permit for solicitation and for inciting a breach of the peace.
In Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940), how did this law infringe their right to exercise their religion, according to the Cantwells?
The solicitation statute or the "breach of the peace" ordinance violate the Cantwells' First Amendment free speech or free exercise rights
In Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940), what determination did this law require the secretary of the Public Welfare Council to make?
In a unanimous decision, the Court held that while general regulations on solicitation were legitimate, restrictions based on religious grounds were not. Because the statute allowed local officials to determine which causes were religious and which ones were not, it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court also held that while the maintenance of public order was a valid state interest, it could not be used to justify the suppression of "free communication of views." The Cantwells' message, while offensive to many, did not entail any threat of "bodily harm" and was protected religious speech.
What is the “valid secular policy” test?
– if there is a legitimate state interest, then regulations are allowed, even if they conflict with religious practices.
How did this “valid secular policy” test help the Court resolve the case of Minersville Schools District v. Gobitis?
The Court held that the state's interest in "national cohesion" was "inferior to none in the hierarchy of legal values".
Was the Massachusetts law that prohibited minor children from selling anything on the streets deemed to be a “valid secular policy”? Was the law upheld or overturned?
The Supreme Court upheld Massachusetts' laws restricting the abilities of children to sell religious literature. The decision asserted that the government has broad authority to regulate the actions and treatment of children. Parental authority is not absolute and can be permissibly restricted if doing so is in the interests of a child's welfare. While children share many of the rights of adults, they face different potential harms from similar activities.
In Braunfeld v. Brown (1961), why did Abraham Braunfeld want to keep his clothing store open on Sundays?
He kept his store open on Sundays because he couldn't work on Saturdays due to his faith (Jewish)
In Braunfeld v. Brown (1961), what was the “valid secular policy” goal of the Sunday closing laws, according to Chief Justice Warren’s opinion?
The law provided a unitary, secular day of rest, and that was valid in the court's eyes
In Braunfeld v. Brown (1961), what further requirement does Chief Justice Warren’s opinion impose on states, beyond the valid secular policy test?
If there is an easier way to impose the same secular goal without burdening a religion, then the law is illegal.
In Sherbert v. Verner (1963), how did Adell Sherbert claim that her religious freedom was infringed by South Carolina's laws on unemployment?
The South Carolina Employment Security Commission denied her benefits, finding unacceptable her religious justification for refusing Saturday work. This in turn infringed her relgious freedom to hold the Sabbath on Saturday
In Sherbert v. Verner (1963), did the Court (In Brennan’s majority opinion) agree that this law burdened her religious freedom?
The Court held that the state's eligibility restrictions for unemployment compensation imposed a significant burden on Sherbert's ability to freely exercise her faith. Furthermore, there was no compelling state interest which justified such a substantial burden on this basic First Amendment right.
In Sherbert v. Verner (1963), did the Court assert that South Carolina’s policy did not serve a “valid secular policy”?
The Court felt that the policy was secular and valid, but could be handled in a way less burdensome than the current law
In Sherbert v. Verner (1963), according to Brennan’s majority opinion, what sort of interest must a state have in order to pass a law that burden’s the free exercise of religion?
The case established the Sherbert Test, requiring demonstration of such a compelling governmental interest in Free Exercise cases.
In Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), what Wisconsin law was challenged in this case?
Jonas Yoder and Wallace Miller, both members of the Old Order Amish religion, and Adin Yutzy, a member of the Conservative Amish Mennonite Church, were prosecuted under a Wisconsin law that required all children to attend public schools until age 16. The three parents refused to send their children to such schools after the eighth grade, arguing that high school attendance was contrary to their religious beliefs.
In Bob Jones University v. United States (1982), What policies of Bob Jones University led the IRS to withdraw it tax exempt status?
Bob Jones University was dedicated to "fundamentalist Christian beliefs" which included prohibitions against interracial dating and marriage. Such behavior would lead to expulsion. In 1970, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) changed its formal policy to adopt a district court decision that prohibited the IRS from giving tax-exempt status to private schools engaging in racial discrimination. The IRS believed that the University's policies amounted to racism and revoked its tax-exempt status.
In Bob Jones University v. United States (1982), how did Bob Jones University defend its policies?
The University claimed that the IRS had abridged its religious liberty.
In Bob Jones University v. United States (1982), did the Court rule that the university’s right to exercise its religion was infringed by the IRS policy?
The Court found that the IRS was correct in its decision to revoke the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University and the Goldsboro Christian School. These institutions did not meet the requirement by providing "beneficial and stabilizing influences in community life" to be supported by taxpayers with a special tax status. The schools could not meet this requirement due to their discriminatory policies. The Court declared that racial discrimination in education violated a "fundamental national public policy." The government may justify a limitation on religious liberties by showing it is necessary to accomplish an "overriding governmental interest." Prohibiting racial discrimination was such a governmental interest. Hence, the Court found that "not all burdens on religion are unconstitutional."
In Goldman v. Weinberger (1986), What were some of the reasons the Court allowed the Air Force to prohibit Captain Goldman from wearing a yarmulke while on duty?
ustice Rehnquist argued that, generally, First Amendment challenges to military regulations are examined with less scrutiny than similar challenges from civilian society, given the need for the military to "foster instinctive obedience, unity, commitment, and esprit de corps." Since allowing overt religious apparel "would detract from the uniformity sought by dress regulations," the Air Force regulation was necessary and legitimate.
In Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (1990), how had the state of Oregon punish Smith and Black for their use of peyote?
Two Native Americans who worked as counselors for a private drug rehabilitation organization, ingested peyote -- a powerful hallucinogen -- as part of their religious ceremonies as members of the Native American Church. As a result of this conduct, the rehabilitation organization fired the counselors. The counselors filed a claim for unemployment compensation. The government denied them benefits because the reason for their dismissal was considered work-related "misconduct."
In Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (1990), why did Smith and Black assert that this action infringed their religious liberty?
They asserted they only ingested the drugs as part of their religious ceremonies
In Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (1990), how does Justice Scalia change the standard that the Court uses to decide religious freedom cases?
The Court held that the First Amendment's protection of the "free exercise" of religion does not allow a person to use a religious motivation as a reason not to obey such generally applicable laws. "To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."
In Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (1990), what would be the consequences, according to Scalia, of ruling that states could not enforce laws that burden religious freedom unless those laws are the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling governmental interest?
The Court had held that religious beliefs did not excuse people from complying with laws forbidding polygamy, child labor laws, Sunday closing laws, laws requiring citizens to register for Selective Service, and laws requiring the payment of Social Security taxes.
In Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993), what did the Hialeah ordinances challenged in this lawsuit prohibit?
The ordinances prohibited possession of animals for sacrifice or slaughter, with specific exemptions for state-licensed activities.
In Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993), did the Court uphold or overturn these ordinances in question?
The Court held that the ordinances were neither neutral nor generally applicable. The ordinances had to be justified by a compelling governmental interest and they had to be narrowly tailored to that interest. The core failure of the ordinances were that they applied exclusively to the church. The ordinances singled out the activities of the Santeria faith and suppressed more religious conduct than was necessary to achieve their stated ends. Only conduct tied to religious belief was burdened. The ordinances targeted religious behavior, therefore they failed to survive the rigors of strict strutiny.
How did Congress react to the Court’s decision in Employment Division v. Smith?
They passed The Religious Freedom Restoration Act in which “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.”
In the case of Bradwell v. Roberts (1899) the government allowed to give money to help build a hospital that would be run by Catholic nuns? Why or why not?
The government allowed for the creation of the hospital becuase public health is a legitimate governmental interest
In Everson v. Board of education (1947), what practice by Ewing Township was challenged as a violation of the Establishment Clause?
A New Jersey law allowed reimbursements of money to parents who sent their children to school on buses operated by the public transportation system. Children who attended Catholic schools also qualified for this transportation subsidy.
In Everson v. Board of education (1947), with what city-sponsored services does Justice Black compare providing transportation to schools?
Justice Black argued that services like bussing and police and fire protection for parochial schools are "separate and so indisputably marked off from the religious function" that for the state to provide them would not violate the First Amendment.
In Everson v. Board of education (1947), does the Court allow the township to continue providing transportation to children attending private schools?
What is a “separationist” interpretation of the Religious Establishment clause?
That there should be a clear wall between church and state, and that the state should in no way help churches.
What is an “accommodationist” interpretation of the Religious Establishment clause?
That the state should not favor one religion over another, but should help them equally
What test for determining whether a law violated the establishment clause did Justice Clark set out in the Abington Township case?
Justice Clark continued that the Court was of the feeling that no matter the religious nature of the citizenry, the government at all levels, as required by the Constitution, must remain neutral in matters of religion "while protecting all, prefer[ring] none, and disparag[ing] none".
In Walz v. Tax Commission of the State of New York (1970), are states allowed to exempt churches from property taxes?
In a 7-to-1 decision, the Court held that the exemptions did not violate the Establishment Clause.
In Walz v. Tax Commission of the State of New York (1970), what element did Justice Burger add to the test Clark set out in Abington v. Schempp?
That a law created only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state,
In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), what was the Pennsylvania program challenged in this case?
n Pennsylvania, a statute provided financial support for teacher salaries, textbooks, and instructional materials for secular subjects to non-public schools.
In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), what was the Rhode Island program challenged in this case?
The Rhode Island statute provided direct supplemental salary payments to teachers in non-public elementary schools.
In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), what three tests did Burger set out for determining whether state aid to religion violates the establishment clause?
o be constitutional, a statute must have "a secular legislative purpose," it must have principal effects which neither advance nor inhibit religion, and it must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."
In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), why did Burger conclude that the Rhode Island program excessively entangled the state with the catholic schools?
The entanglement in the Rhode Island program arises because of the religious activity and purpose of the church-affiliated schools, especially with respect to children of impressionable age in the primary grades, and the dangers that a teacher under religious control and discipline poses to the separation of religious from purely secular aspects of elementary education in such schools. These factors require continuing state surveillance to ensure that the statutory restrictions are obeyed and the First Amendment otherwise respected.
In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), why did Burger conclude that the Pennsylvania program excessively entangled the state with the catholic schools?
The entanglement in the Pennsylvania program also arises from the restrictions and surveillance necessary to ensure that teachers play a strictly nonideological role and the state supervision of nonpublic school accounting procedures required to establish the cost of secular, as distinguished from religious, education. In addition, the Pennsylvania statute has the further defect of providing continuing financial aid directly to the church-related schools. Historically, governmental control and surveillance measures tend to follow cash grant programs, and here the government's post-audit power to inspect the financial records of church-related schools creates an intimate and continuing relationship between church and state.
What sorts of prayers were declared unconstitutional in Engel v. Vitale?
The court decided that government-directed prayer in public schools was an unconstitutional violation of the Establishment Clause.
In Abington v. Schempp (1963), what practice was challenged in this case?
At the beginning of the school day, students who attended public schools in the state of Pennsylvania were required to read at least ten verses from the Bible.
In Abington v. Schempp (1963), did the students have to participate in this practice?
No, it was optional.
In Abington v. Schempp (1963), what was the solution offered for students who found this practice objectionable on religious grounds?
Students could be excluded from these exercises by a written note from their parents to the school.
In Abington v. Schempp (1963), did the Supreme Court uphold the practice, or declare it unconstitutional?
The required activities encroached on both the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment since the readings and recitations were essentially religious ceremonies and were "intended by the State to be so." Furthermore, argued Justice Clark, the ability of a parent to excuse a child from these ceremonies by a written note was irrelevant since it did not prevent the school's actions from violating the Establishment Clause.
In Abington v. Schempp (1963), did the Court accept the argument that eliminating Bible readings would in effect establish a “religion of secularism”?
They rejected such arguments. Justice Stewart proposed this idea in his dissent.
In Abington v. Schempp (1963), according to Justice Stewart’s dissent, what element is necessary in order to show an unconstitutional establishment of religion?
Justice Stewart expressed his views that the state should only find laws that advance religion unequally unconstitutional
In Wallace v. Jaffree (1985), what practice was challenged in this case?
An Alabama law authorized teachers to conduct regular religious prayer services and activities in school classrooms during the school day. Three of Jaffree's children attended public schools in Mobile.
In Wallace v. Jaffree (1985), did the Supreme Court uphold or overturn the Alabama law?
The Court determined the constitutionality of Alabama's prayer and meditation statute by applying the secular purpose test, which asked if the state's actual purpose was to endorse or disapprove of religion. The Court held that Alabama's passage of the prayer and meditation statute was not only a deviation from the state's duty to maintain absolute neutrality toward religion, but was an affirmative endorsement of religion. As such, the statute clearly lacked any secular purpose as it sought to establish religion in public schools, thereby violating the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.
In Wallace v. Jaffree (1985), according to the Court, which element of the Lemon Test did the Alabama law fail?
The Court held that Alabama's passage of the prayer and meditation statute was not only a deviation from the state's duty to maintain absolute neutrality toward religion, but was an affirmative endorsement of religion.
In Wallace v. Jaffree (1985), According to Rehnquist’s dissent in Wallace v. Jaffree, what does the Establishment Clause prohibit?
The Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson’s misleading metaphor for nearly forty years. Jefferson was in France when the Bill of Rights was passed and his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy. The intent as expressed by Madison was against the establishment of a ‘national’ religion and not the divorce and barrier actions that have been interpreted under modern constitutional law.
In Lee v. Weisman (1992), What school practice was challenged in this case?
In keeping with the practice of several other public middle and high school principals in Providence, Rhode Island, Robert E. Lee, a middle school principal, invited a rabbi to speak at his school's graduation ceremony.
In Lee v. Weisman (1992), how did this practice coerce students to participate in a religious activity?
While not officially mandatory, attending graduation ceremonies might as well be.
In Lee v. Weisman (1992), did the Court uphold the practice that was challenged in this case?
In Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000), what was the context of the prayer at issue in this case? Where did the prayer take place?
Prior to 1995, a student elected as Santa Fe High School's student council chaplain delivered a prayer, described as overtly Christian, over the public address system before each home varsity football game.
In Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000), who led the prayer?
A student elected representative
In Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000), how was it decided whether there would be prayers at these events, and who would lead the prayers?
The student body voted if there would be prayers, and then elected a leader
In Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000), why did the Court find this prayer unconstitutional? That is, according to the majority, how did this prayer violate the Constitution?
The Court concluded that the football game prayers were public speech authorized by a government policy and taking place on government property at government-sponsored school-related events and that the District's policy involved both perceived and actual government endorsement of the delivery of prayer at important school events. Such speech is not properly characterized as "private," wrote Justice Stevens for the majority.
Do short or long terms of office make representatives more attentive to the people?
Short terms because they are more worried about elections right around the corner.
How many cases was the Supreme Court asked to review in the 2007-08 term?
How many cases did the Supreme Court write an opinion for in 2007-08?
What sort of display was upheld in Lynch v. Donnelly?
he display included such objects as a Santa Claus house, a Christmas tree, a banner reading "Seasons Greetings," and a nativity scene. The crèche had been included in the display for over 40 years.
In Lynch v. Donnelly (1985), what was “of special importance” to the majority about the display
he Court found that the display, viewed in the context of the holiday season, was not a purposeful or surreptitious effort to advocate a particular religious message. The Court found that the display merely depicted the historical origins of the Holiday and had "legitimate secular purposes." The Court held that the symbols posed no danger of establishing a state church and that it was "far too late in the day to impose a crabbed reading of the [Establishment] Clause on the country."
According to County of Allegheny v. ACLU, what factors determine whether a government-supported holiday display including religious elements is constitutional?
The Court also held, however, that not all religious celebrations on government property violated the Establishment Clause. Six of the justices concluded that the display involving the menorah was constitutionally legitimate given its "particular physical setting."
In Van Orden v. Perry (2005), what monument on the State of Texas capitol grounds was the subject of this case?
Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the state capitol building building
In Van Orden v. Perry (2005), what was Texas’ justification for having the monument?
Texas argued on the grounds that the monument conveyed both a religious and secular message.
In Van Orden v. Perry (2005), According to Justice Rehnquist’s opinion for the Court, is there a history of government acknowledgment of God in the United States?
In Van Orden v. Perry (2005), Why, according to Justice Rehnquist’s opinion, is this particular monument less problematic than some other official acknowledgments of God?
In 5-4 decision, and in a four-justice opinion delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court held that the establishment clause did not bar the monument on the grounds of Texas' state capitol building. The plurality deemed the Texas monument part of the nation's tradition of recognizing the Ten Commandments' historical meaning.
In Van Orden v. Perry (2005)
What did the Sedition Act of 1798 make illegal?
To write, print, utter or publish, or cause it to be done, or assist in it, any false, scandalous, and malicious writing against the government of the United States, or either House of Congress, or the President, with intent to defame, or bring either into contempt or disrepute, or to excite against either the hatred of the people of the United States, or to stir up sedition, or to excite unlawful combinations against the government, or to resist it, or to aid or encourage hostile designs of foreign nations.
What did the Espionage Act of 1917 prohibit?
To convey information with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies. This was punishable by death or by imprisonment for not more than 30 years.

To convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies and whoever when the United States is at war, to cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or to willfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States. This was punishable by a maximum $USD 10,000 fine (almost $170,000 in today's dollars) and 20 years in prison (almost 22.5 years in today's years in respect to life expectancy).
What did the Sedition Act passed in 1918 prohibit?
It forbade the use of "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" about the United States government, its flag, or its armed forces or that caused others to view the American government or its institutions with contempt. The act also allowed the Postmaster General to refuse to deliver mail that met those same standards for punishable speech or opinion. It applied only to times "when the United States is in war."
In Schenck v. United States (1919), what did Charles Schenck urge people to do?
The circulars suggested that the draft was a monstrous wrong motivated by the capitalist system. The circulars urged "Do not submit to intimidation" but advised only peaceful action such as petitioning to repeal the Conscription Act. Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act by attempting to cause insubordination in the military and to obstruct recruitment.
In Schenck v. United States (1919), According to the Court, would Schenck’s actions have been legal in time of peace ?
During wartime, utterances tolerable in peacetime can be punished.
In Schenck v. United States (1919),What, according to the Court’s opinion, is the “question in every case?”
"The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."
What was the "Bad Tendency" test?
t asks whether the words spoken have a "tendency to bring about evil consequences" rather than asking whether the words bring about "an immediate substantive evil", which is what the clear and present danger test asks.
What was the “Preferred Freedoms” doctrine?
This doctrine holds that some constitutional freedoms, principally those guaranteed by the First Amendment, are fundamental in a free society and consequently are entitled to more judicial protection than other constitutional values.
What restrictions on handing out flyers in the streets did the Court overturn in Schneider v. State of New Jersey?
The cities could regulate dishonest pamphleteering and legislate in order to keep streets freely accessible, but could not outlaw one citizen's attempt to impart information to another citizen through the means of passing out written documents.
What was the “balancing test” articulated in Barenblatt v. U.S.?
"Where First Amendment rights are asserted to bar governmental interrogation, resolution of the issue involves a balancing of the competing private and public interests."
In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), who was Clarence Brandenburg?
Clarence Brandenburg was a leader of the KKK
In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), to what sort of group was he speaking? What were some of these people carrying? And what were they gathered around?
He was speaking to his followers, carrying guns, gathered around a burning cross
In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), what did the Ohio Act prohibit?
The law made illegal advocating "crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform," as well as assembling "with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism."
In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), under what conditions can a state forbid advocacy, according to the Supreme Court’s opinion in this case
The Court used a two-pronged test to evaluate speech acts: (1) speech can be prohibited if it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and (2) it is "likely to incite or produce such action."
In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), was Ohio’s law sustained or overturned?
The criminal syndicalism act made illegal the advocacy and teaching of doctrines while ignoring whether or not that advocacy and teaching would actually incite imminent lawless action. The failure to make this distinction rendered the law overly broad and in violation of the Constitution.
Which elements of the Bill of Rights have not been incorporated?
2nd amendment right to bear arms, 3rd amendment rights against quartering soldires, 5th amendment right to a grand jury hearing, , 7th amendment right to a jury trial in civil cases, 8th amendment rights against excessive bail and fines.
How did the Religious Freedom Restoration Act change the standard the Court had used in the Smith case?
Supreme Court rules that Religious Freedom Restoration Act exceeds congress' power
In United States v. O'Brien, what did O’Brien do that was against the law?
David O'Brien burned his draft card at a Boston courthouse.
In United States v. O'Brien, what legitimate government activity did O’Brien’s action hinder?
The ability to draft soldiers
In United States v. O'Brien, did the Court rule that O’Brien’s activity was protected expression?
No. The 7-to-1 majority, speaking through Chief Justice Earl Warren, established a test to determine whether governmental regulation involving symbolic speech was justified. The formula examines whether the regulation is unrelated to content and narrowly tailored to achieve the government's interest. "[W]e think it clear," wrote Warren," that a government regulation is sufficiently justified if it is within the constitutional power of the Government; if it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest; if the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and if the incidential restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is not greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest."
In Texas v. Johnson, what did Gregory Lee Johnson do?
Burned a flag
In Texas v. Johnson, what political event was going on in the same city at the same time?
Republican national conventions
In Texas v. Johnson, when is conduct protected under the First Amendment, according to Justice Brennan’s opinion for the Court?
When it is political and expressive in nature
In Texas v. Johnson, how did Texas justify its law against flag desecration?
The State had said that its interests were more important than Johnson's symbolic speech rights because it wanted to preserve the flag as a symbol of national unity, and because it wanted to maintain order.
In Texas v. Johnson, according to Brennan, is the Texas statute that prohibits flag desecration “content-neutral”?
in Texas v. Johnson, Does the importance of the flag as a symbol of national unity justify restrictions on the way it is used in expression, according to Brennan?
In Tinker v. Des Moines (1965), what did the Tinker siblings do that upset school officials?
Wore black armbands in protest to Vietnam
In Tinker v. Des Moines (1965), how were the Tinker’s punished by the school?
When the Tinker siblings and Christopher wore their armbands to school, they were asked to remove them. When they refused, they were suspended until after New Year's Day.
In Tinker v. Des Moines (1965), why did the Court rule in favor of the Tinkers?
The wearing of armbands was "closely akin to 'pure speech'" and protected by the First Amendment. School environments imply limitations on free expression, but here the principals lacked justification for imposing any such limits.The principals had failed to show that the forbidden conduct would substantially interfere with appropriate school discipline.
In Tinker v. Des Moines (1965), what value did Justice Black assert overruled the value of free speech in this case?
Black, who had long believed that disruptive "symbolic speech" was not constitutionally protected, wrote "While I have always believed that under the First and Fourteenth Amendments neither the State nor the Federal Government has any authority to regulate or censor the content of speech, I have never believed that any person has a right to give speeches or engage in demonstrations where he pleases and when he pleases."
How can the right of a group to control its own membership come into conflict with other social goals, such as equality of opportunity?
If the group is not idealistic in nature, then such segregation can cause it to come into conflict
According to the Court’s decision in Roberts v. U.S. Jaycess, what sorts of groups received the greatest degree of protection from government regulation?
Those political and idealistic in nature
In Morse v. Frederick (2007), what did Joseph Frederick do that the school administrators objected to?
He held up a sign that said "Bong Hits 4 Jesus"
In Morse v. Frederick (2007), where did this action take place?
At a school-supervised event,
In Morse v. Frederick (2007), how did the majority opinion interpret the message on Frederick’s banner?
That the speech was "reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use"
In Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston (IAGLBG), What did the IAGLBG want to do?
March in the parade
In Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston (IAGLBG), did the Supreme Court allow them to do it?
No. A unanimous court held that the State Court's ruling to require private citizens who organize a parade to include a group expressing a message that the organizers do not wish to convey violates the First Amendment by making private speech to the public accommodation requirement. Such an action "violate[s] the fundamental First Amendment rule that a speaker has the autonomy to choose the content of his own message and, conversely, to decide what not to say."
In Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000), what position did Dale hold in the Boy Scouts?
Former Eagle Scout and assistant scoutmaster
In Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, why did the Scouts revoke his membership?
Because he was openly gay
In Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, did the Court allow the Boy Scouts to revoke Dale’s membership?
Yes. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court held that "applying New Jersey's public accommodations law to require the Boy Scouts to admit Dale violates the Boy Scouts' First Amendment right of expressive association." In effect, the ruling gives the Boy Scouts of America a constitutional right to bar homosexuals from serving as troop leaders. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote for the Court that, "[t]he Boy Scouts asserts that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values it seeks to instill," and that a gay troop leader's presence "would, at the very least, force the organization to send a message, both to the young members and the world, that the Boy Scouts accepts homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior."
Where in the Constitution is the right to privacy mentioned?
No where
What did the Connecticut law challenged Poe v. Ullman prohibit?
An old Connecticut law prohibited the use of contraceptive devices and the giving of medical advice in the use of those devices. The law also applied to married couples.
In Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, what was the state of Nancy Cruzan’s health when her parents wanted to remove her feeding tubes?
She was in a vegetative state.
In Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, what state interest did the state supreme court cite in refusing to allow Cruzan’s parents to remove her feeding tubes?
In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that while individuals enjoyed the right to refuse medical treatment under the Due Process Clause, incompetent persons were not able to exercise such rights. Absent "clear and convincing" evidence that Cruzan desired treatment to be withdrawn, the Court found the State of Missouri's actions designed to preserve human life to be constitutional. Because there was no guarantee family members would always act in the best interests of incompetent patients, and because erroneous decisions to withdraw treatment were irreversible, the Court upheld the state's heightened evidentiary requirements.
In Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health,
Hard evidence that the patient wanted to be taken off feeding tubes if in a vegetative state
In Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, did the Court uphold Missouri’s requirement?
In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), what sort of sexual activity does Texas’ law prohibit? Is the gender of the people engaged in the sexual activity relevant to the law?
Texas law prohibits sodomy of same sex couples
In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), How might Texas’ law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment?
It does not violate equal protection under the law
In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), How might Texas’ law violate the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment?
the Court held that the Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause.
In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), did the Court uphold or overturn Texas’ law? What part of the 14th Amendment did the Court say that the law violated?
Overturned on Due Process law violations
In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), what Connecticut law was challenged in this case?
Griswold and her colleague were convicted under a Connecticut law which criminalized the provision of counselling, and other medical treatment, to married persons for purposes of preventing conception.
In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), what provisions of the Constitution protect the right to marital privacy, according to Justice Douglas?
Together, the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, create a new constitutional right, the right to privacy in marital relations.
In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), what provisions of the Constitution protect the right to marital privacy, according to Justice Goldberg’s concurring opinion?
Under the 9th amendment
In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), what provisions of the Constitution protect the right to marital privacy, according to Justice Harlan’s concurring opinion?
14th amendments Due Process
In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Who, according to Justice Black’s dissenting opinion, has the power to overrule state laws that are arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, etc?
The states do, the court doesn't
Before Roe v. Wade, did most states allow or prohibit abortions (other than those necessary to save the life of the mother)?
How did the Court’s decision In Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) extend the right of privacy articulated in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)?
Right to contraceptives deemed legal
In Roe v. Wade (1973), under what conditions did the Texas law allow abortions?
Texas law prohibited abortions except to save the pregnant woman's life.
In Roe v. Wade (1973), what is the state’s interest in preventing abortions see
To protect the woman from injury and to protect pre-natal life
In Roe v. Wade (1973), according to Blackmun’s Opinion of the Court, to what extent can Texas restrict abortions
During the first trimester, the state cannot restrict a woman's right to an abortion in any way; during the second trimester, the state may only regulate the abortion procedure "in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health"; during the third trimester, the state can choose to restrict or proscribe abortion as it sees fit when the fetus is viable ("except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother").
Several states have passed laws that required the consent of a woman’s parents or spouse before an abortion can be performed. Which of these types of consent has the Court allowed states to require?
Parental or state consent for children, yes. Spousal consent, no.
What rules doe the Hyde Amendment impose on funding of abortions?
The do not have to be state funded
In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992), what has replaced Blackmun’s trimester approach to state regulation of abortions?
he new standard asks whether a state abortion regulation has the purpose or effect of imposing an "undue burden," which is defined as a "substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability." Under this standard, the only provision to fail the undue-burden test was the husband notification requirement.
In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992), what is an undue burden?
Anything that overtly causes a woman not to abort a child of her own free will.
Under what circumstances do people have a right to keep information private, according to Justice Harlan’s concurring opinion in Katz v. U.S. ?
The Court ruled that Katz was entitled to Fourth Amendment protection for his conversations and that a physical intrusion into the area he occupied was unnecessary to bring the Amendment into play. "The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places," wrote Justice Potter Stewart for the Court. A concurring opinion by John Marshall Harlan introduced the idea of a 'reasonable' expectation of Fourth Amendment protection.
What privacy-related right did the Court uphold in Stanley v. Georgia?
The Court held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibited making private possession of obscene materials a crime. In his majority opinion, Justice Marshall noted that the rights to receive information and to personal privacy were fundamental to a free society. Marshall then found that "[i]f the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch. Our whole constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds." The Court distinguished between the mere private possession of obscene materials and the production and distribution of such materials. The latter, the Court held, could be regulated by the states.
In Bowers v. Hardwick, What did the law that was challenged in this case prohibits
A Georgia statute that criminalized sodomy