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. Atkins v. Virginia
  2. DC v. Heller
  3. Marbury v. Madison
  4. Virginia v. Black
  5. Roper v. Simmons
  1. a Year: 1803
    Location: The Supreme Court of the United States at the US Capitol Building
    Background: On March 2, 1801, an Federalist, William Marbury and others who had appointed the government post created by congress in the final days of John Adam's presidency. There were last minute appointments were never fully finalized. This invoked an act of congress and sued for their jobs in the Supreme Court.
    Question: Is Marbury entitled to his appointment? Is his lawsuit the correct way to get it? And, is the Supreme Court the place for Marbury to get the relief he requests?
    Decision: 6 votes for Madison, 0 vote(s) against
    Outcome: The court say that it would depends and that this issued the Constitution which was "the fundamental and paramount law of the nation" and also "an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution voids." The cases have set that the Supreme Court's power of judicial review.
  2. b Year: 2002
    Location: Virginia
    Background: Barry Black, Richard Elliott, and Jonathan O'Mara were convicted separately for violating a Virginia stature. This would make it a felony because they were cross burning and this would also intimidating people and other groups. He was found guilty.
    Question: Does the Commonwealth of Virginia's cross-burning statute, which prohibits the burning of a cross with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons, violate the First Amendment?
    Decision: 7 votes for Virginia, 2 vote(s) against
    Outcome: The outcome was that there were 7 votes for Virginia because there was a rule stated that there should be no burning on any type of properties beside your own. This would cause a type of thereat to other people. There were judges that disagree that this was unconstitutional.
  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: 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.
  5. e Year: 2004
    Location: Meramec River
    Background: This case stated when there were a juvenile breaking into a house and end up killing a young women. He soon end up confessing and was sentence to life in prison, but the state really wanted to sentence him to a death penalty.
    Question: Does the execution of minors violate the prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment" found in the Eighth Amendment and applied to the states through the incorporation doctrine of the 14th Amendment?
    Decision: 5 votes for Simmons, 4 vote(s) against
    Outcome: Yes the court have decided that by giving a minor a death penalty would be a cruel and unusual punishment. Therefore violating the Eight Amendment.

5 Multiple choice questions

  1. Year: 1819
    Location: Maryland State House
    Background: Congress made a second bank in the United States in 1816. In 1818, Maryland passed a law that to impose taxes on the bank. Jame W. Mculloch works at Baltimore branch of the bank, his position of a cashier and he refused to pay the tax.
    Question: The case presented two questions: Did Congress have the authority to establish the bank? Did the Maryland law unconstitutionally interfere with congressional powers?
    Decision: 7 votes for McCulloch, 0 vote(s) against
    Outcome: The decision was that Congress have the ability to be part of the bank, but Maryland could not tax the nation government employed. The constitution is only being control by the Supreme. The constitution can be control by the respective states.
  2. 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.
  3. Year: 1987
    Location: Hazelwood East High School
    Background: School sponsored newspapers and the students released two articles that the school principal Reynolds thinks that its inappropriate. Cathy Kuhlmeier and two other former Hazelwoods East students was brought into court.
    Question: Did the principal's deletion of the articles violate the students' rights under the First Amendment?
    Decision: 5 votes for Hazelwood School District, 3 vote(s) against
    Outcome: The court had held that the First Amendment didn't really apply to schools as much because it would depend on the types of speech they states. They also stated that there should be a standard set to tell the students the limit of freedom of speech in school.
  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: Des Monies Independent Community School District
    Background: John Tinker, 15 year old, his sister Mary beth Tinker, 13 years old, and Christopher Echardt, 16 years old, were wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam war just like their parents. This was during the Christmas holiday and the principals of Des Monies school district was fearing that it would cause or provoke disturbances. The principals soon ask them to remove the armbands or they have to face suspension. The children refuse to remove the armbands, they were suspended until New Year's Day.
    Question: Does a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech protections?
    Decision: 7 votes for Tinker, 2 votes against
    Outcome: The supreme court have decided that by wearing the armbands it was "closely akin to 'pure speech" and that was protected by the First Amendment. This proves that the principle had fail to show that the student had cause some sort of disruption or chaos in the school environment.

5 True/False questions

  1. Plessy v. FergusonYear: 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.

          

  2. Engel v. VitaleYear: 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.

          

  3. Brandenburg v. OhioYear: 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.

          

  4. 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.

          

  5. New Jersey v. TLOYear: 1983
    Location: Piscataway High School
    Background: An 14 year old was being accused for smoking in the girl bathroom in her high school. The principal at the school started to question her and the looked in her purse. They found a bag of marijuana and other drug paraphernalia.
    Question: Did the search violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments?
    Decision: 6 votes for New Jersey, 3 vote(s) against
    Outcome: The court say that this was not violating the the Constitution at all because she was in school and presence of rolling paper in the purse made her more suspicious. This lead into searching the purse even more.

          

Create Set