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. McCulloch v. Maryland
  2. Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
  3. Virginia v. Black
  4. Roe v. Wade
  5. DC v. Heller
  1. a 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.
  2. b 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. c 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.
  4. d 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.
  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: 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.

5 True/False questions

  1. 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.

          

  2. Abington v. SchemppYear: 1962
    Location: Abington high School
    Background: Every morning in Pennsylvania public schools student would read part of the Bible. There would be ten verse everyday. After that the student would recite the lord prayers. Student would be excluded from the exercise by a written letter from their parents.
    Question: Did the Pennsylvania law and Abington's policy, requiring public school students to participate in classroom religious exercises, violate the religious freedom of students as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?
    Decision: 8 votes for Schempp, 1 vote(s) against
    Outcome: The court decide that this was a violation. The school was not suppose to promote any type of religion in a public school, plus the fact that the parents have to write a not to excuse the child from the practices was not preventing the violation of the Establishment Clause.

          

  3. National Socialist Party v. SkokieYear: 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.

          

  4. Morse v FrederickYear: 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. US v. O'BrienYear: 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.