American Govt final
Order by
15 terms
English | Welsh |
|---|---|
 What did Engel v. Vitale(1962) rule over? | Court ruled that NYS could not require a state composed prayer to begin the school day. It violated the establishment clause. |
| Lemon v. Kurtzman? (1971) what was this all about? | The Court struck down a Pa. law reimbursing religious schools for textbooks and teachers salaries. (lemon law) 1) program must have primarily secular purpose;2) it does not aid or inhibits religion 3) Govt and religion are not excessively entangled. (establishment clause) |
| Wallace vs. Jaffree (1985) ? | The Court overturned an Alabama law setting aside a minute for "voluntary prayer" in public schools. The Court declared the law unconstitutional, ruling that "govt. must pursue a course of complete neutrality toward religion." |
| Lee vs. Weisman(1992) ? | In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that govt. involvement in this case creates a "state sponsored and state-directed religious exercise in a public school." (Establishment clause) so the Court ruled against officially approved, clergy-led prayer at public school graduations. |
| Sante Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000) | Court held that student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violates Establishment Clause. That it could not be viewed as private since it was govt. sponsored and taking place on govt. property. |
| Sherbert v. Verner? (1963) | Adeil Sherbert, a 7th day adventist was fired from her job after she refused to work on her Sabbath.She was denied benefits as they viewed this as an unacceptable reason. The Court ruled in her favor, that they could not deny her benefits due her. (Freee Exercise Clause) |
| Thornton v. Caldor (1985) | The Free Exercise Clause applies only to Govt. not to private employers, so the Court struck down a Conn. law prohibiting the firing of employees who refused to work Sabbath. (Conn. Sabbath observance statute was void) |
| Employment Division v. Smith (1990)? | Oregon could deny benefits to someone dismissed from a job for smoking peyote (during relig ceremony)Since peyote is illegal. A persons religious convictions don't give him permission to break the law! (free exercise clause) |
| Schenck v. United States (1919) | Freedom of Speech-general; During WWI, Mr. Schenck mailed letters to draftees urging them to peacefully protest the draft, and he was charged w/violating espionage and Sedition Acts. 1st Amend did not protect him, since during wartime, such free expression could create clear and present danger.....) |
| Gitlow v. New York (1925) | The Court applied protection of free speech to the states that is protected by the due process clause of the 14th amendment. The Court upheld a NY law that made it illegal to advocate the violent overthrow of the U.S. govt. |
| Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) | The Court ruled that students wearing black armbands to protest vietnam car was "pure speech" or symbolic speech, protected by 1st amend. The principal's right to forbid conduct that interfered w/school discipline wsa outweighted by the students' right to free expression. |
| Cohen v. California? (1971) | A Ca. statute prohibiting the display of offensive messages violated freedom of expression. "One man's vulgarity is another's lyric" protected against the fear of govt. censorship of particular words as a convenient disguise for banning the expression of unpopular views." |
| Miller v. California (1973) | This case set forth a 3-part test for obscenity prosecutions, but also gave states flexibility in determining what is obscene. Courts found it difficult to develop a legal test for distinguishing obscene material from sexually oriented material that adults have the right to see or process. |
| Texas v. Johnson (1989) | Gregory Lee Johnson set fire to a flag outside the 1984 Republic Nat. Conv.in Dallas. He was charged under Texas law stating that the flaf burning was an imminent danger to public safety. The Court upheld flag burning as "symbolic speech-a form of expression" Govt can't prohibit it. |
| Reno v. ACLU (1997) | Several litigants challenged the constitutionality of 2 provisions in the 1996 Communic Decency Act. Intended to protect minors from unsuitable internet material. The Communic Decency Act was ruled unconstitutional b/c it was too vague and attempted to regulate indecent speech which is protected. |
First Time Here?
Welcome to Quizlet, a fun, free place to study. Try these flashcards, find others to study, or make your own.