Unit 5 Vocabulary Flashcards

5 Written Questions

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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. 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 Matching Questions

1. New Jersey v. TLO
2. Plessy v. Ferguson
3. Engel v. Vitale
4. McCulloch v. Maryland
5. National Socialist Party v. Skokie

1. a 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.
2. b 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.
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: 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. e 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.

5 Multiple Choice Questions

1. 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.
   1. Roe v. Wade
   2. Mapp v. Ohio
   3. Engel v. Vitale
   4. DC v. Heller
2. 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.
   1. Schenck v. US
   2. Virginia v. Black
   3. Roe v. Wade
   4. Miranda v. Arizona
3. 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.
   1. Brandenburg v. Ohio
   2. Miranda v. Arizona
   3. Marbury v. Madison
   4. Mapp v. Ohio
4. 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.
   1. Tinker v. DesMoines
   2. Roe v. Wade
   3. Roper v. Simmons
   4. Engel v. Vitale
5. Year: 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.
   1. Roe v. Wade
   2. Mapp v. Ohio
   3. Schenck v. US
   4. Bethel v. Fraser

5 True/False Questions

1. Scott v. Sandford → 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.

   True        False

2. Mapp v. Ohio → 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.

   True        False

3. DC v. Heller → 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.

   True        False

4. Brown v. Board of Education → 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.

   True        False

5. US v. O'Brien → 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.

   True        False