Law And Politics Final

Front 1

Plessy v Ferguson Facts:

Back 1

Louisiana enacted a law that required separate railway cars for blacks and whites. Plessy, who was 7/8s white, sat in "whites only" car of a Louisiana train. He refused to move to the car reserved for blacks and was arrested.

Front 2

Plessy v Ferguson Ruling/Reasoning:

Back 2

it is not a violation of the 14th amendment to have separate but equal facilities

Front 3

Brown v Board of Ed Facts

Back 3

brown’s daughter had to walk 6 blocks to a bus which took her to elementary school a mile away; a white only school was 7 blocks from her house

Front 4

Brown v Board of Ed Ruling/Reasoing

Back 4

separate but equal was inherently unequal

Front 5

Frontiero v Richardson Facts

Back 5

Sharron Frontiero claimed her husband as a dependent, but he was not ruled because he needs to be more than 50% reliant on her; these standards don’t apply to men claiming wives as dependents.

Front 6

Frontiero v Richardson Ruling/Reasoning

Back 6

unconstitutional in regards to 14th amendment; air force claimed they didn’t want to lose money but are likely losing more by not looking into how dependent the wives truly are.

Front 7

Texas v Johnson

Back 7

At a Reagan protest Johnson burnt the flag;it is a violation of the first amendment to prohibit an ‘expressive’ practice such as this - must protect free expression and didn't threaten peace

Front 8

West Virginia v Barnette

Back 8

Jehovah Witness wouldn’t salute flag, expelled - it is a violation of the rights granted by first amendment - supporting individual freedom is the most important part; it doesn’t threaten national unity

Front 9

NAACP v Button

Back 9

NAACP met with parents of students who experienced discrimination in order to litigate their cases for them in court. - A Virgina Law bans doing such practice = violation of first amendment

Front 10

Gitlow v New York

Back 10

Gitlow convicted (upheld) of anarchy for publishing Left Wing Manifesto during Red Scare because it constituted a clear and present danger to the government
PROTECTIONS under bill of rights extend to the STATES, not just feds, under the 14TH amendment.

Front 11

Palko v Connecticut

Back 11

Guilty of 2nd, then 1st degree murder on retrial;
Argued 5th amendment protection against double jeopardy need be applied to states
Yes, but only when the right ‘essential to a fundamental scheme of ordered liberty’; here, it did not. (eventually overturned)

Front 12

Lochner v. New York

Back 12

Does the New York law of max hours violate the liberty protected by due process of the Fourteenth Amendment? - Yes, free market

Front 13

Adkins v. Children’s Hospital

Back 13

Does the min. wage law interfere with the freedom of contract (btwn employees and employers) guaranteed by the 5th Amendment? YES, no min wage

Front 14

West Coast Hotel v. Parrish

Back 14

Min wage law upheld; substantive due process - state compelled to protect individual; end of lochner era, overturned adkins

Front 15

U.S. v Carolene Products Co Footnote 4

Back 15

Rational basis test (legitimate interest) not enough for cases that deal with violations of constitution, minorites, distortion of political process
Introduces Strict Scrutiny

Front 16

Griswold v Connecticut

Back 16

Connecticut Law outlawed contraceptives, overruled; violated penumbra of privacy in 14th amendment (married couples only)

Front 17

Roe v Wade

Back 17

Abortion legitimate as long as woman hasn’t reached third trimester
Based on constitutional right to privacy of (though notunenumerated by) 14th amendment

Front 18

Washington v Glucksberg

Back 18

Assisted suicide not protected by 14th amendment because State has a compelling interest to protect life, assisted suicide - not a fundamental liberty interest

Front 19

Regents of U of California v Bakke

Back 19

A white man was denied admittance to the university 2 years in a row, but black men with lower academic credentials were accepted twice.
He sued based on the equal protections granted by 14th

5-4 ruling for Bakke, said that the quota insulated minorities from competition which was unconstitutional. However race could be used as a plus factor in comparing applicants.

Front 20

Grutter v. Bollinger

Back 20

White standout student not accepted into law school because of whiteness; affirmative action upheld 5-4, but with hope that it will be unnecessary in future; said it was bounded enough and a compelling interest to the university

Front 21

U.S. vs Lopez

Back 21

Senior High School student had gun; convicted of violating the federal gun free act; challenged it, saying that it didn’t have authority to regulate schools; response by government = business of schools affects interstate commerce, in jurisdiction (commerce clause)
NO; if they can do this, what can't they do?

Front 22

Locke:

Back 22

give up right to revenge to government in order to establish social contract; legitimacy to government through voting

Front 23

Hamilton 78

Back 23

Appointed for life in good behavior to free from political/welfare concerns
Possess neither force nor will – can’t control other branches

Front 24

Hamilton 79

Back 24

Fixed judiciary salaries other pillar besides appointment for life that imposes neutrality

Front 25

Hamilton 81

Back 25

Establishes supremacy of SC who are meant to dealt with Constitutional matters, allows for creation of inferior courts and trial by jury

Front 26

Article 3, Section 1:

Back 26

Judicial branch = 1 supreme court, others can be established by Congress
Life tenure, fixed salary

Front 27

Article 3, Section 2:

Back 27

Outlines SC jurisdiction

Front 28

Article 3, Section 3:

Back 28

Treason as waging war on US or helping enemies; 2 witnesses; prodigy not affected

Front 29

Federal Court Jurisdiction:

Back 29

Federal Civil/Criminal Laws (mail robbery, fed patents)
US Government a party (suing over SSecurity benefits)
Citizens of different States

Front 30

State Court Structure:

Back 30

Minor Trial, Major Trial, Intermediate Appellate, Supreme Court

Front 31

Original Jurisdiction of SC

Back 31

disputes between states or states and federal government/foreign ambassador

Front 32

Appellate Jurisdiction of SC

Back 32

federal courts of appeals, highest state court appeals, 3-judge district courts

Front 33

How Justices Selected?

Back 33

nominated by president, confirmed by majority vote of senate

Front 34

How Justices Selection Swayed?

Back 34

Lawyers and interests groups work for or against senate confirmation
Nominations are based on quality of lawyer, past alliances, future benefits (from voters) who share preference

Front 35

How cases brought to SC?

Back 35

Litigants, Attorneys, Interest Gropus

Front 36

Litigants and SC Cases?

Back 36

Majority brought by litigants seeking personal reparation (ordinary litigation). Some involve political litigation - seeking a policy outcome

Front 37

Attorneys and SC Cases?

Back 37

Most have never argued in it -- highly prestigious. Some specialize in it.

Front 38

Interest Group and SC Cases?

Back 38

Provide amicus briefs, mobilize public support
Support for litigants (financial, attorneys, etc)

Front 39

Most Important SC Interest Group?

Back 39

Federal Government; most often consulted (solicitor general)

Front 40

SC decides to hear?

Back 40

Cases that affect many people and have important political outcomes

Front 41

Rule 10?

Back 41

SC Court picks cases: that contain new issues; conflict between lower court and SC, or multiple lower courts

Front 42

4 Ways SC Interprets Constitution?

Back 42

Plain Meaning - words
Intent of Drafters
Precedent
Liberal/Conservative Values

Front 43

SC - no sword or purse?

Back 43

Congress and president can delay/ignore the rulings of the court by failing to implement decision

Front 44

Problems with implementing decisions?

Back 44

Public/official resentment (desegregation)
Loopholes (miranda worked around by calculated questioning)

Front 45

Statutory Interpretation allows

Back 45

new laws with different wording against SC decision; need to be subsequently challenged to be overturned

Front 46

Interpretation/Implementation problems, Lopez:

Back 46

new law a year later; guns prohibited that are there as a result of interstate commerce

Front 47

President can

Back 47

not back a decision with economic measures, and can influence Congress

Front 48

Procedural Due Process:

Back 48

Where an individual is facing a (1) deprivation of (2) life, liberty, or property, (3) procedural due process mandates that he or she is entitled to adequate notice, a hearing, and a neutral judge; LEGITIMATE state interest

Front 49

Substantive Due Process

Back 49

Involves a fundamental right; strict scrutiny applied (compelling interest, narrowly tailored)

Front 50

Substantative v Equal Protection

Back 50

WHATS being restricted v WHOSE being restricted

Front 51

Equal Protection Clause

Back 51

Equal protection under law according to due process is granted to everyone, by federal government in BoR, and by states in the 14th amendment. Instrumental in Plessy v Ferguson, which established separate but equal

Front 52

Incorporation:

Back 52

Of federal rights granted by BoR as allotted to the states as well, through the 14th amendment equal protection/due process clause
States bound to adhere to protecting rights guaranteed by first amendment, not just federal

Front 53

Stare Decisis:

Back 53

Courts should stick to precedents, both horizontally (past - present) and vertically (state-federal), of cases already decided

Front 54

Scalia v Breyer

Back 54

Plain meaning, context V words not broad enough, need intent = rule of construction