Ap Gov Unit 2

Front 1

Judicial Review

Back 1

The power of a court to refuse to enforce a law or government regulation that in the opinion of the judges conflicts with the U.S. Constitution or, in a state court, the state constitution

Front 2

Adversary System

Back 2

A judicial system in which the court of law is a neutral arena where two parties argue the differences

Front 3

Difference between Criminal Law and Civil Law

Back 3

Criminal: Law that defines crime against the public order and provides for punishment.

Civil: Law that governs the relations between individuals and defines their legal rights.

Front 4

Federalist #78

Back 4

written by Alexander Hamilton; talks about the federal judiciary; judiciary must depend on other two branches to uphold its decisions

Front 5

Plea Bargain

Back 5

Agreement between a prosecutor and a defendant that the defendant will plead guilty to a lesser offense to avoid having to stand trial for a more serious offense.

Front 6

Public Defender System

Back 6

Arrangement whereby public officials are hired to provide legal assistance to people accused of crimes whoa re unable to hire their own attorneys

Front 7

Defendant

Back 7

In a criminal action, the person or party accused of an offense.

Front 8

Original Jurisdiction

Back 8

The authority of a court to hear a case " in the first instance"

Front 9

Apellate Jurisdiction

Back 9

The authority of a court to review decisions made by lower courts

Front 10

Stare Decisis

Back 10

The rule of precedent, whereby a rule or law contained in a judicial decision is commonly viewed as binding on judges whenever the same question is presented.

Front 11

District Courts

Back 11

In the federal courts, trials are held in in what are called District Courts and appeals are to the Courts of Appeals, and then to the US Supreme Court.

Front 12

Apellate Courts

Back 12

Appeals are to the Courts of Appeals, and then to the US Supreme Court.

Front 13

Writ of Habeas Corpus

Back 13

A court order requiring explanation to a judge why a prisoner is being held in custody

Front 14

Supreme Court justices and their Ideologies

Back 14

Their Ideologies usually correspond with the President that appointed them

Front 15

4 Factors used for federal judge appointment by president

Back 15

Political Party, Race/Gender, Experience, Liberal/Conservative

Front 16

Senatorial Courtesy

Back 16

Presidential custom of submitting the names of prospective appointees for approval to senators form the states in which the appointees are to work.

Front 17

Senate Judiciary Committee

Back 17

A Senate committee, charged, among other things, with recommending for or against presidential appointees to the federal courts.

Front 18

Recess Appointments

Back 18

Presidential appointment made without Senate confirmation during Senate recess

Front 19

Litmus Test

Back 19

An examination of the political ideology of a nominated judge.

Front 20

"borking"

Back 20

to attack (a candidate or public figure) systematically, especially in the media

Front 21

People For the American Way & Heritage Foundation

Back 21

is a modern liberal progressive advocacy group in the United States.

Front 22

Judicial Restraint

Back 22

Philosophy proposing that judges should interpret the Constitution to reflect what the framers intended and what its words literally say.

Front 23

Judicial Activism

Back 23

Philosophy proposing that judges should interpret the Constitution to reflect current conditions and values.

Front 24

"packing the courts"

Back 24

Prestidents chooseing judges with similar ideology.

Front 25

Litigation

Back 25

To engage in legal proceedings.

Front 26

What isssues have congress changed jurisdiction over

Back 26

The Supreme Courts original jurisdiction can only be changed by Constitutional Amendment; however, Congress can engage in jurisdictional stripping over certain types of appellate matters through

Front 27

Writ of Certiorari

Back 27

An order by the Court directing a lower court to send up the record of the case for review.

Front 28

Dickenson v. U.S.

Back 28

Two reporters violated a judges order not to publish testimony in a murder conspiracy case in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Importance: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit declared that an injunction must be obeyed, regardless of the ultimate validity of the court order.

Front 29

Miranda v. Arizona

Back 29

1966 ruling that upon arrest, a suspect has the right to remain silent and the right to consult with a lawyer.

Front 30

2 roads to the Supreme Court

Back 30

The Rule of Four and Apellate Court

Front 31

Rule of Four

Back 31

an unwritten rule that requires at least four justices to agree that a case warrants consideration before it is reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Front 32

Amicus Curiae Brief

Back 32

Where interests groups are concerned with the outcome of the case and they can file a brief

Front 33

US. v. Lopez

Back 33

Gun Free School Zones Act exceeded Congress authority to regulate interstate commerce. The law is a criminal statute that has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic activity.

Front 34

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services

Back 34

was a United States Supreme Court decision on July 3, 1989 upholding a Missouri law that imposed restrictions on the use of state funds, facilities, and employees in performing, assisting with, or counseling on abortions. The Supreme Court in Webster allowed for states to legislate in an area that had previously been thought to be forbidden under Roe v. Wade.

Front 35

3 types of opinions

Back 35

The three types of opinions most people are familiar with are: Majority (usually called the "opinion of the Court")Concurring (agreeing)Dissenting (disagreeing)

Front 36

Bush v. Gore

Back 36

is the United States Supreme Court decision that effectively resolved the dispute surrounding the 2000 presidential election.

Front 37

Hmadan v. Rumsfeld

Back 37

is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay lack "the power to proceed because its structures and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949."Specifically, the ruling says that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions was violated

Front 38

Signing Statements

Back 38

is a written pronouncement issued by the President of the United States upon the signing of a bill into law.

Front 39

Ex Post Facto law

Back 39

Retroactive criminal law that works to the disadvantage of an individual; forbidden in the Constitution

Front 40

Bill of Attainer

Back 40

Legislative act inflicting punishment, including deprivation of property, without a trial, on named individuals or members of a specific group

Front 41

Due Process Clause

Back 41

Clause in the Fifth Amendment limiting the power of the national government; similar clause in the Fourteenth Amendment prohibiting state governments from depriving any person life, liberty or property without due process of law

Front 42

Selective Incorporation

Back 42

The process by which provisions of the Bill of Rights are brought within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment and so applied to state and local governments.

Front 43

New Judicial Federalism

Back 43

refers to the increased reliance of state courts of last resort on state constitutions rather than on the federal Constitution for the protection of individual rights.

Front 44

Difference between Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause

Back 44

Free Exercise: the First Amendment guarantee that citizens may freely engage in the religious activities of their choice
Establishment Clause: Clause in the First Amendment that states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

Front 45

Faith Based Initiative

Back 45

community based actions that are vbalued and essential partners to assist Americans in need
Federal Government Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives

Front 46

Lemon v. Kurtzman

Back 46

as a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that Pennsylvanias 1968 Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act , which allowed the state Superintendent of Public Instruction to reimburse nonpublic schools (most of which were Catholic) for the salaries of teachers who taught secular material in these nonpublic schools, secular textbooks and secular instructional materials, violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Front 47

Engle v. Vitale

Back 47

was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that ruled it is unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and encourage its recitation in public schools.

Front 48

"Intellgent Design"

Back 48

is a form of creationism[1][2][3] presented by its proponents as a theory that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[

Front 49

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris

Back 49

was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court that tested the allowance of school vouchers in relation to the First Amendments Establishment Clause.

Front 50

Employment Division v. Smith

Back 50

is a United States Supreme Court case that determined that the state could deny unemployment benefits to a person fired for violating a state prohibition on the use of peyote, even though the use of the drug was part of a religious ritual.

Front 51

Symbolic Speech

Back 51

is a legal term in United States law used to describe actions that purposefully and discernibly convey a particular message or statement to those viewing it. Symbolic speech is recognized as being protected under the First Amendment as a form of speech, but this is not expressly written as such in the document.

Front 52

Bad Tendency Test

Back 52

Interpretation of the First Amendment that would permit legislatures to forbid speech encouraging people to engage in illegal action.

Front 53

Clear and Present Danger Test

Back 53

Interpretation of the First Amendment that holds that the government cannot interfere with speech unless the speech presents a clear and present danger that it will lead to evil or illegal acts. To shout "Fire"falsely in a crowded theater is Justice Oliver Wendell Holmess famous example.

Front 54

Preferred Position Test

Back 54

Interpretation of the First Amendment that holds that freedom of expression is so essential to democracy that governments should not punish persons for what they say, only for what they do.

Front 55

Libel and Slander

Back 55

Written defamation of another person. Especially in the case of public officials and public figures, the constitutional tests designed to restrict libel actions are very rigid.

the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a persons reputation.

Front 56

Sedition

Back 56

Attempting to overthrow the government by force or to interrupt its activities by violence.

Front 57

Miller v. California

Back 57

was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision wherein the court redefined its definition of obscenity from that of “utterly without socially redeeming value” to that that lacks "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value

Front 58

Fighting Words

Back 58

Words that by their very nature inflict injury on those to whom they are addressed or incite them to acts of violence.

Front 59

Prioir Restraint

Back 59

Censorship imposed before a speech is made or a newspaper is published

Front 60

Freedom of Infomation Act

Back 60

is a federal freedom of information law that allows for the full or partial disclosure of previously unreleased information and documents controlled by the United States government.

Front 61

Shield Laws

Back 61

A shield law is legislation designed to protect reporters privilege, or the right of news reporters to refuse to testify as to information and/or sources of information obtained during the news gathering and dissemination process.

Front 62

Telecomunications Act of 1996

Back 62

was the first significant overhaul of United States telecommunications law in more than sixty years, amending the Communications Act of 1934. The Act, signed by President Bill Clinton, represented a major change in American telecommunication law, since it was the first time that the Internet was included in broadcasting and spectrum allotment

Front 63

Reno v. ACLU

Back 63

is a United States Supreme Court case in which all nine Justices of the Court voted to strike down anti-indecency provisions of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), because they violated the First Amendments guarantee of freedom of speech.

Front 64

Function of Federal Communications Commission

Back 64

The commission is organized into bureaus and offices, based on function (see also Organizational Charts of the FCC). Bureau and office staff members regularly share expertise to cooperatively fulfill responsibilities such as: Developing and implementing regulatory programs.

Front 65

Naturalization

Back 65

A legal action conferring citizenship on an alien.

Front 66

Dual Citizenship and Expatriation

Back 66

Citizenship in more than one nation.

The right to renounce ones citizenship

Front 67

Slaughterhouse Case

Back 67

the 5th and 14th amendments do not guarantee federal protection of individual rights of all citizens of the United States against discrimination by their own state governments; made a distinction between state citizenship and national citizenship

Front 68

Contract Clause

Back 68

prohibits states from enacting any law that retroactively impairs contract rights. The Contract Clause applies only to state legislation, not court decisions.

Front 69

Police Powers

Back 69

Inherent powers of state governments to pass laws to protect the public health, safety, and welfare; the national government has no directly granted police powers but accomplishes the same goals through other delegated powers/

Front 70

Eminent Domain

Back 70

Power of a government to take private property for public use; the U.S. Constitution gives national and state governments this power and requires them to provide just compensation for property so taken.

Front 71

Regulatory Taking

Back 71

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

Front 72

Procedural Due Process

Back 72

Principle required by the Constitution that when the state or federal government acts in such a way that denies a citizen of a life, liberty, or property interest, the person must first be given notice and the opportunity to be heard.

Front 73

Substantive Due Process

Back 73

Constitutional requirement that governments act reasonably and that the substance of the laws themselves be fair and reasonable; limits what a government may do.

Front 74

USA Patriot Act

Back 74

is an Act of Congress that was signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001. The purpose of the USA PATRIOT Act is to deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and other purposes

Front 75

Partial Birth Abortion

Back 75

is a United States law prohibiting a form of late-term abortion that the Act calls "partial-birth abortion", referred to in medical literature as intact dilation and extraction.

Front 76

Casey (Undue Burden"

Back 76

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 Courts plurality opinion upheld the constitutional right to have an abortion and altered the standards for analyzing restrictions of that right, invalidating one regulation but upholding the other four.

Front 77

Romer v. Evans

Back 77

is a landmark United States Supreme Court case dealing with sexual orientation and state laws. It was the first Supreme Court case to address gay rights since Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), when the Court had held that laws criminalizing sodomy were constitutional.[1]

Front 78

5 Senses Cannot Commit a Trespass

Back 78

Evidence cannot be introduced into trial if it was not constitutionally obtained.

Front 79

F.I.S.A.

Back 79

is a United States federal law which prescribes procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance and collection of "foreign intelligence information" between "foreign powers" and "agents of foreign powers

Front 80

Exclusionary Rule

Back 80

Evidence cannot be introduced into trial if it was not constitutionally obtained.

Front 81

Leon and Nix Cases

Back 81

See Exclusionary Rule

Front 82

Miranda Decision

Back 82

A decision by the United States Supreme Court concerning the rights of persons in police custody. The Court ruled that, before questioning by the police, suspects must be informed that they have the right to remain silent and the right to consult an attorney, and that anything they say may be used against them in court.

Front 83

Difference between Grand Jury and Petit Jury

Back 83

Petit: A jury of 6 to 12 persons who determine guilt or innocence in a civil or criminal action.

Grand: A jury of 12 to 23 persons who, in private, hear evidence presented by the government to determine whether persons shall be required to stand trial

Front 84

Indictment, Arraignment, and Trial by Jury

Back 84

Indictment: is a formal accusation that a person has committed a crime.
Arraignment: is a formal reading of a criminal charging document in the presence of the defendant to inform the defendant of the charges against him or her.
Trial by Jury: legal proceeding in which a jury either makes a decision or makes findings of fact, which then direct the actions of a judge.

Front 85

Furman v. Georgia and Gregg v. Georgia

Back 85

reaffirmed the United States Supreme Courts acceptance of the use of the death penalty in the United States, upholding, in particular, the death sentence imposed on Troy Leon Gregg.

Front 86

Double Jeopardy

Back 86

Trial or punishment for the same crime by the same government; forbidden by the Constitution

Front 87

Difference between Civil Rights and Civil Liberties

Back 87

Civil rights is concentrated on the basic equality of treatment of people regardless of race, gender, etc. Civil liberties, on the other hand, includes a more vast freedom which includes freedom of speech, right to privacy, etc.

Front 88

Natural Rights

Back 88

those not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable.

Front 89

3 Classification Tests (Rational, Suspect, and Quasi-Suspect)

Back 89

3 Different Tests

Front 90

San Antonio v. Rodriguez

Back 90

was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held the San Antonio Independent School Districts financing system, based on local property taxes, was not an unconstitutional violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause.

Front 91

Education Amendment

Back 91

Title IX , a portion

Front 92

Civil Rights Act of 1964

Back 92

act that prohibited the use of any registration requirement that resulted in discrimination and paved the way for the involvement of the federal government to enforce the law.

Front 93

Civil Rights Act of 1968

Back 93

this law banned discrimination in housing, the segregation of education, transportation, and employment, it helped African Americans gain their full voting rights.

Front 94

Voting Rights Act of 1965

Back 94

authorized the use of federal agents to enforce African Americans right to register and vote.

Front 95

Americans With Disabilities Act of 1991

Back 95

act that required employers, schools, and public buildings to reasonably accommodate the physical needs of handicapped individuals by providing such things as ramps and elevators with appropriate facilities.

Front 96

Glass Ceiling

Back 96

is a political term used to describe "the unseen, yet unbreakable barrier that keeps minorities and women from rising to the upper rungs of the corporate ladder, regardless of their qualifications or achievements."

Front 97

3 Ways to disenfranchise blacks

Back 97

The Jim Crow laws had two goals; to keep African-American separate from whites and to keep them from obtaining political power. The latter was done through the use of the poll tax, grandfather clause and literacy tests.

Front 98

Difference between De Jure and De Facto Segregation

Back 98

de jure segregation is segregation imposed by law (de jure is latin for lawful) de facto segregation is segregation by fact or circumstance.

Front 99

Class Action Suit

Back 99

Lawsuit brought by an individual or a group of people on behalf of all those similarly situated.

Front 100

Restrictive Covenant

Back 100

A provision in a deed to real property prohibiting its sale to a person of a particular race or religion. Judicial enforcement of such deeds is unconstitutional.

Front 101

Bakke Case (1971)

Back 101

A 1978 Supreme Court decision holding that a state university could not admit less qualified individuals solely because of their race.

Front 102

Croson and Adarand Cases

Back 102

affirmative action plans must be jusged by the strict scrutiny standard that requires any race-conscious plan to be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest

Front 103

Californias Proposition 209

Back 103

is a California ballot proposition which, upon approval in November 1996, amended the state constitution to prohibit public institutions from considering race, sex, or ethnicity.The initiative was opposed by affirmative action advocates and supporters. Proposition 209 was voted into law on 5 November 1996, with 54 percent of the votes. In the November 2006 election in Michigan, a similar amendment was passed, entitled the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative.

Front 104

Gratz and Grutter v. Bolinger (2003)

Back 104

Gratz vs. Bollinger was a ruling that stated adding points due to race in the university admission point system was unconstitutional. The ruling was against the University of Michigans undergraduate admission. Grutter vs. Bollinger was a ruling that upheld the Gratz vs. Bollinger ruling. Violated the Equal Protection Clause.