Ap Gov Chapter 5

Front 1

Civil Liberties

Back 1

a set of principles that protect the freedoms of all of us all of the time.

Front 2

Establishment Clause

Back 2

First amendment. States that congress shall make no law "respecting the establishment of religion"

Front 3

Free-Exercise Clause

Back 3

first amendment states that congress shall make no law prohibiting the "free excerise" of religion

Front 4

Prior Restraint

Back 4

The Court will not tolerate a prior restraint on expression, such as censorship, even when it will allow subsequent punishment or improper expressions

Front 5

Clear and present danger test

Back 5

Is a time when authority figures can restrict speech and expression. Justice Holmes announced a rule by which to settle the matter. "The question in every case is where the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantial evils that Congress has right to prevent. Law should not punish speech unless there was a clear and present danger of producing harmful actions.

Front 6

Public Figures

Back 6

such as an elected official, an army general, or a well-known celebrity must prove that not only that the publicaiton (libel) was false and damaging but also that the words published with "actual malice" that is with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity or with knowledge that they were false. However the reward just because something is false does not make it so the publication had actual malice.

Front 7

Miranda warnings

Back 7

In a case involving Ernesto A Miranda who was convicted for rape and kidnapping was later overturned by the Supreme Court because he did not have a lawyer during questioning. This caused the "Miranda Rules" which govern how police must conduct an arrest and interrogation. You have the right to a lawyer in a police line up. When yo uare question by a pyschiatrist to determine whether you are competent to stan trial.

Front 8

Exclusionary rule

Back 8

Improperly gathered evidence may not be introduced in a criminal trial

Front 9

Good faith exception

Back 9

If the evidence gathered in a trial is sufficiently minor, it may be used in that trial. For example if the warrant was considered defective for some reason. Also the Court devlared that "overriding cosniderations of public safety" may justify questioning a person without first reading the person his or her rights

Front 10

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Country School District

Back 10

Public School students may wear armbands to class protesting against America's war in Vietnam when such display does not disrupt class. Violation of first amendment. Also helps explain were symbolic speech is in terms of the 1st amendment

Front 11

New York Times v United States

Back 11

In order to exercise prior restraint, the Government must show sufficient evidence that the publication would cause a “grave and irreparable” danger. The New York Times and Washington Post could print the "Pentagon Papers" without censorship by government

Front 12

Mapp v. Ohio

Back 12

Evidence illegally gathered by police may not be used in a criminal trial. Violation of 4th amendment of search and seizure. Fourth Amendment which are literally applicable only to actions of the federal government into the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause which is literally applicable to actions of the states.

Front 13

New York Times v. Sullivan 1964

Back 13

To libel a public figure there must be "actual malice"

Front 14

Griswold v. Connecticut

Back 14

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". Established the idea that people had some right to privacy. Griswold used the 9th amendment to say that there was a right of privacy and said that contraceptive law was violating the 14th amendment of due process

Front 15

Reynolds v. United States

Back 15

was a Supreme Court of the United States case that held that religious duty was not a suitable defense to a criminal indictment. George Reynolds was a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), charged with bigamy under the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act after marrying Amelia Jane Schofield while still married to Mary Ann Tuddenham in Utah Territory. Reynolds tried to use the first amendment. Reynolds was also the first Supreme Court opinion to address the Impartial Jury and the Confrontation Clauses of the Sixth Amendment.

Front 16

Selective Incorporation

Back 16

Court Cases that apply Bill of Rights to states. The Court decides whether or not if these rights are fundamental. Sometimes they only incorporate parts of the amendments.

Front 17

Wall of Separation Principle

Back 17

With regards to first amendment states that the court ruling that government cannot be involved in religion.

Front 18

Libel vs. Slander

Back 18

Libel is a written statement that defames the character of another person. Slander is an oral statement that defames the character of another person.

Front 19

Engel v. Vitale

Back 19

There may not be a prayer even a nondenominational one, in public schools. This was debating the interpretation of the First amendent and the free exercise and establishment clause. It was then INTERPRETED that there is a "separation of church and state"

Front 20

fighting words

Back 20

The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 9-0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. It held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] ... have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."