Political Science Exam 3

Front 1

US v. Lopez:

Back 1

Gun free school zone act- if a person carries a firearm onto a
school campus, they can be tried in federal court

Front 2

US v Morrison:

Back 2

a United States Supreme Court decision which held that parts of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 were unconstitutional because they exceeded congressional power under the Clause and under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Front 3

The takings clause-

Back 3

(5th Amendment)
• Only protects you from the federal government
• Takes away property and not compensating people
• nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation

Front 4

Barron v. Baltimore

Back 4

Court held the following: The bill of rights, as ratified in 1791, places limits on the federal government only and not the states
• 1833

Front 5

Regulatory Takings-

Back 5

Regulatory taking refers to a situation in which a government regulates a property to such a degree that the regulation
effectively amounts to an exercise of the government's eminent domain power without actually divesting the property's owner of title to the property.

Front 6

Nollan v. California coastal commission:

Back 6

This case involved an easement over the nollans beachfront
property

Front 7

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council:

Back 7

Any regulation that denies an owner all economically viable use
of his land is a taking

Front 8

What is public use?

Back 8

• a public benefit; if the public can derive a benefit from the
taking, then it qualifies as public use under the takings clause

Front 9

Kelo v. City of New London:

Back 9

A taking that transfers private property to another private entity for private use can only be justified under the public use requirement of the takings clause if the previous use of the property inflicted a positive harm on society
• Justice O’Connor’s dissent in Kelo complains that the majority has ignored the public use requirement of the takings clause

Front 10

Right to counsel:

Back 10

• 6th amendment says that in all criminal prosecutions, the
accused should enjoy the right to have assistance counsel to
his defense. Only applies to criminal prosecution; is it
permissive or compulsory; use any lawful means at your
disposal; freedom of speech [blogs]

Front 11

Powell v. Alabama:

Back 11

The court held that in capital cases the 6th amendment requires states to proved council for indigent defendants
• Black men were accused of raping 2 white girls; not residence, traveling; presented to a judge; formally accused and there is going to be a trial; capital case; 14th…compulsory right but, not
necessarily in all cases; effective counsel

Front 12

Gideon v. Wainwright:

Back 12

• All prosecutions, defendants must be provided council even if they can’t afford it
• extends right to all criminal prosecutions

Front 13

The exclusionary rule:

Back 13

• all of the following exceptions EXCEPT the clear and present
danger exception
• The exclusionary rule is an enforcement measure to
discourage law enforcement officials from violation the
constitutional rights of the accused

Front 14

Mapp v. Ohio:

Back 14

• Fourth amendment: exclusionary rule
• Mapp owns a home in ohio and the police thought she was
harboring a criminal in the house; they don’t have a warrant; post officers outside to make sure no one leaves the house; fake warrant down bra, bruises, etc;
• Cops don’t find what they’re looking for so they start looking for other stuff; in the basement of the house, they find a trunk and find porn in it; she appeals it and makes a couple of claims saying they had a fake warrant,
• The court establishes the exclusionary rule; state case;
[MOST IMP]
• In this case it is for search and seizure; if they were in hot
pursuit, they could follow him into the home, but they just
suspected it.

Front 15

Miranda v. Arizona:

Back 15

(self incrimination)
• Mandated that law enforcement officers must clearly inform suspects of their rights; in the absence of such warnings the
court will assume the confession was coerced
• The right to an apponted attorney, terminate questioning at any time and refuse to talk
• Right to remain silent- 5th amendment
• 1st time the court requires a state to release a violent criminal on the basis of the exclusionary rule
• He confesses to having done this; no attorney present; didn’t
tell him his rights
• Court says whenever you arrest someone, the police have the burden that they have to inform person of their rights
• In absence of this warning, the court assumes coercion was used

Front 16

Nix v. Williams:

Back 16

• Court held that evidence obtained illegally may still be used at trial if it would have been discovered by some other legal
means
• Inevitable discovery exception- exception to the exclusionary term

Front 17

Inevitable discovery exception:

Back 17

The inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule holds that illegally obtained evidence should not be excluded if investigators would have discovered the evidence by some alternative legal means

Front 18

Independent source exception:

Back 18

• if the police discover evidence through unconstitutional means,
they can still use the evidence if they can come up with an
independent legal source for the evidence

Front 19

Public safety exception:

Back 19

• New york v. Quarles: police were chasing a man in NYC, he ran through a store, tackled coming out by a popo, found that he was wearing an empty holster, logical assumption is that the guy dumped the gun, without reading his rights, he demands from the suspect to tell him where the gun is; it’s in a garbage can; Quarles goes on to say because the popo didn’t read him his rights that the gun can’t be used; there is a public safety exception even if the popo demand testimony; if they can show that there was an immediate threat, then the evidence can still be used

Front 20

Search and seizure:

Back 20

(4th Amendment)
• Guarantees the right against unreasonable search and seizure

Front 21

Warrant requirement and exceptions:

Back 21

• must be based upon probable cause, must describe the items that are being caught, must be obtained by the swearing of an oath before a magistrate
• all are writ of assistance] prof cause, oath or affirmation,
particular deserbiry, place, person/thing

Front 22

Writs of assistance:

Back 22

• during the American colonial era, the british made extensive
use of writs of assistance
• blank check to pursue a criminal; series of problems that could be used as political tools, etc. A writ of assistance is a written order (a writ) issued by a court
instructing a law enforcement official, such as a sheriff, to
perform a certain task.

Front 23

Olmstead v. US:

Back 23

• FBI was wiretapping with the people taking order for liquor,
leaders talking with the dealers; nothing was searched or seized; does not fit categories; eaves dropping

Front 24

Katz v. US:

Back 24

• This is the case in which the court first held that electronic
surveillance of telephone communications constitutes as search and seizure and must be performed pursuant to a warrant
• The supreme court’s ruling that the 4th amendment protects persons and not just places is found in this case
• FBI and a bookie? To take illegal bets with a phonebook
[1967]; didn’t listen in to any conversations that involved him talking to anyone about a personal matter; court says that any time the govt observes you, they have to obtain a warrant if
[1]Reasonable expectation of privacy

Front 25

Free speech:

Back 25

• Under 1st amendment political speech is given a special status: receives the highest degree of constitutional protection; speech that has social/religious implications; commercial speech is advertising
• Obscenity isn’t protected by 1st amendment

Front 26

Schenck v. US:

Back 26

• schenck makes pamphlets to be mailed out; schenck argues
that the draft is unconstitutional; arrested and charged for conspiracy for the espionage act for aiding the enemy; court as to figure out if he can be punished for this; Holmes says the govt can punish speech when it represents a clear and present
danger

Front 27

Bradenburg v. Ohio:

Back 27

The court held that, in order to punish political speech, the
speech must constitute incitement to imminent lawless action and be likely to produce such action
• KKK case; in order to punish political speech, it must institute incitement to imminent lawless action and must be likely to produce action

Front 28

Adderley v. Florida:

Back 28

1966; the SC upheld the arrest and conviction of students who
were protesting on the grounds of the county jail because
although govt may not regulate the content of speech, it may
regulate the time, place, or manner in which speech occurs
• limited public forum- where the govt opens a nonpublic forum for a limited use; when this is done, they can open and close the forum as they see fit, but when they open it, they can only place limitations in an even manner and can’t discriminate; cannot have view point discrimination [allowing one perspective to speak, but not the other]; content restrictions are allowed;
govt can place content restrictions

Front 29

Public vs. non public forum:

Back 29

• Public- the state may exclude certain topics from the forum but may not discriminate based on viewpoint

Front 30

Establishment clause:

Back 30

(1st Amendment)
• State can pose prayers in public schools

Front 31

Jefferson's letter to the danbury baptist association:

Back 31

The phrase “high wall of separation between church and state”

Front 32

Everson v. Ewing Township Bd. of education:

Back 32

The court claimed that the establishment clause erects a high wall of separation between church and state. It has since upheld all of the following forms of state EXCEPT salary enhancements for teachers at private religious schools who
teach secular subjects

Front 33

Lemon v. Kurtzman (lemon test):

Back 33

• Lemon test says the law’s purpose must be neutral, the effect must be secular, and there can be no excessive entanglement
• The court says we have to look at 3 things [1] is there a
secular purpose behind it? aka private schools are necessary
for public schools existence….[2] primary effect must neither advance nor inhibit religion [3] we have to avoid entanglements
between church and state**both failed here

Front 34

___speech receives the highest level of protection under the 1st
amendment

Back 34

Political

Front 35

The clear-and-present danger test was made up by....

Back 35

Oliver Holmes Jr.

Front 36

The court had articulated all of the following exceptions to the
exclusionary rule EXCEPT....

Back 36

the clear and present danger exception

Front 37

Religious liberty consists of these two things:

Back 37

[1] immunity from establishment of religion that is govt compulsion [2] right to freely exercise religion

Front 38

This case was the 1st time the court requires the state to
release a violent criminal on the basis of the exclusionary rule

Back 38

miranda v arizona

Front 39

The most important thing about this case is that the court establishes the exclusionary rule; state case

Back 39

Mapp v. ohio

Front 40

This is the exception to the exclusionary term

Back 40

inevitable discovery