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. New Jersey v. TLO
  2. Marbury v. Madison
  3. Brandenburg v. Ohio
  4. Roper v. Simmons
  5. DC v. Heller
  1. a 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.
  2. b 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.
  3. c 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.
  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: 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: 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  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: 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.

5 True/False questions

  1. National Socialist Party v. SkokieYear: 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. 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.

          

  3. Hazelwood v. KuhlmeierYear: 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.

          

  4. Abington v. SchemppYear: 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. Atkins v. VirginiaYear: 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.

          

Create Set