Alma College Political Science 101

Front 1

Civil Rights

Back 1

Concern how fairly and equally groups are treated.
(Racial, Ethnic, Religious Groups, age, ect...)

Front 2

Equal Protection Clause

Back 2

Part of the 14th Amendment and was intended to ensure that all citizens (especially newly freed slaves) were given Equal Rights.

Front 3

Equality of Oppurtunity

Back 3

No discrimination based on race, sex, ect...
Social and Economic inequalities between groups is tolerated as long as those differences are not caused by Discrimination.

Front 4

13th Amendment

Back 4

1865, No slavery

Front 5

14th Amendment

Back 5

1868, No state shall pass laws that abridge the privileges and immunities of U.S. citizens.
All persons born in U.S. are citizens
All persons owed due process and equal protection of the laws.

Front 6

15th Amendment

Back 6

1870, Right to vote cannot be denied by, "race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

Front 7

Reconstruction Era

Back 7

1865-1877, Federal troops occupy southern states and help enforce racial equality. And enforce voting rights.

Front 8

Civil Rights Act of 1866

Back 8

Gave Federal government more power to protect blacks in Southern states.
Right to sue, right to make contracts, right to inherit, lease, and hold property.

Front 9

Civil Liberties

Back 9

Individual rights or personal freedoms that limit the power of the state: freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly, etc...

Front 10

Natural Rights

Back 10

Humans possess certain rights (via God or nature or both) as human beings.
Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness
Inalienable-government may not take them away.

Front 11

Why do we need Rights?

Back 11

To ensure justice, fairness, and freedom
To ensure a well-run democracy
To ensure fullest human development

Front 12

Negative Rights

Back 12

Checks on the power of the State
Right to free speech, press, assembly, religion

Front 13

Positive Rights

Back 13

Conditions that all persons need - health, safety, a certain level of income, even leisure time.

Front 14

Selective Incorporation

Back 14

Supreme Court gradually incorporates individual parts of Bill of Rights.

Front 15

Free-Exercise Clause

Back 15

Prohibits the government from interfering with the practive of religion.

Front 16

Establishment Clause

Back 16

The First Amendment guarantees that the government will not create and support an offical state church.
Government must avoid "excessive entanglement" with religion.

Front 17

Lemon Test

Back 17

1.) Must have Secular purpose
2.) Neither advances nor inhibits religion (neutrality)
3.) Must not foster "an excessive entanglement in religion"

Front 18

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002)
Do School Voucher Programs violate the First Amendment?

Back 18

City of Cleveland provides students w/$2500 voucher to attend school (religious or not).
Court Upholds program saying it has a valid secular program.

Front 19

Belief/Action Distinction

Back 19

Free exercise protects liberty of conscience and belief, but action may be regulated by the government.

Front 20

Reynolds v. U.S. (1879)

Back 20

High Court upholds federal law banning polygamy, which was then practiced by Mormons in the Utah Territory.

Front 21

Valid Secular Purpose Test

Back 21

If a law infringes upon exercise of religion, it is permissible only if the law has a valid secular purpose.

Front 22

Secular

Back 22

Non-Relgious or Relgiously Neutral

Front 23

Sherbert v. Verner (1963)
Court finds in favor of Sherbert

Back 23

A Seventh Day Adventist (Sherbert) was denied state unemployment benefits after losing her job for refusing to work on Saturday.

Front 24

Dept. of Human Resources v. Smith ( 1990)
Court finds in favor of Human Resources

Back 24

May Native Americans use peyote (illegal drug) in religious rituals even though it is illegal?

Front 25

The Smith Act

Back 25

Prohibits anyone form knowingly or willingly advocating or teaching the overthrow of the U.S. government.

Front 26

Symbolic Speech

Back 26

Speech; other than spoken or verbal means.

Front 27

Cohen v. California (1971)
High Court overturns his conviction ruling that his free speech rights were violated.

Back 27

Paul Robert Cohen convicted for wearing a jacket that said "F**k the Draft" in an L.A. county court house.
(Protesting the Vietnam War)

Front 28

Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)
Wives don't have to tell their husbands

Back 28

Court upholds a Pennsylvania law requiring: "informed consent", mandatory waiting period for all women seeking abortions, parental consent for minors, comprehensive record-keeping of abortions.

Front 29

Equality of Result

Back 29

Laws and policies enacted to ensure certain preffered outcomes.
Ex: Laws mandating certain % of women in legislature

Front 30

Civil Rights Act of 1875

Back 30

Attempted to give blacks the right to equal access in public accomodations (hotels, streetcars, parks, theatres, etc...)

Front 31

Jim Crow Laws

Back 31

Emerge after troops pull out of the south in 1877. Create seperate sections in hospitals, cemeteries, seperate drinking fountains, toilets, schools, and public accomodations. Voting restrictions such as poll taxes, Grandfather Clause, Literacy tests, and terror tactics.

Front 32

Grandfather Clause

Back 32

stated that all men or lineal descendants of men who were voters before 1867 did not have to meet the educational, property, or tax requirements for voting .

Front 33

Poll Tax

Back 33

Payment needed in order to vote (kept poor black men from voting).

Front 34

United States v. Reese (1876)

Back 34

High Court rules that the 15th amendment did not guarantee a right to vote. Merely listed grounds that could not be used to deny votes (race, colore, previous conditions of servitute). Allowed Poll Taxes

Front 35

Civil Rights Cases (1883)

Back 35

Blacks challenged Jim Crow laws denying seating in theatres, inns, etc...Claimed it violated the Civil Rights Act of 1875. Court rules federal government could only prohibit Government discrimination not Private acts of discrimination.

Front 36

Plessy v. Ferfuson * (1896)

Back 36

Homer Adolph Plessy (7/8ths Caucasian) sat in a whites only section on a train in Louisiana and was arrested. High Court upholds his conviction saying that the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment permits "seperate-but-equal" public accomodations. Gives Jim Crow System final green light.

Front 37

Sweatt v. Painter (1950)

Back 37

Sweatt denied admission to all white U. of Texas Law School.
High Court requires states to provide truly equal higher educational accomodations.
No way Texas can make a school equal to U. of Texas Law School for blacks; Sweatt is accepted

Front 38

Brown v. Topeka Board of Education (1954) *

Back 38

Linda Brown's father tries to enroll her to an all white school close to home. Supreme Court says that all black school is not equal and that seperate but equal is inherently not equal b/c segregation inflicted a feeling of inferiority. High Court orders desegregation to be implemented with all deliberate speed.

Front 39

Civil Disobedience

Back 39

Breaking the law--and willfully accepting punishment--to draw attention to unjust laws.

Front 40

Civil Rights Act of 1964

Back 40

Required Equal access to all Public Accomodations.
Establish right to equality in employment oppurtunities.
No discrimination in employment based on race or sex.

Front 41

24th Amendment

Back 41

No poll tax is allowed to deny someone the right to vote.

Front 42

Voting Rights Act of 1965

Back 42

Empowered attorney general to send voter registration supervisors to areas in which fewer than half the eligible minority voters had been registered.
Eliminated literacy tests and established "pre-clearance" requirments.

Front 43

Busing

Back 43

System used to desegreate schools. Was only used temporarily and was not very affective.

Front 44

Rational Basis Test

Back 44

Must be reasonably designed to achieve a legitimate state interest.

Front 45

Strict Scrutiny Test

Back 45

Applies to classes of people for which discrimination is inherently suspect.
Court currently applies this standard to race.

Front 46

Intermediate Scrutiny Test

Back 46

Law must be substantially related to the achievement of an important state interest.
Court currently applies this standard to sex.

Front 47

Romer vs. Evans (1996) *

Back 47

Colorado's Amendment 2 law prohibited local and state government from granting gays the same anti-discrimination protections enjoyed by minorities and women. Evans believes this violates his right to equal protection. High Court strikes down law saying that the law fails to pass equal protection's rational basis test. Law was motivated primarily through hate for gays.

Front 48

Hollingsworth v. Perry

Back 48

Does California's Proposition 8, which defines marriage as b/w a man and a woman, violate equal protection? Oral arguments scheduled for March 26, 2013.

Front 49

United States v. Windsor

Back 49

Does the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) violate equal protection rights of same-sex couples?

Front 50

Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)

Back 50

Bars federal recognition of same-sex marriage and permits states to decline to recognize same-sex marriages granted by other states.

Front 51

University of California Regents v. Bakke (1979)

Back 51

Bakke sues U. of Cali for "reverse discrimination". UC Davis Med School had specail admissions policy setting aside 16 out of 100 slots for minorities only. Bakkes MCAT scores were higher than the 16 students but was rejected. Sues for admission citing "equal protection" clause and the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Bakke is admitted decides that diversity is a compelling state interest and can be a legitimate goal of an educational institution insofar as it enhances the education experience.

Front 52

Gratz v. Bollinger

Back 52

U. of Mich. undergraduate program used point system to determine admittance. Gratz sues saying the point system violates her "equal protection". In a 6-3 decision strikes down the undergrad affirmative action program saying that it was too mechanical and failed to consider applicants as individuals.

Front 53

Grutter v. Bollinger

Back 53

Barbara Grutter denied admittance to U. of Mich. Law School and sues on equal protection grounds. Does not have point system but has "critical mass" system which aims to have a % of students needed such that minorities don't feel isolated or that they serve as a spokesman for their race. High Court upholds critical mass system in a 5-4 decision by saying it treats each applicant as an individual.

Front 54

Michigan Civil Rights Initiative

Back 54

Michigan voters approve in November of 2006 to eliminate affirmative action. Cannot discriminate against or grant preferencial treatment to an individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national orgin in the operation of public enrollment, public education, or public contracting.
U.S. Court of Appeals for 6th Circuit invalidates MCRI by saying it violates equal protection b/c it places extra burdens on advocates of race-conscious admissions to change admissions policies.

Front 55

Protectionism

Back 55

"women must be sheltered from life's harsh realities."

Front 56

Declaration of Women's Rights

Back 56

Mirrored the structure and tone of the Declaration of Independence and declared equality with men. Called for franchise, equal educational oppurtunity, the right to speack in church, right to hold positions of status in society, and the right to own property.

Front 57

Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964

Back 57

Mandates equality of oppurtunity for employment.

Front 58

Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendment

Back 58

Bars sex discrimination in federally aided eduaction programs. Three ways to meet the proportional test: One, college must show that its ratio of female to male athletes is about the same as its ratio of female to male students. Two, college may demonstrate that it is historically made, and continues to make, good faith efforts toward achieving gender equality. Three, college can demonstrate that there is "no unmet need" among female athletes at the school .

Front 59

Quasi-Suspect Category

Back 59

laws that affect the two sexes differently are justifiable only if they serve some important government purpose.

Front 60

Craig v. Boren

Back 60

Oklahoma law forbade the sale of alcohol to males under the age of 21 and females under the age of 18. Craig (male) sues and saying it violates his equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. High Court strikes down the law saying you can't punish men b/c a small number of them drink and drive.

Front 61

Griswold v. Connecticut *

Back 61

Estelle Griswold (executive director of Planned Parenthood) opens up a Birth-control clinic in 1961. She is arrested for violating Conneticut law banning the distribution of contraceptions to married couples. High Court rules in favor of Griswold saying that the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 9th amendments create a "zone of privacy".

Front 62

Right to Privacy

Back 62

An implied right, never mentioned in the in the U.S. Constitution

Front 63

Roe v. Wade

Back 63

Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe) seeks abortion in 1969. 1857 Texas state law bans abortion unless the mothers life is endangered. High Court states that right to privacy allows an abortion. High court also states the right is not absolute and must be balanced against state's legitimate interests which include: 1.) Ensuring safe medical procedures. 2.) Protecting potential life.

Front 64

Steps of denying abortion

Back 64

1st trimester: Soley up to the mother and her physician
2nd trimester: state may impose reasonable regulations with respect to abortion aimed at protecting the health of the mother.
After 2nd trimester: states may prohibit abortion except when the life or health of the mother is in danger.

Front 65

Webster v. Reproductive Health Service

Back 65

High court upholds a Missouri law: 1.) forbidding abortions in public health facilities. 2.) barring public employees from performing abortions (unless life of the mother is endangered).

Front 66

Lawerence v. Texas

Back 66

John Lawerence arrested for having sex with another man in his home (violated Texas law barring homosexual sex). High court rules in favor of Lawerence stating he has the right to privacy.

Front 67

Schenck v. United States *

Back 67

Charles Schenck arrested for distributing pamphlets urging resistance to the draft. Said draft violated the 13th Amendment. All part of socialist/communist conspieracy. Arrested for violating the Espionage Act of 1917 which prohibited attempts to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the U.S., encouraging insubordination among its troops, or obstucting the recruitment or enlistment of fighting forces. Clear and present danger test was established (can't yell fire in a crowded theatre) and he is convicted bc his speech could lead to violence.

Front 68

Texas v. Johnson *

Back 68

Gregory Lee Johnson (of the Communist Youth Brigade) arrested for burning a U.S. flag outside Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas. Violates a Texas law. High Court overturns convection (5-4) saying that the flag buring could not incite a breech of the peace or harm the state's interest in preserving the flag as a symbol of national unity and reverence. Flag burning is a political statement protected by the 1st Amendment.

Front 69

Cantwell v. Connecticut

Back 69

Members of Cantwell family (all Jehovah Witnessess) arrested for violating anti-solicitation laws. Supreme Court rules in favor of the Cantwell family and thus incorporates First Amendment protection of free exercise via the 14th Amendment. Also brought forth the valid secular policy test in which a law may be permissible if it interferes with the exercise of religion as long as the law has a valid secular purpose (such as public safety, peace, comfort, etc...)

Front 70

Religious Freedom Restoration Act

Back 70

Congress strives to re-establish compelling state interest standard through statutory law, but Supreme Court rules the law is violation of seperation of powers (it tells the court how to interpret the constitution).

Front 71

Ex Post Facto Laws

Back 71

Laws that criminalize an action after it has occured.

Front 72

Bills of Attainder

Back 72

Laws under which a specific persons or groups are detained and sentenced without trial.

Front 73

Habeas Corpus

Back 73

The right of an accussed person to be brought before a judge and informed of the charges and evidence against him/her.

Front 74

Lemon v. Kurtzman

Back 74

The court added to the old test a third provision that a law not foster "an excessive government entanglement" with religion.
State pays school money, that in turn helps even out the religious parts of the academic system.

Front 75

Mapp v. Ohio

Back 75

The exclusionary rule was finally incorportated into state along with federal practice.

Front 76

Citizens United v. FEC (2010)

Back 76

Court (5-4) overturns McConnell precedents: Federal gov. may not ban corporations and labor unions from paying for broadcast, cable or satellite TV ads that directly advocate for or against the election of a candidate.
Cannot set limits on their contributions.

Front 77

Miranda v. Arizona

Back 77

Police have to inform suspects of their rights to remain silent and have a laywer present at the time of questioning to prevent them from incrimenting themselves.

Front 78

Gideon v. Wainwright

Back 78

The court incorporates the 6th Amendment right to council. Gideon was denied a lawyer in the state of Florida and was forced to defend himself but lost due to the fact the other lawyers were more skilled.

Front 79

Exclusionary Rule

Back 79

A rule created by the Supreme Court that evidence illegally seized may not be used to obtain a conviction.

Front 80

Suspect Category

Back 80

In American jurisprudence, a suspect classification is any classification of groups meeting a series of criteria suggesting they are likely the subject of discrimination.