Crim C7 Midterm

Front 1

PROCLAMATION ACT OF 1763

Back 1

Forbade any further white settlement beyond the Appalachians
For the Native Americans

Front 2

NORTHWEST ORDINANCE

Back 2

Gave Congress the sole right to trade with Native Americans

Front 3

INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924:

Back 3

Congress said that all Native Americans were U.S. citizens

Front 4

INDIAN REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1934:

Back 4

Ended the practice of cultural genocide and encouraged Indians to revive the languages, cultures, and customs

Front 5

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE:

Back 5

A founding document of the U.S.
Holds that all men are created equal – follows Natural Law

Front 6

COMPROMISE OF 1850:

Back 6

Slavery was declared legal and allowed to continue in the U.S.

Front 7

EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION (1862):

Back 7

Enacted by Lincoln in the middle of the Civil War
Freed slaves in border states that hadn’t broken away from the North

Front 8

13th AMENDMENT:

Back 8

Expanded on the Emancipation Proclamation
Banned slavery with the U.S. and its territories
Placed in order to cement the military victory of the North

Front 9

CONSTITUTION

Back 9

Added the Bill of Rights so that ratified
No gendered language: thus it didn’t prohibit rights to women
Left it up to the state
Right to vote was repealed (no civil rights)
Rights of married women: all states continued the English Law of coverture (no legal rights)

Front 10

14TH AMENDMENT (1868):

Back 10

Declared that all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. were citizens of both the U.S. and of the state where they live
Meant to overrule Dred Scott decision and strike back at Black Codes
3 clauses:
Privileges and immunities
Due process
Equal protection
Example of the indeterminacy of law (through language)
With this passage women wondered if this would grant them right to vote
Section 2: only said that male inhabitants were granted right to vote
Women were livid at this, but officials (activists) said no because they didn’t want it to hurt chances of Blacks to have help

Front 11

MODERN EQUAL PROTECTION DOCTRINE:

Back 11

Brown v. Board of Topeka brought this on
Focused on protecting the minority’s rights
Invidious discrimination is unconstitutional
Classifications based on race will be subject to “strict scrutiny” and held unconstitutional unless:
“Necessary to a compelling government purpose”
Narrowly tailored to intended purpose (i.e. safety)

Front 12

CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OR 1875:

Back 12

1st attempt to end private sector discrimination
Congress was told it did not have the power to do that

Front 13

CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964:

Back 13

This is a statute (not a court decision)
Proposed by President Kennedy
Congress fights back against Civil Rights Cases in 1883 rulings
Outlaws “private action” discrimination in public accommodations and employment
It was not approved under Equal Protection Clause so it they put it under the Commerce Clause
Said it was needed because of commerce occurring across state lines
Federal officials gained power to withhold federal funds from districts who did not comply with segregation laws
Sex discrimination was added by a Southern Senator to derail the bill (seen as a joke)  women had last laugh

Front 14

TITLE VII

Back 14

Prohibits discrimination by employers on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, or national origin

Front 15

VOTING RIGHTS OF 1965:

Back 15

Prohibited the use of literacy tests (referring to those used in registering voters)
The % of registered black voters rose to 66.9%

Front 16

DECLARATION OF SENTIMENTS (1848):

Back 16

Written by women at the Seneca Falls Convention
Said that if government did not give them rights they would rise up and rebel
Wanted right to:
Divorce
Vote and make laws
Occupational and professional
Education
Religious leadership
End of sexual double standard
For married women:
Property rights
Custody rights
Wage rights

Front 17

MARRIED WOMEN’S PROPERTY RIGHTS:

Back 17

These are statutes made by states when women went to the state legislature
Married women gained the right to wages, sole trade (businesses), inheritance, and creation of wills

Front 18

15TH AMENDMENT AND WOMEN:

Back 18

Right to vote – did not include women

Front 19

DIVORCE STATUTES:

Back 19

On the grounds of cruelty
Custody awarded on the best interest of the child standard – often times younger children went with mother and older ones went with father

Front 20

19TH AMENDMENT (1920):

Back 20

Women have the right to vote as of August 1920
1/18  Wilson announces his support
6/1919  Congress proposes the amendment for ratification by states
8/1920  ratification achieved with vote of Tennessee

Front 21

EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT:

Back 21

Section 1 – Equality or rights cannot be denied by U.S. or any state on account of sex
Drafted by Alice Paul of National Women’s Party; introduced in 1923

Front 22

EQUAL PAY ACT OF 1963:

Back 22

Prohibits wage differentials based on sex
We have not reached parody!!

Front 23

PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION ACT (1978):

Back 23

This overturns the Supreme Court’s decision that said it wasn’t sex discrimination to discriminate between women who were prego and those who weren’t
Declares that pregnancy is sex discrimination

Front 24

TITLE IX OF THE EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1972:

Back 24

Prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in educational programs
Includes sports
Under this women’s sport programs were added and men’s were dropped

Front 25

THE AMISTAD CASE

Back 25

John Quincy Adams defended a group of African Americans who attacked and killed all but 2 of their captors while being on the Amistad (ship).
Adams argued that they should be free due to natural law principles
Court agreed and the “kidnapped Africans” were set free

Front 26

DRED SCOTT V. SANFORD (1857):

Back 26

Had lived with his master in free territory
Applied for freedom – awarded it by Missouri district court
Supreme Court of Missouri overturned decision
Says those of African descent will never be free or a citizen of the U.S.
The result is called “self-inflicted wound of the Supreme Court”

Front 27

BRADWELL V. ILLINOIS (1873):

Back 27

Has to do with the 14th Amendment
Bradwell = a white woman who lost

Front 28

SLAUGHTERHOUSE CASES:

Back 28

Butchers said you could not relocate business because it was not part of due process clause
The Court said that the 14TH didn’t apply to the butchers because they were white men of the working class
Basically made the 1st clause mean nothing

Front 29

CIVIL RIGHTS CASES (1883):

Back 29

Even though the federal government cannot discriminate against the different races it cannot protect Blacks against discrimination by private parties
Slammed door on racial reconstruction

Front 30

PLESSY V. FERGUSON (1896):

Back 30

“Separate but equal” facilities
Justice Marshall Harlan said that majority should not get its way (his dissent)
Entrenchment of Jim Crow Laws – Court placed its stamp of approval on states’ efforts to deny social rights to blacks
Led DuBois to found the NAACP in 1909

Front 31

BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOPEKA (1954):

Back 31

Overturns decision in Plessy by stating segregation is unconstitutional in schools
Justice Earl Warren was the hero
Since there was not a Durkheimian consensus Warren wanted to use other tools to persuade people that this was a good thing:
Wanted a unanimous vote = one Court voice
Writes an opinion TO THE PEOPLE to be published in newspapers
Brown II says that the desegregation must take place with “all deliberate speed” (b/c there was a massive resistance)

Front 32

LOVING V. VIRGINIA (1967):

Back 32

VA’s attempted ban on mixed marriages
Their argument = this was a compelling government interest
The Court did not agree and struck down the ban

Front 33

JOHNSON V. CDCR (2005):

Back 33

Racial segregation of inmates in CA prisons challenged as a violation of equal protection clause
Court allowed CA to present evidence as to whether it had a compelling need to segregate
CA decided that it could not meet this burden on strict scrutiny and agreed to desegregate prisons

Front 34

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION CASES:

Back 34

A way of putting things right for the descendents of oppressed races, but should it be done at the expense of majorities races who have done nothing wrong?
Look in notes :-]

Front 35

UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK:

Back 35

The government could not deny citizenship to anyone born in the U.S.

Front 36

MEYER V. NEBRASKA (1923):

Back 36

It was a parent’s individual right to decide what language to teach kids
Where did judges get ideas/decisions from since it isn’t in the Constitution?

Front 37

GRISWOLD V. CONNECTICUT:

Back 37

People pissed no contraceptives could be sold to married couples
Giswold gave people birth control pills at her Planned Parenthood so that she would get arrested and attention
Douglas: implies “privacy” is holistically in the Constitution  are we supposed to check the bedrooms of married couples
Goldberg: right to privacy is retained in people’s rights
Black: what does it mean when you tell the majority repeatedly they cant do what they want?

Front 38

ROE V. WADE (1973):

Back 38

Justice Blackhum: said there was nothing in the Constitution saying it was a violation
Did not have the majority consensus
Source of the right?
Due process clause of the 14th Amendment

Front 39

BOWERS V. HARDWICK (1986):

Back 39

Result = no right to privacy for consenting adults in sexual acts

Front 40

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS (2003):

Back 40

Result = have right to privacy to engage in their conduct (gay sex)
Justice Scalia (dissent)