NAME: ________________________

Unit 5 Vocabulary Flashcards Test

Question Types


Start With


Question Limit

of 26 available terms

Upgrade to
remove ads

5 Written Questions

5 Matching Questions

  1. Roe v. Wade
  2. National Socialist Party v. Skokie
  3. Bethel v. Fraser
  4. Plessy v. Ferguson
  5. Brandenburg v. Ohio
  1. a Year: 1985
    Location: Bethel High School
    Background: During a school assembly with approximately 600 high school students, Matthew Fraser made a speech to nominate a fellow student for elective office. In the speech it had some sort of sexual context. In Bethel High school there were rules that won't allow you to use of profane language or gesture. Matthew got suspended for two days.
    Question: Does the First Amendment prevent a school district from disciplining a high school student for giving a lewd speech at a high school assembly?
    Decision: 7 votes for Bethel School District 2 vote(s) against
    Outcome: The court had found it was right for the school to prohibit the use of slurs and offensive language. The First Amendment do not protect the child from saying vulgar and lewd speech. Its more limited when it come to school because you have to follow with the "fundamental values of public school education."
  2. b 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.
  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: 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. e Year: 1977
    Location: Skokie, IL
    Background: This case was dealing with freedom of assembly over the National Socialist Party of America to march through a large Jewish population in Skokie, IL. However the Chicago authorities thwarted these plans, first by requiring the NSPA post an onerous public safety insurance bond, then, banning all political demonstration in Marquette Park. The NSPA and the American Civil Liberties Union challenge the court stating that this was violating their First Amendment right for the marchers to express themselves freely.
    Question: Does Circuit Court violated the First Amendment of the marchers to express themselves freely?
    Decision: 5 votes for National Socialist Party, 4 vote(s) against
    Outcome: The court have stated that the Village of Skokie can not prevent the march.

5 Multiple Choice Questions

  1. 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.
  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: 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.

5 True/False Questions

  1. Engel v. VitaleYear: 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.

          

  2. New Jersey v. TLOYear: 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. Schenck v. USYear: 1918
    Location: Socialist headquarters
    Background: Schenck mailed circulars to draftee, suggesting that the draft was wrong and that we should deal it with peace. This was during the World War I and Schench was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act by attempting to cause insubordination in the military and to ruin the recruitment.
    Question: Are Schenck's actions (words, expression) protected by the free speech clause of the First Amendment?
    Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
    Outcome: The court have stated Schenck will not be protected in this situation. This was some how endangering the national safety because it was during wartime and congress have the right to punish.

          

  4. McDonald v. ChicagoYear: 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.

          

  5. Tinker v. DesMoinesYear: 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.

          

Create Set