What is Free Excercise Clause
(accompanied by the establishment clause; first amendment) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the _______________
Reynolds v. US
Date of Decision: May 5, 1879
Decision: Polygamy was not protected by freedom of religion.
Significance: The Mormons, a religious group who settled Utah, permitted its men to practice polygamy. In Reynolds v. U.S., the Supreme Court found that laws banning polygamy were constitutional. They did not violate the Mormons' right to free exercise of their religion. This still remains the most important legal case to address the issue of polygamy.
Oregon v. Smith
Facts of the Case
Two Native Americans who worked as counselors for a private drug rehabilitation organization, ingested peyote -- a powerful hallucinogen -- as part of their religious ceremonies as members of the Native American Church. As a result of this conduct, the rehabilitation organization fired the counselors. The counselors filed a claim for unemployment compensation. The government denied them benefits because the reason for their dismissal was considered work-related "misconduct." The counselors lost their battle in state court. But the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Oregon Supreme Court's judgment against the disgruntled employees, and returned the case to the Oregon courts to determine whether or not sacramental use of illegal drugs violated Oregon's state drug laws (485 U.S. 660 (1988)). On remand, the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that while Oregon drug law prohibited the consumption of illegal drugs for sacramental religious uses, this prohibition violated the free exercise clause. The case returned to the U.S. Supreme Court in this new posture.
Acronym Reynolds vs. US
(R)eally (U)sual : because guys trying to have a million girls is typical (poygamy) NOT free excercise though 0_-
Acronym Oregon vs. Smith
(O)h (S)mokee !!: because these guys are trying to basically get high legally b/c of religion DICKED . lol . not free excercise
What is the Establishment Clause
Establishment Clause was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion,
Everson vs. Board of Education
(1947) case details: basically the controversial issue of the government providing the private students buses for transportation , case answer: the fact that the government provide funding for buses for students to go to school does not establish a religion "neither advance or hinder"; it is just to amply get kids to school for their education !defined establishment a neutral force, aimed at helping children .
Engal vs. Vitale
(1962)Case Details: a prayer said in school Case Answer: of course you cant pray in public schools ! thats establishing a religion . it does advance or hinder a religion
"When the power, prestige and financial support of government is placed behind a particular religious belief, the indirect coercive pressure upon religious minorities to conform to the prevailing officially approved religion is plain.... The Establishment Clause thus stands as an expression of principle on the part of the Founders of our Constitution that religion is too personal, too sacred, too holy, to permit its 'unhallowed perversion' by a civil magistrate."
Stone vs. Graham
Case Details: Cannot post ten commandments in schools, government buildings, or grounds. later motified to allow some in some historical contexts.
Epperson vs. Arkansas
Case details: Cannot teach creationsim in schools by supreme courts decision , at first the state courts said it was legal .
Acronym Epperson vs Arkansas
Epperson-evolution ( cant teach evolution Arkansas= stereotyped as a religous super conservative state thath hate science
Lemon vs. Kurtzman
Case Details: the fact that can private schools recieve monet from government for salaries etc.. case answer:whether the legislature passed the statute based on a secular legislative purpose. The Court could find no evidence that the goal of the Pennsylvania or Rhode Island legislatures was to advance religion. Instead the Court relied on the stated purpose, that the bill was designed to improve "the quality of the secular education in all schools covered by the compulsory attendance laws." Second, the Court questioned whether the programs had the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion. It bypassed this prong by examining the third prong and finding a violation there, thus obviating the need for analysis of this point. The third factor, and the point at which the Court found the constitutional defect, was over the issue of excessive entanglement. Here, the Court held that the state's oversight and auditing requirements and the propensity for political divisiveness generated by this kind of aid program would entangle the state and the religious entity in unconstitutional ways.
the test, a law was obliged to meet the requirements of the First Amendment: 1) the law must have a secular (i.e., not religious) legislative purpose; 2) the law in its principle or primary effect must neither advance nor inhibit religion; and 3) the law must not foster excessive entanglement of church and state
- government does not have the right to take you and hold you without formally charging you with a crime; e.g dodgers game held the guy hold beat the victim for another thing parole violation.governemnet holds you it is (l)ying
generally refers to laws or other mandates that are passed to restrict behavior that was, when practiced, entirely legal.
take religion out of the equation ( 1st amendment government may not make a law that established a religion, ) Free exercise depends on era you are in (Mormans not cool) = one of the problems. Judicial been pretty good , on religion. (Drug use ( Indians smoking)) "Cant create a religion to take drugs
Libel and Slander CASE Acronym
Sullivan=Slander=sullivan=snakey=slander= the name reminds me of something horrible and snakey/slander
NYT vs. Sullivan
destroying the guys character etc sued nytimes , but nytimes won , made the distinction between private vs public figures; if you are a private figure then its ok to sue but if you are a public figure then you put yourself in the publics eye, you have to prove they ( the accused) lied about you and then you have to prove the accused did it knowinlgly, and you have to prove that they did it purposely.
Significane of the NYT vs Sullivan case (SG)
made a distiction between public and private people- if a politician, star etc must prove malice to sue successfully
Pornography and Obscenity CASE acronym
Miller=shaquana=barbies=melina=porn pictures that were going around school=pornography and crap , ca= that song by frank ocean when he was talking about she do porn in the calley = ca
Miller vs. CA
Facts: Mr. Miller sent five unsolicited advertising brochures through the mail addressed to a restaurant. When opened the manager and his mother complained to the police. The brochures advertised four adult book titles and an adult movie. Some descriptive language, pictures and drawings of men and women engaged sexually were displayed.
Issue(s): Whether material, included in a mass-mailing program, soliciting the sale of adult books and movies can be subjected to state regulation as a criminal offense?
Holding: Yes, but limited to where the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest in sex; portrays sexual conduct specifically defined by state law in a patently offensive way; and taken as a whole, does not have serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value
What test did the Miller vs. Ca create?
In determining whether speech is obscene, the basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find the material, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest of sex, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literacy, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Fighting words definition
depends on whoever hears it words that are so offensive that it will drive a normal person to get mad? to be unprotected there must be a real posibility that will incite real injury
Acronym for CASE on Fighting words
New Hampshire=hampster(the pet)= I get bit once by one at the pet store= hes mean= fighting me=fighting words !!! :)
New Hampshire v. Chaplinsky (case details)
Brief Fact Summary. Chaplinsky was convicted under a State statute for calling a City Marshal a "God damned racketeer" and a "damned fascist" in a public place.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. "Fighting words" are not entitled to protection under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution (Constitution)
Facts. A New Hampshire statute prohibited any person from addressing any offensive, derisive or annoying word to any other person who is on any street or public place or calling him by any derisive name. Chaplinsky, a Jehovah's Witness, called a City Marshal a "God damned racketeer" and a "damned fascist" in a public place and was therefore arrested and convicted under the statute
Acronym for symbolic expression cases
tiner vs des moies= tinker=tinkerbell= magic=symbolic:) texas vs johnson= plain -_-= ironic because it was a symbolic case in the south in a plain ass last name in plain ass texas :)
Tinker vs Des Moines Case Details
Facts. Petitioner was a high school student who joined his parents in protesting the Vietnam War. The form of protest was to wear a black armband for a period of two weeks during the holiday season. When Petitioner arrived at school he was told to remove the armband or be suspended. He took the suspension and did not return to school until after the protest period ended, New Year's Eve 1965.Synopsis of Rule of Law. Student speech may be regulated when such speech would materially and substantially interfere with the discipline and operation of a school.Synopsis of Rule of Law. Student speech may be regulated when such speech would materially and substantially interfere with the discipline and operation of a school.
Acronym to remember the Political speech cases
two of thw cases have the stereotypical comlplicated "smart names"= Schneck vs. US;Branderburg vs. Ohio
then the other one have "get low" in its name it reminds me of the political figures that be doing bbad crap = gitlow vs. ny
Schneck vs. US case details
Case Details:The case involved a prominent socialist, Charles Schenck, who attempted to distribute thousands of flyers to American servicemen recently drafted to fight in World War I. Case Answer:"the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done." While in peacetime such flyers could be construed as harmless speech, in times of war they could be construed as acts of national insubordination
Definition of clear and present danger test
Whereby the government can silence speech or expression WHEN there is a ________that this speech will bring some harm that the government has the power to prevent.Not just a potential danger but one that will likely cause a catastrophe if not immediately obstructed or neutralized. This phrase was suggested as a test of harmful speech by the US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in the 1919 case of Schenck v. United States.clear and present danger - a standard for judging when freedom of speech can be abridged; "no one has a right to shout `fire' in a crowded theater when there is no fire because such an action would pose a clear and present danger to public safety"
danger - the condition of being susceptible to harm or injury; "you are in no danger"; "there was widespread danger of disease"
Dennis vs. US case details
case details: a guy who was secatary of a communist party teaching communism facts etc. case answer:In a 6-to-2 decision, the Court upheld the convictions of the Communist Party leaders and found that the Smith Act did not "inherently" violate the First Amendment. In the plurality opinion, the Court held that there was a distinction between the mere teaching of communist philosophies and active advocacy of those ideas. Such advocacy created a "clear and present danger" that threatened the government. Given the gravity of the consequences of an attempted putsch, the Court held that success or probability of success was not necessary to justify restrictions on the freedom of speech.
clear and probable test definition
need not be imminent, but may be judged by the probability that the speech would incite someone to violence in the future.
Branderburg vs Ohio case details
case details:a leader in the Ku Klux Klan, made a speech at a Klan rally and was later convicted under an Ohio criminal syndicalism law. The law made illegal advocating "crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform," as well as assembling "with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism."
Case answer:The Court used a two-pronged test to evaluate speech acts: (1) speech can be prohibited if it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and (2) it is "likely to incite or produce such action." The criminal syndicalism act made illegal the advocacy and teaching of doctrines while ignoring whether or not that advocacy and teaching would actually incite imminent lawless action
What did the Brandenburg vs. Ohio test establish?
court says danger must be iminent "real", Clear and Imminet danger test
NYT v. US (Pentagon papers case) details
case details: the nytimes had made comments on the pentagon papers etDaniel Elsberg was a CIA agent they were after his pentagon papers when he left he started publication of these papers restraining order ordered by the government ruled in favor of the papers there wasn't any think that threatned national security, it doesn't matter that the govt was embarrassed . c... case answer it was legal
What did the NYT v. US (Pentagon papers case) establish
government cannot stop publication unless it demonstrate a risk to national security. (no prior restraint)
Gitlow vs. NY Case Details
The Petitioner, (Petitioner), published a communist manifesto for distribution in the United States. He was charged with plotting to overthrow the United States government.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. State statutes are unconstitutional if they are arbitrary and unreasonable attempts to exercise authority vested in the state to protect public interests.
Facts. The Petitioner was charged with criminal anarchy because he was an advocate of socialist reform in the United States. The Petitioner is a member of the Left Wing Section of the Socialist Party. He served as the business manager for the paper that was run by the organization. In 1919 he published the group's manifesto and prepared for widespread distribution from the New York City headquarters.
What did the Gitlow vs. Ny establish
bad tendency, the first time the bill of rights case was taken by the supreme court out of the state court it begins the process of incorporation ( get low !!! took my case i need that!)
Definition of total incorporation
a belief that the states may not violate any provisions of the first eight amendments of the Bill of Rights; has never enjoyed the support of a Supreme Court majority.
Definition of selective incorporation
The process by which certain of the guarantees expressed in the Bill of Rights become applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Griswold vs. Conn case details
Brief Fact Summary. A Connecticut provision outlawing the counseling of others to use contraception, as well as the use of contraception, was found unconstitutional under strict scrutiny because it violated the Due Process Clause.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. The right of marital privacy lies within the penumbra of the Bill of Rights. Therefore, it is a fundamental right and strict scrutiny is the standard of judicial review.
Definition of Habeus Corpus
an ancient right that protects an individual in custody from being held without the right to be heard in the court of law. (heard=h) (custody=c)
Habeus corpus damages on the aftermath of 9/11
the war of terrorism and the aliens enemies act in which the president is empowered to deport aliens suspected of threatening the nation's security or to imprison them indefinitely. 9/11 bush used this on combatants insurgents and suspected terrorists abroad or in the us, his view is that these people by tried in military tribunals.
Mapp v. Ohio est/details
this case established protection against unreasonable search and seizure . ) mapp=search and seizure! amendment 4
Gideon v. wainwright est/details
this case extended the right to counsel anyone facing the prospect of incarnation gideon=that death thing to execute=prison=incarnation
Miranda vs. Arizona est/details
. Details of the case: he was convicted for knife and rape a woman and he confessed and then the lawyer asked why he confessed , and he thought he was suppose to conviction overturned? Protected by double jeopardy example oj one civil one criminal so not double jeopardy.
Furman v. georgia
8th- Furman v. Ga- cruel and unusual punishment have to execute in a "fair and even" way. furman=fur=dj hates fur=burn his hair=kill his fur
What is the definition of civil rights?
the legal protections and rights of all people that must be provided or protected by the government
What did the 14th amendment do?
proposed in 1866 and ratified in 1868 included the Privileges or Immunities Clause, Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses
What did the 15th amendment do?
this Amendment, ratified in 1870, grants voting rights regardless of "race, color, or previous condition of servitude".
Definition of jum crow law
these laws happened after the the federal troops were withdrawn; strict separation of racial groups separate schools, different jobs, use segregated public accomadatinons
Case details Plessy vs. Furguson
Plessy (P), 7/8 white and having white skin, attempted to sit in an all-white railroad car. After refusing to sit in the black railway carriage car, Plessy was arrested for violating an 1890 Louisiana statute that provided for segregated "separate but equal" railroad accommodations. Those using facilities not designated for their race were criminally liable under the statute.
At trial with Justice John H. Ferguson (D) presiding, Plessy was found guilty on the grounds that the law was a reasonable exercise of the state's police powers based upon custom, usage, and tradition in the state. Plessy filed a petition for writs of prohibition and certiorari in the Supreme Court of Louisiana against Ferguson, asserting that segregation stigmatized blacks and stamped them with a badge of inferiority in violation of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth amendments. The court found for Ferguson and the Supreme Court granted cert.
14th vs 10th amendment usage
states in the south argued the 10th amendment states/reserved rights those arguing against segregatino argued 14th amendment "equal protection under the law" clause
Brown vs. Board of education (1954)
This case is a consolidation of several different cases from Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware. Several black children (through their legal representatives, Ps) sought admission to public schools that required or permitted segregation based on race. The plaintiffs alleged that segregation was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
1964 civil rights law
was passed shortly after Martin Luther King passed away mandating equality on numerous fronts
1965 voting rights act
banned voter registration practices, like literacy tests that discriminated on race and federal intervention on any county that have difficulty to let blacks vote (the south)
Dred Scott v. Sandford
when a black slave was sueing his master because he lived in a free state, he cannot be re-enslaved when moved back to a slave state, but the court ruled the Missouri compromise was unconstitutional the US `congress lacked the authority to ban slavery in the territories and Scott was not a US citizen ( standing to use)
Limitations imediattely after the civil war
Black codes -limited rights for freemen (former slaves) prevented them from voting,owning property, or bringing suit,
what did the states try to do to superside the black codes
pass the civil acts rights of 1866 extending the definition of citizen to anyone born in the us including the right to sue own property bear witness in a court of law and enter in legal contracts
What did the states do after the civil acts rights of 1866 was passed?
they passed the jim crow laws
how did the government show acceptance of discriminationn?
the civil rights cases of 1883 congress ruled they cant prevent discrimination due to lack of authority (supreme) states had too
UC vs Bakke Case details
(reversal discrimination) it was unconsitutional for the med school to set aside 16 seats for minorities
heightened scrutiny test
the guidelines used most frequently by the courts to determine the legality of sex based discrimination; sex based discrimination is legal if the govt can prove that its substancially related to the achievement of an important public interest
not on sex based cases yet, to pass this test govt must show the court that such discriminatory tratment is neccesary for the govt to achieve a compelling public interest
The Bradwell case
courts used ordinary scrutiny , she couldnt practice law because she needs to be in home its widely accepted
legal safegaurds that prevent the government from arbitrarily depriving citizens of life,liberty, or property; guaranteed by the 5th and 4 th amendments
bad tendency test
a standard established in the 1925 case gitlow v. ny whereby any speech that has the tendency to incite crime or disturb the public peace can be silenced . (during red scare) ?
clear and present danger
Schneck vs US, government may silence speech or expression when there is a clear and present danger that this will bring about some harm that the govt has the power to prevent
clear and probable danger
Dennis.v us the govt could supress speech to avoid danger even if the probability of the dangerous result was relatively remote replaced by the imminent lawless action
imminent lawless action action test
Brandenburg vs Ohio speech is only restricted only if it goes beyond mere advocacy, or words, to create a likelihood of imminent disorder or lawlessness
a form of censorship by the gvt whereby it blocks the publication of news stories viewed as libelous or harmful
criminal due process laws
safeguards for those accused of crime; these rights constrain governmnet conduct in investigating crimes trying cases and punishing offenders(4,6,8)
criminal procedural rule stating that evidence obtained illegally cannot be used in a trail
to be tried again for the same crime that one has been cleared of in court barred by the 5th amendment
distinctions based on race,religion,national orgin, and gender, which are illegitimate