Constitutional Law

Front 1

judicial review (pp. 23-38)

Back 1

The power of the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary to consider and overturn any congressional and state legislation or other official governmental action deemed inconsistent with the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or federal law.

Front 2

strict constructionism (pp. 78-79)

Back 2

Holds that a constitutional interpretation should be held to a literal standing.

Front 3

jurisprudence of original intention (pp. 80-81)

Back 3

Interpreting the constitution through the lens of the original drafters of the constitution.

Front 4

noninterpretivisim (p. 89)

Back 4

An interpretation of the constitution beyond the specific words on the page, to include historical context, modern science, and new social norms.

Front 5

certiorari (pp 108-109)

Back 5

States that a higher court will take up a case ruled on by a lower court. Decision to hear a case.

Front 6

stare decisis

Back 6

When the court rules that the previous court’s ruling holds.

Front 7

“rule of four” (pp. 191-192)

Back 7

When four Supreme Court justices decide to hear a case, the case will be heard.

Front 8

Selective Incorporation (use Mcdonald v. Chicago)

Back 8

Supreme Courts ability to review state laws along with Federal laws. (Mcdonald vs. Chicago had to deal with 2nd amendment. Chicago enacted a law forbidding the possession of a gun, suits were filed challenging Chicago’s ability to ban guns, and the Supreme Court ruled that handgun ban was unconstitutional. This is an example of the courts ability to rule on states individual statutes, in this case guns.

Front 9

Hate speech/ enhanced sentencing (Use Wisconsin v. Mitchell)

Back 9

(Wisconsin v Mitchell - case where black individuals went out and beat up a white male after watching “Mississippi Burning.” Did the crime because of racial reasons.)

Front 10

Prior restraint (use Near v. Minnesota)

Back 10

Putting someone in jail, or otherwise repressing ones speech before being committed of a crime. (Near v. Minnesota- Newspaper was shut down because of their anti- black, union, and other groups viewpoint, but by shutting them down before being committed of a crime was found unconstitutional and against their first amendment rights)

Front 11

General applicability test (Employment Division v. Smith)

Back 11

Test which determines if a law specifically targets one religion or religious group. If so, it is a violation of their first amendment rights under the freedom of exercise clause. (Employment Division v. Smith stated that the use of peyote for ceremonial reasons was forbidden by state and federal laws and that said laws were not enacted specifically to target smiths group, thusly it did not violate their first amendment rights.

Front 12

RFRA 1993 (City of Beorne v. Flores)

Back 12

RFRA of 1993 states that a neutral law enacted without the intention to target a specific religious group may still violate said groups first amendment rights to freedom of religion, and is thusly unconstitutional. (City of Boerne v. Flores is a case where a church wanted to expand, but was denied by city laws regarding historical sites. The SCOTUS ruled that the RFRA is unconstitutional because Congress does not have the power to expand or carve out new protections within the 14th amendment, but instead must look at the precedent provided by the court in its interpretation of the 14th amendment.