5 Written questions
5 Matching questions
- Atkins v. Virginia
- Miranda v. Arizona
- McDonald v. Chicago
- Bethel v. Fraser
- Marbury v. Madison
- a 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.
- b Year: 2009
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.
- c Year: 1985
Location: Bethel High School
Background: During a school assembly with approximately 600 high school students, Matthew Fraser made a speech to nominate a fellow student for elective office. In the speech it had some sort of sexual context. In Bethel High school there were rules that won't allow you to use of profane language or gesture. Matthew got suspended for two days.
Question: Does the First Amendment prevent a school district from disciplining a high school student for giving a lewd speech at a high school assembly?
Decision: 7 votes for Bethel School District 2 vote(s) against
Outcome: The court had found it was right for the school to prohibit the use of slurs and offensive language. The First Amendment do not protect the child from saying vulgar and lewd speech. Its more limited when it come to school because you have to follow with the "fundamental values of public school education."
- d 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.
- e 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.
5 Multiple choice questions
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Year: 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.
5 True/False questions
Lemon v. Kurtzman → Year: 1895
Location: Former Louisiana State Capitol Building
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.
National Socialist Party v. Skokie → 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.
Schenck v. US → 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.
Engel v. Vitale → 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.
Roper v. Simmons → 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.