NAME

Question Types


Start With


Question Limit

of 26 available terms

Advertisement Upgrade to remove ads

5 Written Questions

5 Matching Questions

  1. New Jersey v. TLO
  2. US v. O'Brien
  3. Atkins v. Virginia
  4. Morse v Frederick
  5. Plessy v. Ferguson
  1. a 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. b Year: 2006
    Location: Des Moines Independent Community School District
    Background: There were a school event on school ground and one of the student name Joseph Frederick held up a banner with the message "Bong Hits 4 Jesus," this was referring to marihuana smoking. The principal Deborab Morse took away the banner and suspend the kid for about ten days. She also stated why she did that is in the school's policy it says that it ban any type of promotion on illegal drugs. Frederick sued the Morse under 42 U,S.C 1983, the federal civil rights statute, alleging a violation of his First Amendment.
    Question:
    1) Does the First Amendment allow public schools to prohibit students from displaying messages promoting the use of illegal drugs at school-supervised events?
    2) Does a school official have qualified immunity from a damages lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 when, in accordance with school policy, she disciplines a student for displaying a banner with a drug reference at a school-supervised event?
    Decision: 5 votes for Morse, 4 vote(s) against
    Outcome: The Court have decide that the First Amendment did not protect Fredrick because he was on school ground while there was a "school" event in session. The majority also said that the message Fredrick wanted to give out is that "Take bong hits" or "bong hits are a good thing." Justice Thomas says that freedom of speech doesn't really apply when it come to school because in school its more limited. Overall its in school grounds, your freedom of speech is not really protected because school is suppose to be define as safe and no bad promotion.
  3. c Year: 1895
    Location: Former Louisiana State Capitol Building
    Background:
    Question: Is Louisiana's law mandating racial segregation on its trains an unconstitutional infringement on both the privileges and immunities and the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment?
    Decision: 7 votes for Ferguson, 1 vote(s) against
    Outcome: The outcome would that the state law is within the constitutional boundaries.
  4. d Year: 1967
    Location: South Boston Court
    Background: David O'Brien burned his draft card at the Boston Courthouse. David believe that we was expressing his opposition to war. He was convicted under a federal law that made the destruction or mutilation of draft card a crime.
    Question: Was the law an unconstitutional infringement of O'Brien's freedom of speech?
    Decision: 7 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
    Outcome: The court stated that this was this was not made in private and that it was in front the of a crowd of people. Indicating this is not expressing, but provoking a negative message. Plus this was on the Boston Courthouse, on a private property.
  5. e Year: 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.

5 Multiple Choice Questions

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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. Year: 1906
    Location: Mapp's Residence
    Background: Mapp's home was being search for a fugitive. This then got them seeing some obscene materials and Mapp was being arrested for a different reason. He soon appealed in court for the First Amendment freedom of expression.
    Question: Were the confiscated materials protected by the First Amendment? (May evidence obtained through a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment be admitted in a state criminal proceeding?)
    Decision: 6 votes for Mapp, 3 vote(s) against
    Outcome: The court did not look heavy on the First Amendment , but that the declare that all evidence that is obtain was a violation of the Constitution. The decision launched that the court was having trouble of determining how and when to apply the exclusionary rule.

5 True/False Questions

  1. McDonald v. ChicagoYear: 1906
    Location: Mapp's Residence
    Background: Mapp's home was being search for a fugitive. This then got them seeing some obscene materials and Mapp was being arrested for a different reason. He soon appealed in court for the First Amendment freedom of expression.
    Question: Were the confiscated materials protected by the First Amendment? (May evidence obtained through a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment be admitted in a state criminal proceeding?)
    Decision: 6 votes for Mapp, 3 vote(s) against
    Outcome: The court did not look heavy on the First Amendment , but that the declare that all evidence that is obtain was a violation of the Constitution. The decision launched that the court was having trouble of determining how and when to apply the exclusionary rule.

          

  2. 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.

          

  3. 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.

          

  4. Scott v. SandfordYear: 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. DC v. HellerYear: 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.

          

Create Set