Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
9 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Dred Scott v Sanford
|
Property rights > Human rights
|
|
|
Weeks v United States
|
Illegal seizure violates 4th amendment.
Exclusionary Rule for federal courts. |
|
|
Youngstown v Sawyer
|
Limited executive power to seize private property in the absence of enumerated powers from Article II or powers given by congress.
|
|
|
Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v United States
|
Commerce Clause used to prevent the motel from refusing blacks. Did not violate 5th amendment. Regulation of Interstate commerce in this way = ok.
|
|
|
In Re Gault
|
Teenager had 14th amendment rights violated. Juveniles get same rights as adults.
|
|
|
Oregon v Smith
|
The Court effectively ruled that the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution is null and void and does not apply to laws which are aimed at general behavior rather than at specific religions. The only way to use the Free Exercise Clause against a law of general applicability is if it is used in combination with some other constitutional right, like the freedom of speech or assembly.
|
|
|
Dickerson v United States
|
Miranda cannot be overruled. Criminal suspects must receive a Miranda warning
|
|
|
Sante Fe Independent School District v Doe
|
Public prayer at football games messes with establishment clause of 1st amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...."
|
|
|
Kelo v City of New London, Connecticut
|
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)[1], was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another to further economic development. The case arose from the condemnation by New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property so that it could be used as part of a comprehensive redevelopment plan. The Court held in a 5-4 decision that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified such redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
|
