Political Science Test 2

Front 1

Barron V Baltimore

Back 1

established a precedent on whether the United States Bill of Rights could be applied to state governments.

John Barron co-owned a profitable wharf in the Baltimore harbor. He sued the mayor of Baltimore for damages, claiming that when the city had diverted the flow of streams while engaging in street construction, it had created mounds of sand and earth near his wharf making the water too shallow for most vessels. The trial court awarded Barron damages of $4,500, but the appellate court reversed the ruling.

The Supreme Court decided that the Bill of Rights, specifically the Fifth Amendment's guarantee that government takings of private property for public use require just compensation, are restrictions on the federal government alone. Writing for a unanimous court, Chief Justice John Marshall held that the first ten "amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them." Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 250.

The case was particul

Front 2

Griswold v Connecticut

Back 2

was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Constitution protected a right to privacy. The case involved a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives. By a vote of 7-2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy".

Although the Bill of Rights does not explicitly mention "privacy," Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the majority that the right was to be found in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of other constitutional protections. Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote a concurring opinion in which he used the Ninth Amendment to defend the Supreme Court's ruling. Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote a concurring opinion in which he argued that privacy is protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Byron White also wrote a concurrence based on the due process clause.

Two Justices, Hugo Black and Potter Stewart, filed dissents. Justice Black argued that the right to privacy is t

Front 3

Roe v Wade

Back 3

a landmark case decided by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion, is one of the most controversial and politically significant cases in U.S. Supreme Court history.

The Court held that a woman's right to an abortion is determined by her current trimester of pregnancy:

* In the first trimester, the state cannot restrict a woman's right to an abortion in any way. The courted stated that this trimester begins at conception and ends at the "point at which the fetus becomes 'viable'".
* In the second trimester, the state may only regulate the abortion procedure "in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health" (defined in the companion case of Doe v. Bolton.[2]).
* In the third trimester, the state can choose to restrict or proscribe abortion as it sees fit when the fetus is viable ("except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother").

The Court rested these conclusions on a constitutional right to privac

Front 4

Planned Parenthood v casey

Back 4

was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the constitutionality of several Pennsylvania state regulations regarding abortion were challenged. The Court's plurality opinion upheld the constitutional right to have an abortion but lowered the standard for analyzing restrictions of that right, invalidating one regulation but upholding the others.

Front 5

CaRhart 2

Back 5

is a United States Supreme Court case which upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.[1] The case reached the high court after U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales appealed a ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in favor of LeRoy Carhart that struck down the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Also before the Supreme Court was the consolidated appeal of Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which had struck down the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

Front 6

Carhart 1

Back 6

s a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States dealing with a Nebraska law which made performing partial-birth abortion illegal, without providing exceptions to preserve a woman's health. Nebraska physicians who performed the procedure contrary to the law were subject to having their medical licenses revoked. Nebraska, like many states, banned the procedure on the basis of public morality. The Court struck down the law, finding the Nebraska statute criminalizing "partial birth abortion[s]" violated the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, as interpreted in Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Roe v. Wade. This case dealt with pre-viability second trimester abortions, whereas most abortions occur during the first trimester.

Front 7

US v Emerson

Back 7

is a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit holding that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees individuals the right to bear arms. The case involved a challenge to the Constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8)(C)(ii), a federal statute which prohibited the transportation of firearms or ammunition in interstate commerce by persons subject to a court order that, by its explicit terms, prohibits the use of physical force against an intimate partner or child.

The Fifth Circuit engaged in an extensive analysis of the text and history of the Second Amendment and its attendant caselaw (including many state supreme court decisions), and it ultimately determined that the Second Amendment does guarantee individuals the right to keep and bear arms. Nonetheless, the court held that the particular deprivation of the right to bear arms in the case before it did not violate the Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court denied review of the Fifth Circuit's decision,

Front 8

DC V Heller

Back 8

was a landmark legal case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for private use in federal enclaves. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states.[1] It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self defense.[2]

On June 27, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Parker v. District of Columbia[3][4]. The Court of Appeals had struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the District of Columbia's regulations act was an unconstitutional banning, and struck down the portion of the regulations act that requires all firearms including

Front 9

Engblom V Carey

Back 9

was a 1982 court case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. It is the only significant court decision based on a direct challenge under the Third Amendment to the United States Constitution.The case was initiated by a 1979 strike by New York State correction officers. While the officers were on strike, some of their duties were performed by National Guardsmen who were activated. At Mid-Orange Correctional Facility (and other facilities) striking employees were evicted from employee housing which was then used to house some of the National Guard. Two of the evicted officers at Mid-Orange C.F., Marianne E. Engblom and Charles E. Palmer, subsequently filed suit against the state of New York and its governor, Hugh L. Carey.The decision, rendered on May 3, 1982, established that the National Guardsmen legally qualify as soldiers under the Third Amendment, that the amendment applies to state as well as federal authorities, and that the protection of this amendment extends beyond hom

Front 10

McSurely v. McClellan

Back 10

McSurely v. McClellan is a case that challenged congressional immunity for wrongdoing with regards to the illegal seizure and copying of written documents from the home of voting rights activists Alan and Margaret McSurely.

Front 11

Gun Control Act of 1968

Back 11

is a federal law in the United States that broadly regulates the firearms industry and firearms owners. It primarily focuses on regulating interstate commerce in firearms by generally prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers and importers.

The GCA is Title I of the U.S. federal firearms laws. The National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) is Title II. Both GCA and NFA are enforced by the ATF.

Front 12

Brady Bill

Back 12

was an Act of the United States Congress that, for the first time, instituted federal background checks on firearm purchasers in the United States.

It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 30, 1993, and went into effect on February 28, 1994. The Act was named after James Brady, who was shot by John Hinckley, Jr. during an attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan on March 30, 1981.

Front 13

Bill of Rights

Back 13

1. Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition
2. Right to keep and bear arms
3. Conditions for quarters of soldiers
4. Right of search and seizure regulated
5. Provisons concerning prosecution
6. Right to a speedy trial, witnesses, etc.
7. Right to a trial by jury
8. Excessive bail, cruel punishment
9. Rule of construction of Constitution
10. Rights of the States under Constitution

Front 14

Due Process Clause

Back 14

Due process is the principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law. Due process holds the government subservient to the law of the land, protecting individual persons from the state.

Front 15

Liberty of Contract era

Back 15

is the freedom of individuals and corporations to form contracts without government restrictions. This is opposed to government restrictions such as minimum wage, competition law, or price fixing. The freedom to contract is the underpinning of laissez-faire economics and is a cornerstone of libertarianism.During this time, liberty of contract was viewed as a fundamental right, and therefore, only in extreme circumstances, could this right be abridged. When the fundamental right of freedom of contract was abridged, it violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.