A government preventing material from being published. Is usually unconstitutional in U.S. because of the 1st Ammend.
Throughout the early 20th century, Supreme Court justices debated how to implement the Bill of Rights into state legislation. Applying the entirety of the Bill of Rights to the states all at once was known as "nationalization."
Prior to the 1890s, the Bill of Rights was held only to apply to the federal government. Under the incorporation doctrine, most provisions of the Bill of Rights now also apply to the state and local governments, by virtue of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
Regents of the University of California V. Bakke
Bakke had twice applied for admission to the University of California Medical School at Davis and rejected both times. The school reserved 16 places in each entering class of one hundred for minorities, as part of the university's affirmative action program. Bakke contended, first.in the California courts, then in the Supreme Court, that he was excluded from admission solely on the basis of race. The school was ordered to accept Bakke. The Court managed to minimize white opposition to the goal of equality (by finding for Bakke) while extending gains for racial minorities through affirmative action.
Abbington V. Schempp
Pennsylvania had a law requiring that each school day start with a Bible verse. The required activities encroached on both the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment since the readings and recitations were essentially religious ceremonies and were "intended by the State to be so."
Baker V. Carr
Baker and other Tennessee citizens alleged that a 1901 law designed to apportion the seats for the state's General Assembly was virtually ignored like significant economic growth and population shifts within the state. Political question the Court held that there were no such questions to be answered in this case and that legislative apportionment was a justiciable issue.
Miranda V. Arizona
Court was analyzing several cases were suspects were questioned by police officers, detectives, or prosecuting attorneys in rooms that cut them off from the outside world and no suspects given warnings of their rights at the outset of their interrogation. The Court specifically outlined the necessary aspects of police warnings to suspects.
Gideon V. Wainright
Gideon was charged in a Florida state court with a felony for breaking and entering. He didn't have the money to hire a lawyer and the court would not appoint one for him so he defended himself and lost. the Court found that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel was a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial.
Roe V. Wade
Roe, a Texas resident, sought to terminate her pregnancy by abortion. Texas law prohibited abortions except to save the pregnant woman's life. The Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first trimester and defined different levels of state interest for the second and third trimesters
Escobedo V. Illinois
Danny Escobedo was arrested and taken to a police station for questioning. Over several hours, the police refused his repeated requests to see his lawyer. Escobedo subsequently confessed to murder. Escobedo had not been adequately informed of his consitutitonal right to remain silent rather than to be forced to incriminate himself.
Engel V. Vitale
The Board of Regents for the State of New York authorized a short, voluntary prayer for recitation at the start of each school day. Neither the prayer's nondenominational character nor its voluntary character saves it from unconstitutionality. First in a series of cases in which the Court used the establishment clause to eliminate religious activities.
Gitlow V. New York
Gitlow, a socialist, was arrested for distributing copies of a "left-wing manifesto" that called for the establishment of socialism through strikes and class action of any form. A state may forbid both speech and publication if they have a tendency to result in action dangerous to public security, even though such utterances create no clear and present danger. The "dangerous tendency" test established.
evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights is sometimes inadmissible for a criminal prosecution in a court of law. The exclusionary rule is grounded in the Fourth Amendment and it is intended to protect citizens from illegal searches and seizures. 5th and 6th apply too.
Clear and Present Danger
Following Schenck v. United States, "clear and present danger" became both a public metaphor for First Amendment speech and a standard test in cases before the Court where a United States law limits a citizen's First Amendment rights; the law is deemed to be constitutional if it can be shown that the language it prohibits poses a "clear and present danger
Mapp V. Ohio
Dolree Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials after an admittedly illegal police search of her home for a fugitive. The Court brushed aside the First Amendment issue and declared that "all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by [the Fourth Amendment], inadmissible in a state court."
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religon, or porhibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, press, peacefully assemsbly, and petition the government.
Civil Rights Act (1964)
Law that made racial descrimination against any group in hotels, motels, and restaurants illegal and forbade many forms of job descrimination.
Americans with Disabilities Act (1990)
Law that requires employers and public facilities to make "reasonable accomodations" for those people with disabilities and prohibits descrimination against these individuals in employment.
Voter Rights Act (1965)
A law designed to help end formal and informal barriers to African-American suffrage. Under the law hundreds of thousands of African Americans were registered and thier number of elected officials increased.
No state shall make any laws which shall abridge the privilieges or immunities of citizens of the U.S. nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or porperty without due process of law. ; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.
Schenk V. United States
Schenk violated the 1917 Espionage Act by encouraging draftees to bum their draft cards. Schenk was not protected by the First Amendment because of a "clear and present danger" test. "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." During wartime, utterances tolerable in peacetime can be punished.
Texas V. Johnson
in front of the Dallas City Hall, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag as a means of protest against Reagan administration policies. Johnson was tried and convicted under a Texas law outlawing flag desecration. the Court held that Johnson's burning of a flag was protected expression under the First Amendment. The Court found that Johnson's actions fell into the category of expressive conduct and had a distinctively political nature. Symbolic speech.
Marbury V. Madison
Marbury and several others were appointed to government posts created by Congress in the last days of John Adams's presidency, but these last-minute appointments were never fully finalized so they sued. When the Constitution--the nation's highest law--conflicts with an act of the legislature, that act is invalid. This case establishes the Supreme Court's power of judicial review.
McCulloch V. Maryland
Congress chartered The Second Bank of the United States and the state of Maryland imposed taxes on the bank but McCulloch refused to pay. Only Congress has the power to tax the bank not the state. "The constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme."
U.S. V. Nixon
Nixon asserted that he was immune from the subpoena of the audio tapes from the Oval Office claiming "executive privilege," which is the right to withhold information from other government branches to preserve confidential communications within the executive branch or to secure the national interest. The Court held that neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the generalized need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified, presidential privilege.
Lemon V. Kurtzman
In Pennsylvania, a statute provided financial support for teacher salaries, textbooks, and instructional materials for secular subjects to non-public schools. The Rhode Island statute provided direct supplemental salary payments to teachers in non-public elementary schools. Court created a "Lemon Test" to test whether a law violates the establishment clause.
Speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the Statewhere the crime was commited. Be confronted by the witness against him. Have a witness in his favor and a lawyer.
The right to a trial with a Grand Jury accept in cases in a time of war of danger. No person shall be subject for the same offense and put to the same jeapordy of life twice. One cannot be a witness against oneself. Due process of law. Private property cannot be taken for public use without compensation.
The right of people against unreasonable searches and seizures. No warrants without probable cause.
A policy designed to give special attention to or compensatory treatment of members of some previously disadvantaged group.
Ex Post Facto Law
The law form when an act was illegal cannot be increased in punishment after the fact or be changed to be easier.
To avoid violating the establishment clause a law must...
1.) Have secular purpose
2.) Have a primary secular effect
3.) Avoid "excessive government entanglement with religon"
Free Exercise Clause
A First Ammendment provision that prohibits government from interfering witht the practice of religon.
1.) The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that work, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interests.
2.) The work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law.
3.) The work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.