NAME

Question types


Start with


Question limit

of 26 available terms

Advertisement Upgrade to remove ads
Print test

5 Written questions

5 Matching questions

  1. McDonald v. Chicago
  2. Brown v. Board of Education
  3. Texas v. Johnson
  4. Lemon v. Kurtzman
  5. DC v. Heller
  1. a Year: 1952
    Location: Board of Education
    Background: African Americans were being deny by accessing to the Caucasian school because of the segregation laws.The students were brought the issue to court by stating the Fourteenth amendment.
    Question:
    Does the segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race deprive the minority children of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment?
    Decision: 9 votes for Brown, 0 vote(s) against
    Outcome: The justices have voted for Brown stating that segregating students in school would not being treating the students equally through the fourteenth amendment. The case was being overruled that it would be "Separate but equal" clause.
  2. b Year: 2009
    Location: Chicago
    Background: Suits were being filed against Chicago and oak Park, IL for banning hand guns. Right after the case DC v. Heller decision, we should abide by the Second Amendment like the Federal Government because of the 14th amendment.
    Question: Does the Second Amendment apply to the states because it is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges and Immunities or Due Process clauses and thereby made applicable to the states?
    Decision: 5 votes for McDonald, 4 vote(s) against
    Outcome: SCOTUS approved that the people should have the right to bear arm because of they are being protected by the Second Amendment.
  3. c Year: 2007
    Location: Metropolitan Police Department
    Background: In the District of Columbia made a law that restricted fun ownership. Then there were a group of private gun owners challenging the court with the second amendment.
    Question: Whether provisions of the D.C. Code generally barring the registration of handguns, prohibiting carrying a pistol without a license, and requiring all lawful firearms to be kept unloaded and either disassembled or trigger locked violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?
    Decision: 5 votes for Heller, 4 vote(s) against
    Outcome: The court say that the Second Amendment was protecting the individual right by having a firearm. Therefore the District of Columbia do not have the right to make a law stating no firearm. They can make rules around it, but can prevent people from having a gun. This also states that the gun are suppose to be only used for self-defense. Some other justices believe that this is only for militia.
  4. d Year: 1970
    Location: Eastern District Court of Pennsylvania
    Background: In Pennsylvania they have been funding non-public schools. These school are all church related.
    Question: Did the Rhode Island and Pennsylvania statutes violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause by making state financial aid available to "church- related educational institutions"?
    Decision: 8 votes for Lemon, 0 vote(s) against
    Outcome: The court state that we can not fund any type of church like school, they are private for a reason. They would have there own money, not by the government. The government is not promoting any type of religion.
  5. e Year: 1988
    Location: Dallas City Hall
    Background:
    Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag in front of the Dallas City Hall in 1984. Johnson was convicted under a Texas outlawing flag desecration. He was sentence to year for a year, plus a 2,000 dollars fine. After the Texas Court of criminal Appeals was granted, the case went to the Supreme Court.
    Question: Is the desecration of an American flag, by burning or otherwise, a form of speech that is protected under the First Amendment?
    Decision: 5 votes for Johnson, 4 vote(s) against
    Outcome: Johnson's burning of a flag was protected expression of the First Amendment. The court have found that Johnson's actions is just an expressive way, plus a distinctively political nature. The reason why Government may not disapprove because usually its this people why of looking at the act. They may feel it offensive or disagreeable, so they would speak against it.

5 Multiple choice questions

  1. Year: 2001
    Location: York County Court
    Background: Daryl Renard was convicted for abduction, armed robbery, and capital murder. During the trial they have a doctor stating that he was mentally retarded. The jury soon have sentence the man to death. Soon the Virginia Supreme Court ordered a second sentencing hearing. Soon the trial he can not be sentence to death because we was mentally ill.
    Question: Is the execution of mentally retarded persons "cruel and unusual punishment" prohibited by the Eighth Amendment?
    Decision: 6 votes for Atkins, 3 vote(s) against
    Outcome: The court have decided that it would be cruel and unusual punishments to sentence a man who is mentally ill. He was defend by the Eighth Amendment.
  2. Year: 1961
    Location: New Hyde Park-Garden City Park School District
    Background: This school have an voluntary prayer for recitation at the start of each school day. This was promoting a type of religion and school is not suppose to promote any type of religion.
    Question: Does the reading of a nondenominational prayer at the start of the school day violate the "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment?
    Decision: 6 votes for Engel, 1 vote(s) agains
    Outcome: The court have decided that even if its voluntary can save it from being unconstitutional. By accepting the prayer, this would lead that New York officially approved religion.
  3. Year: 1962
    Location: Abington high School
    Background: Every morning in Pennsylvania public schools student would read part of the Bible. There would be ten verse everyday. After that the student would recite the lord prayers. Student would be excluded from the exercise by a written letter from their parents.
    Question: Did the Pennsylvania law and Abington's policy, requiring public school students to participate in classroom religious exercises, violate the religious freedom of students as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?
    Decision: 8 votes for Schempp, 1 vote(s) against
    Outcome: The court decide that this was a violation. The school was not suppose to promote any type of religion in a public school, plus the fact that the parents have to write a not to excuse the child from the practices was not preventing the violation of the Establishment Clause.
  4. Year: 1856
    Location: Fort Snelling
    Background: Dred Scoot was a slave in Missouri and during the time of 1833 to 1843, he was living at IIIinois which at the time were a free state. When he return to Missouri he was being sue for his freedom. He also claim that by him having a residence in a free state this mean he is a free man. Plus Scott's master say no African or African american can be a citizen because of the Article III of the constitution.
    Question: Was Dred Scott free or slave?
    Decision: 7 votes for Sandford, 2 vote(s) against
    Outcome: Under Articles III and IV state who ever was born here is the citizen of the U.S. So Dred Scott was still a slave.
  5. Year: 1968
    Location: Farm
    Background: Brandenburg, a leader of the KKK had made a speech tying to provoke some sort of violence. The Ohio had convicted the leader under criminal syndicalism law. This law prevent anyone from making plans of sabotage other people or causing any type of harms.
    Question: Did Ohio's criminal syndicalism law, prohibiting public speech that advocates various illegal activities, violate Brandenburg's right to free speech as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?
    Decision: 8 votes for Brandenburg, 0 vote(s) against
    Outcome: Brandenburg have stated that this was preventing him from freedom of speech, but the court use a two-pronged test to look over the speech. The speech did not pass and that he was violating the law.

5 True/False questions

  1. Roe v. WadeYear: 1971
    Location: US District Court for the Northern District of Texas
    Background: Roe was a women that wanted to terminate her pregnancy with an abortion. The State did not allowed this because it was illegal at the time to have abortion.
    Question: Does the Constitution embrace a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion?
    Decision: 7 votes for Roe, 2 vote(s) against
    Outcome: The court decided that the woman's right to an abortion would have been the right to privacy, this is protected under the fourteenth amendment. This gave the right for women to decide to have a abortion and the government have nothing to do with it.

          

  2. McCulloch v. MarylandYear: 1856
    Location: Fort Snelling
    Background: Dred Scoot was a slave in Missouri and during the time of 1833 to 1843, he was living at IIIinois which at the time were a free state. When he return to Missouri he was being sue for his freedom. He also claim that by him having a residence in a free state this mean he is a free man. Plus Scott's master say no African or African american can be a citizen because of the Article III of the constitution.
    Question: Was Dred Scott free or slave?
    Decision: 7 votes for Sandford, 2 vote(s) against
    Outcome: Under Articles III and IV state who ever was born here is the citizen of the U.S. So Dred Scott was still a slave.

          

  3. Marbury v. MadisonYear: 1965
    Location: Maricopa County Jail
    Background: There were three cases when when citizens were arrested without knowing about it. They was causing self-incriminating themselves, while not knowing anything about the outside world.
    Question: Does the police practice of interrogating individuals without notifiying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment?
    Decision: 5 votes for Miranda, 4 vote(s) against
    Outcome: The court have stated that they do agree that without any notice or warrant they can not take someone away. Also the court have include a warning of the right to remain silent and also the right to have counsel present during interrogations.

          

  4. US v. O'BrienYear: 2007
    Location: Metropolitan Police Department
    Background: In the District of Columbia made a law that restricted fun ownership. Then there were a group of private gun owners challenging the court with the second amendment.
    Question: Whether provisions of the D.C. Code generally barring the registration of handguns, prohibiting carrying a pistol without a license, and requiring all lawful firearms to be kept unloaded and either disassembled or trigger locked violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?
    Decision: 5 votes for Heller, 4 vote(s) against
    Outcome: The court say that the Second Amendment was protecting the individual right by having a firearm. Therefore the District of Columbia do not have the right to make a law stating no firearm. They can make rules around it, but can prevent people from having a gun. This also states that the gun are suppose to be only used for self-defense. Some other justices believe that this is only for militia.

          

  5. Mapp v. OhioYear: 1971
    Location: US District Court for the Northern District of Texas
    Background: Roe was a women that wanted to terminate her pregnancy with an abortion. The State did not allowed this because it was illegal at the time to have abortion.
    Question: Does the Constitution embrace a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion?
    Decision: 7 votes for Roe, 2 vote(s) against
    Outcome: The court decided that the woman's right to an abortion would have been the right to privacy, this is protected under the fourteenth amendment. This gave the right for women to decide to have a abortion and the government have nothing to do with it.

          

Create Set