Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

Law and Human Rights > Ch 8 - 10 > Flashcards

Ch 8 - 10 Flashcards

1
Q

James Madison

A

Major architect of Bill of Rights; purpose to preserve blessings of liberty against gov infringement

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

Heller v DOC (2008)

A

Heller, a cop, denied a conceal/carry license; law required they be unloaded and nonfunctional at home. Appeals court stated requirement that equipment be nonfunctional violated second amendment
- Right to bear arms is an individual right

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

McDonald v Chicago (2010)

A

-Handgun Ban
-Argued 2nd Amendment should apply to state law
-Right to bear arms extends to states

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

New York Rifle & Pistol Assoc v Bruen (2022)

A

NY required person show sufficient need to receive a conceal carry license
-Right to conceal carry placing burden on government to show why a person cannot have firearm

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

4th Amendment

A

Protects against unreasonable search and seizure

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

5th Amendment

A

-Requires grand jury indictment
-Cannot be tried twice for same offense
-Cannot compel to testify against yourself (plead the fifth)
-Life, Liberty, Property without due process

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

5th Amendment clause not incorporated by 14th Amendment

A

Not all states use grand jury

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

6th Amendment

A

-Public and Speedy Trial
-Confront witnesses against you
-Notified of charges against you
-Compel witnesses to appear on your behalf
-Assistance of legal counsel

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

8th Amendment

A

-Excessive Bail or Fines
-Cruel and Unusual Punishment

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

9th Amendment

A

-Specific rights should not deny other rights retained by the people
-you have other rights not listed (catch-all)

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

10th Amendment

A

-All powers not given to the states (fed gov) or taken from the states are reserved to the states and the people

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

14th Amendment

A

Due process and State Rights

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

15th Amendment

A

Voting rights not based on race or color

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

19th Amendment

A

Right for women to vote

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

Social Compact Theory

A

Contract between government and the people; the people consent to be governed by a sovereign authority, negotiating individual rights

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

Natural Rights Theory

A

Laws of nature, fundamental and basic rights because you are a human being

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

United States v. Verdugo Uriquidez (1990)

A

Uriquidez is Mexican Citizen believed to be smuggling drugs into US; warrant obtained.
SC ruled protections meant for citizens of US + does not protect a nonresident in a foreign country

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

Corporations

A

Considered part of “the people” and protected by bill of rights

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

Incorporation Doctrine

A

Legal theory - Bill of Rights should be incorporated through 14th Amendment Due Process clause and made applicable

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

Hurtado v California (1884)

A

-Charged w/o grand jury in CA
-Sentenced to death for murder
-5th Amendment right to grand jury trial
-Court found not incorporated through due process, and defendant was treated fairly through use of information trial

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

Palko v Connecticut (1937)

A

-Connecticut wanted death penalty in a murder case
-Defendant convicted of second degree
-Retried case to receive death penalty
-Argued 5th Amendment double jeaopardy

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Benton v Maryland (1969)

A

Applied double jeopardy to states

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Inclusius unius est exclusio alterius

A

Inclusion of one item is exclusion of all others
not used for bill of rights

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Implied rights

A

The right to: marry, travel, associate, privacy

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Griswold v Connecticut (1965)
Is the right to privacy protected by the constitution? Doctors gave married couples advice on contraceptives
26
1st Amendment
Freedom of: -Religion -Speech -Press -Peaceful assembly -Petition Gov Designed to add checks and balances to government power
27
Factions
Individual interest groups
28
Marketplace of Ideas
Free speech cases to describe framers ideas for 1st Amendment to allow individuals to discuss different ideas through speech
29
Texas v Johnson (1989)
-Flag Burning -Does the first amendment right to free speech protect symbolic speech such as flag burning?
30
Schenck v US (1919)
-Clear and present danger test -WWI protest against drafting
31
Gitlow v New York (1925)
-Bad Tendency Test -Distributed socialist leaflet about overthrowing gov
32
Bad Tendency Test
Speech incites or causes illegal activity do not have to wait for harm to occur
33
Dennis v United States (1951)
-Probability Test (likely to cause) -Violated fed act preventing the advocation of government overthrow
34
Brandenburg v Ohio (1969)
(KKK) Brandenburg test (inflammatory speech advocating illegal action) Leader of KKK violated law made illegal to advocate crime, sabotage, violence, terrorism as means of industrial or political reform
35
Brandenburg Test
"Imminent Lawless danger"
36
Vagueness
Cannot impose law if average person cannot understand it
37
Overbreadth
Gov cannot regulate or prohibit more speech than is necessary to protect
38
FCC v Fox (2012)
-Nicole Richie and Cher cursed during a live broadcast award show -Indecency violation and fleeting expletives
39
Strict Scrutiny
"Compelling" interest and necessarily narrowed to achieve
40
Intermediate scrutiny
Substantial interest
41
Rational Scrutiny
Rational and logical
42
Morse v Frederick (2007)
BONG HITS FOR JESUS 1st amendment does not prevent school administrators from restricting
43
Content Neutrality
Gov in attempting to regulate speech is not discriminating against speech based on content or subject matter
44
Viewpoint Neutrality
Requires gov not favor one side or another regarding speech
45
Non-Protected forms of speech
Slander Obscenity Libel Fighting Words Defamation Child Pornography Hate Speech
46
Miller v California (1973)
Miller Test for determining obscenity 1. Unhealthy interest in sex 2. portrays sexual conduct in patently offensive way 3. Lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value
47
Pornography, Vulgarity, Profanity
Protected speech unless child porn or fighting words
48
Offensive speech
Expression likely to cause sensibilities of others to be offended
49
Hate speech
Enhanced penalties when coupled with crime
50
Defamation
False statement injures character
51
Slander
False verbal communication (speech)
52
Libel
False written communication (literary)
53
Central Hudson Test
-Promotional material -Truthful & not misleading; lawful activity; substantial gov interest in regulating speech directly advances gov interest
54
Commercial Speech
Expression offered to promote sale of commodity or service
55
Freedom of Association
Free to gather together (First Amendment right to peaceful assembly)
56
NAACP v Alabama (1950)
Attorney general wanted full list of NAACP members
57
Boy Scouts of America vs Dale (2000)
Wanted to expel gay scout master
58
Reporter shield laws
Do not have to divulge source
59
Prior Restraint
Judicial suppression of material on grounds it is libelous or harmful (gov tries to prevent press from releasing info)
60
Lee v Weisman
-Coercion Test -Public school invite Rabbi to speak and pray at school graduation. SC ruled it was coercive and established a religious state.
61
Lynch v Donnelly
-Endorsement Test -RI town Holiday display included nativity scene. SC ruled it was not enough to dictate a church state.
62
Establishment Clause
First Amendment clause prohibiting government from establishing or favoring one religion over the other. Intended to ensure separation of church and state.
63
Free Exercise Clause
First Amendment Clause protecting citizens right to practice religion without government interference.
64
Van Orden v Perry
Texas State Capitol building has monument of Ten Commandments. SC ruled it is secular and not enough to promote or coerce and therefore does not violate the establishment clause. Cite historical significance.
65
ACLU v McCreary County Ky
The ACLU sued three KY courthouses for displays of ten commandments. SC ruled the displays were coercive and presented government endorsement of religion in violation with the Establishment Clause
66
Town of Greece v Galloway
Greece, NY held town hall meetings that included prayer at the beginning which was often Christian. Sued stating preference towards Christianity. SC ruled in favor of town, stating the prayers were for the legislators and were not coercive. Offense v coercion.
67
Lemon v Kurtzman
PA and RI adopted statutes providing secular textbooks and funding to non-public schools. SC majority ruled this was violation of establishment clause and constituted too much government involvement in religion.
68
Burwell v Hobby Lobby
Hobby Lobby sued ACA health insurance for not including for-profit companies in their freedom of religion clause which would prevent them from being required to provide contraceptives to their employees. SC ruled in hobby lobby favor
69
Reynolds v US
Reynolds practiced polygamy within the Church of the Latter Day Saints and argued the conviction was unconstitutional because his religion required him to marry multiple women. SC ruled people cannot avoid a law due to their religion.
70
Cantwell v Connecticut
Cantwell and his sons were Jehovahs Witnesses going door to door to preach their religion. They were arrested for solicitation. SC ruled that the Cantwells message while offensive, did not cause bodily harm and was therefore protected as free speech.
71
Sherbert v Verner
Sherbert was a seventh-day Adventist who refused to work on Saturday as it violated her religion. She was fired. SC ruled in her favor stating the unemployment eligibility restrictions placed undue burden on her religion.
72
Employment Division v Smith
Two drug rehab counselors took peyote in observance of the Native American Church and were fired, barring them from unemployment due to misconduct. SC ruled that an individuals religious beliefs do not exempt them from state laws, and that to do so would open up exemptions in an unknown number of circumstances.
73
Accommodation Approach
Appropriate for government to assist religious orgs or interests
74
Separationist Approach
Gov should remain strictly separate and removed from religious activity.
75
Lemon Test
-Law must have secular purpose -primary effect must promote or retrain religion -Law must not foster excessive entanglement with gov
76
Endorsement Test
-Lynch v Donnelly -Does gov activity convey a message of endorsing or disapproving of a religion
77
Coercion Test
-Accommodation Approach -Lee v Weisman -Asks if gov is acting in a manner that coerces individuals towards or against religious practices
78
Free Exercise Clause
Strict Scrutiny Test -Government interest must be substantial or compelling -weighed against religious intent
79
RFRA (1993)
Religious Freedom Restoration Act
80
Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado (2018)
Cake maker refused to make wedding cake for gay couple. SC ruled in favor of cakeshop under free exercise clause.

Law and Human Rights (3 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions