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. Tinker v. DesMoines
  2. Atkins v. Virginia
  3. Brandenburg v. Ohio
  4. National Socialist Party v. Skokie
  5. Roper v. Simmons
  1. a Year: 2001
    Location: York County Court
    Background: Daryl Renard was convicted for abduction, armed robbery, and capital murder. During the trial they have a doctor stating that he was mentally retarded. The jury soon have sentence the man to death. Soon the Virginia Supreme Court ordered a second sentencing hearing. Soon the trial he can not be sentence to death because we was mentally ill.
    Question: Is the execution of mentally retarded persons "cruel and unusual punishment" prohibited by the Eighth Amendment?
    Decision: 6 votes for Atkins, 3 vote(s) against
    Outcome: The court have decided that it would be cruel and unusual punishments to sentence a man who is mentally ill. He was defend by the Eighth Amendment.
  2. b 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. c 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.
  4. d 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. e 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.

5 Multiple choice questions

  1. 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.
  2. Year: 1965
    Location: Maricopa County Jail
    Background: There were three cases when when citizens were arrested without knowing about it. They was causing self-incriminating themselves, while not knowing anything about the outside world.
    Question: Does the police practice of interrogating individuals without notifiying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment?
    Decision: 5 votes for Miranda, 4 vote(s) against
    Outcome: The court have stated that they do agree that without any notice or warrant they can not take someone away. Also the court have include a warning of the right to remain silent and also the right to have counsel present during interrogations.
  3. 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.
  4. 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. 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.

5 True/False questions

  1. 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.

          

  2. 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.

          

  3. Lemon v. KurtzmanYear: 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.

          

  4. Plessy v. FergusonYear: 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. McDonald v. ChicagoYear: 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.