Assignment9 Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

DC v Heller

A

court case civil liberties

selectively incorp 2nd am
gun rights

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

civil liberties

A

personal guarantee and a freedom that the govt cannot abridge by law
rights, freedoms that cannot be taken by law
protection FROM govt
more associated with the Bill of Rights
due process

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

substantive due process

A

you have the right not to be arbitrarily dealt with

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

selective incorporation

A

rights in the bill of rights apply to the state govts in a selective process

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Gitlow v New York

A

court case civil liberties

1925 gitlow v. new york
free speech rights were being infringed upon by the state of new york
supreme court ruled that the 14th amendment denied states from taking away fundamental rights- in this case, free speech
incorporates the first amendment, but only part of it
there has to be a precedent first, so broad changes can’t be made, it has to be one case at a time

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Palko v Connecticut

A

court case civil liberties

limiting selective incorp

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

establishment clause

A

prevents govt from establishing a state religion

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Engel v Vitale

A

civil liberties court case

1962 engel v. vitale
school sponsored prayer was a violation of the first amendment
conservatives refer to this as the case where the nation went off track

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Abington School Dist. v Schempp

A

civil liberties court case

?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

“wall of separation”

A

establishment clause

no state church

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Lemon v Kurtzman

A

civil liberties court case

supreme court case
lemon test
1971- lemon v. kurtzman
a practice or policy is constitutional if
1)it has a legitimate secular purpose
2)neither advances nor inhibits religion
3)does not foster excessive government entanglement with religion

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

free exercise clause

A

you have the freedom to practice your religion free from govt interference

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Religious Freedom Restoration Act

A

2000- religious freedom restoration act

allowed peyote use in native american religions and it had to be on the reservation and you have to be native american

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

prior restraint

A

1971 new york times v. the united states
pentagon papers- leak of classified information
the government cannot suppress the press before it is published

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

“clear and present danger”

A

if your speech has the direct potential to endanger someone, that free speech wouldn’t be covered by the constitution

you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

symbolic speech

A

speech that doesn’t involve words

art, armbands, etc

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

New York Times v US

A

prior restraint, pentagon papers,

you can’t suppress press BEFORE they even release stuff

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

libel and slander

A

prohibits people from printing or speaking blatantly false things
we’ve made it so it’s hard to prove

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

New York Times v Sullivan

A

civil liberties court case

you can’t
established libel and slander

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

“fighting words”

A

limitations to speech

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

obscenity and pornography

A

limitations to speech

22
Q

Miller v California

A

civil liberties court case

defined obscenity

23
Q

habeas corpus

A

keeps the government from holding you indefinitely without showing cause

24
Q

grand juries

A

a group of people who look at the evidence against someone who has been accused of a crime in order to decide if there should be a trial

25
Q

Miranda v Arizona

A

civil liberties court case

ADD MORE

26
Q

eminent domain

A

end of the 5th amendment- just compensation, for public use
govt can take property in the interest of the public
like 10th west

27
Q

exclusionary rule

A

if evidence is found in an uncool way, it’s not usable in court

28
Q

Mapp v Ohio

A

civil liberties court case

incorporation and exclusionary rule
seized evidence
4th amendment

29
Q

inevitable discovery rule

A

exception to the exclusionary rule

if a piece of evidence would have been found inevitably

30
Q

Gideon v Wainwright

A

civil liberties court case

1963 right to an attorney
guy in the pool hall was convicted without an attorney

selectively incorporated a right to a lawyer in STATE crimes

31
Q

death penalty

A

1972 court case Furman v. Georgia
death penalty is imposed in an arbitrary fashion and by making it arbitrary, it’s by definition cruel

1976 court case Gregg v. Georgia
the way that georgia imposes the death penalty was unconstitutional, so they rewrote things and made it less arbitrary
their law WAS the constitution, so the death penalty was an acceptable form of punishment

32
Q

Gregg v Georgia

A

civil liberties court case
the way that georgia imposes the death penalty was unconstitutional, so they rewrote things and made it less arbitrary
their law WAS the constitution, so the death penalty was an acceptable form of punishment

33
Q

right to privacy

A

9th amendment/ nonenumerated
1960s birth control
later roe v wade
later patriot act/ NSA

34
Q

Griswold v Connecticut

A

1965
couple said their rights were violated
9th amendment
supreme court: 1st amendment plus the 4th amendment and the 9th and the 14th (due process) includes freedom from arbitrary laws (laws with no rational basis) combined
= right to privacy and the right to birth control and access to it because it’s none of the govt’s business

35
Q

Roe v Wade

A

1973
the right to abortion is solely based on this right to privacy
broke pregnancy into trimesters
first trimester= pregnancy is private, abortion unrestricted
2nd= some restrictions, mainly for the safety of the mother
3rd= not private anymore, also fetus can survive outside the womb at this point, now it’s technically a human, state interest in the fetus outweighs the woman’s right to abortion

36
Q

Lawrence v Texas

A

2003
right to privacy was given to heterosexual couples
texas had laws that stated that homosexual behavior was criminal
sodomy laws
2003 6-3 supreme court decision
strike down texas laws dealing with sodomy
decision based on right to privacy
also equal protection got brought up

37
Q

civil rights

A

protection BY govt

thinking of groups that want equal and fair treatment by govt
slavery -> abolition
women also involved
women’s rights -> suffrage

38
Q

equal protection clause

A

in the 14th amendment:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

39
Q

Jim Crow laws

A

racist rules in the south during reconstruction

40
Q

Plessy v Ferguson

A

civil rights court case

1896 PLESSY V FERGUSON
established the doctrine of separate but equal
not overturned until brown v board of education

41
Q

Brown v Board of Education

A

civil rights court case

1954 brown v board of education
gets rid of segregated schools
effectively overturns plessy v ferguson

42
Q

NAACP, SCLC, SNCC

A
naacp: whole goal is to get rid of plessy v ferguson
SCLC 
1960 SNCC
marching in places like Birmingham
conducting sit-ins and freedom rides
showing where law isn’t enforced
43
Q

Civil Rights Act 1964

A

1964 civil rights act

outlawed discrimination in public places, accommodations, and employment

44
Q

Voting Rights Act 1965

A

1965 voting rights act: eliminated literacy tests/ restrictions
also gave federal government authority to intervene in trouble states

45
Q

de jure vs de facto segregation

A

de facto means by fact

in schools everywhere there are lunch tables of segregated groups

de jure means by law
this is ok because legally things are now equal

but it’s very hard to get rid of de facto

46
Q

NOW & the ERA

A

national organization for women
betty friedan

ERA
equal rights amendment
illegal to discriminate based on gender
doesn’t pass on states
35/required 38
47
Q

suspect classifications

A

no rational reason to discriminate against
based on race and religion
gender is not considered suspect

48
Q

Equal Pay Act 1963

A

now it’s legal to ask coworkers how much they make

49
Q

Title IX

A
1972 title ix
an amendment to the civil rights act
specific focus is education
	athletics
		there have to be opportunities for both boys and girls
	sexual harassment or assault
		schools have to investigate
50
Q

Americans with Disabilities Act 1990

A

provided guidelines in terms of education, employment, public accommodations
kind of an unfunded mandate for old buildings

51
Q

affirmative action

A

intended to give opportunities to minorities
can also take away opportunities from the majority
under lyndon johnson in the 1960s
because of a history of discrimination, we encourage affirmative action to rectify past wrongs
supposed to be a voluntary thing

some people call it reverse discrimination

52
Q

University of California v Bakke

A

admitting medical students with a quota system
10 black, 15 female, etc
strict quotas were ruled as violating the idea of equal protection