Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

MGMT > Chapter 2 > Flashcards

Chapter 2 Flashcards

1
Q

10th Amendment

A

Reserved Powers Clause

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

Sugar Act of 1764

A
  • Sugar - Wine - Coffee - Most of the imported products
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Stamp Act of 1765

A

All paper goods

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

Stamp Act Congress

A
  • 1975 - 9/13 colonies met in New York city
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Townshend Acts

A

Harsher tax (w/ tea)

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

Articles of Confederation

A

Led to the Chaotic Period

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

Shay’s Rebellion

A
  • 1786 - State wouldn’t stop Shay, Feds could not - change in Gov. required
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Constitutional Convention

A
  • Rhode Island did not attend
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Virginia Plan

A

Large States would dominate Federal Power

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

New Jersey Plan

A

Favored by smaller States - one vote per state

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

Connecticut Compromise

A
  • “Great Compromise” - House and Senate
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Federalists

A
  • for Constitution - James Madison, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Anti-federalists

A
  • against Constitution - Thomas Jefferson - thought Constitution took too much power from States
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Bill of Rights

A
  • called for by Massachusetts
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Youngstown Steel & Tube Co. v. Sawyer

A
  • check and balance by Supreme Court over President - Union gave notice of intent to strike and Truman issued Executive Order to seize the mill and continue operations - Supreme Court ruled seizure of the mill was illegal, President had to return control of the mines to the owners
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Gibbons v. Ogden

A
  • the State of New York was trying to grant monopolistic steamboat rights on the Hudson btw. New York and New Jersey - Court decided that New York overstepped, and Interstate commerce concerns more than one state
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.

A
  • Congress can regulate in areas that have a “serious effect upon interstate commerce”
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Wickard v. Filburn

A

Congress can regulate in areas where the aggregate effect is nationally significant

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

McLain v. Real Estate Board of New Orleans, Inc.

A

Even purely local activity can be regulated if the activity “substantially affects interstate commerce”

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

McCulloch v. Maryland

A
  • State of Maryland tried to tax the national governments business - Maryland sued when the U.S. refused to pay - Maryland argued that the 10th amendment Reserved Powers Clause never said the Federal Gov. could operate Tax Free - U.S. successfully argued with Necessary and Proper Clause
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Plessy v. Ferguson

A

Separate but Equal Doctrine est. - allowed Jim Crow laws

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

Smith v. Allwright

A

Declared Texas White Primary unconstitutional

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

Desegregated Military

A

President Truman with an Executive Order in 1948

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

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

A

Supreme Court overruled Plessy v. Ferguson

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Civil Rights Act of 1964

A
  • guaranteed civil rights to all - Forced Southern States to follow ending of Separate but Equal
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Katzenbach v. McClung

A
  • Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US - both cases ruled against Southern business by interstate commerce
27
Q

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US

A
  • Katzenbach v. McClung - both cases ruled against Southern business by interstate commerce
28
Q

US v. Lopez (1995)

A
  • Gun-Free School Zones Act exceeded Congresses authority under interstate commerce
29
Q

Cases that limited Commerce Clause

A
  • US v. Lopez (Gun-Free School Zones) - Printz v. US (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) - US v. Morrison (Violence Against Women Act)
30
Q

Minnow Cases

A

Hughes v. Oklahoma (1979) - Overruled due to no legitimate state interest Maine v. Taylor (1986) - Upheld due to legitimate state interest of protecting fishing industry

31
Q

Barron v. Baltimore

A

Court decided that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the State Governments

32
Q

Gitlow v. New York

A
  • began Doctrine of Incorporation - caused 1st amendment to apply to the States - Gitlow argued that Due Process in the 14th and 5th amendments was the same, and therefore New York owed him the same due process the national gov. did (including Freedom of Speech)
33
Q

Doctrine of Incorporation

A
  • began with Gitlow v. New York and 1st amendment - most recent was 2nd amendment with DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago
34
Q

Amendments NOT Incorporated

A
  • 3rd Amendment (Quartering Soldiers) - 5th Amendment (Grand Jury) - 7th Amendment (Jury Trial in Civil Cases)
35
Q

Schenck v. US

A
  • Congress can restrict speech if it creates a “clear and present danger” - Causes “balancing of interests” approach to Free Speech - E.G. Virgina v. Black (Virginia law against hate speech upheld)
36
Q

Garcetti et al. v. Ceballos

A
  • Distinguishes between official and private speech - Key factor is whether the statement is made pursuant to official duties and responsibilities - Employer (Including Gov.) can restrict this type of speech
37
Q

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

A
  • changed everything about political speech by a business - Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 ruled unconstitutional - upheld disclaimer/disclosure requirement associated with political speech
38
Q

Free Exercise Clause

A
  • Reynolds v. US (1878) ruled no polygamy even for religion - Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) ruled right to believe is absolute but that right to practice is not
39
Q

Current Education Laws under Establishment Clause

A
  • Court is against school prayer - Court has allowed gov. funding for books and computers (Michell v. Helms, 2000) - Court has allowed vouchers to be given by gov. for people to send children to private schools, (Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 2002)
40
Q

County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union (1989)

A

a religious display by gov. is allowed if it gives no endorsement of a specific religion

41
Q

Van Orden v. Perry (2005)

A

Texas case, religious monument allowed due to being a group of several monuments no endorsing a specific religion

42
Q

McCreary County, Kentuck, et al. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky (2005)

A

courtroom display of 9 Christian documents held to be unconstitutional

43
Q

Employee’s right to Free Exercise

A

A business must make REASONABLE accommodations for the religious practices of their employees

44
Q

Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of the State of Oregon v. Smith

A
  • Oregon law allowed Employers to fire people on illegal drugs - Employees argues that the drugs were ingested during religious ceremony - Court ruled the law constitutional, that employees are not allowed to violate the law in the name of religion, and that judges were NOT required to engage in case-by-case assessment
45
Q

Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993

A
  • passed in response to Oregon v. Smith case - prohibits federal government from substantially burdening a person’s religion except when the government can demonstrate a compelling interest and that it is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest
46
Q

Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao Do Vegetal (2006)

A
  • UDV members receive communion by drinking hoasca - Government seized a shipment of hoasca, for being banned - Court ruled that the government had NOT demonstrated a compelling interest in barring the church from sacramental use of hoasca (esp. since there was already an exception for peyote)
47
Q

4th Amendment

A
  • Protection from unwarranted Search and Seizure
48
Q

Allowed Warrantless Searches

A
  • Arrested person’s body and immediate area - Things in plain view of the officer - Police can stop and search if officer has reasonable suspicion that the person is committing, or about to commit, a crime - Consent of detained individual - Open Fields Doctrine - Automobile searches are lenient
49
Q

Hester v. US (1924)

A

No expectation of privacy in an open field

50
Q

Exclusionary Rule

A

Evidence seized improperly must be excluded from the trial (w/ exceptions)

51
Q

Brigham City v. Stuart (2006)

A

Officers have the right to enter a home when they reasonably believe that an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened

52
Q

Hudson v. Michigan (2006)

A

Police do NOT have to “knock-and-announce” before entering

53
Q

Georgia v. Randolph (2006)

A

Warrantless search is allowed if a co-occupant allows the search

54
Q

Illinois v. Rodriguez (1990)

A

If even one co-occupant objects, than a search is invalid

55
Q

5th Amendment

A

Right against self-incrimination - only applies to individuals in Criminal Cases - no prohibition if the statement or confession is voluntarily made Right to Due Process Eminent Domain

56
Q

Miranda v. Arizona (1996)

A
  • attempts to prevent coerced confessions - “Miranda Warnings” - has been weakened in recent years
57
Q

Due Process

A
  • 5th and 14th Amendments - not defined by Constitution - Substantive and Procedural
58
Q

14th Amendment

A
  • Equal Protection and Due Process - originally intended to apply to the former slaves - applies directly to the States, and to National Government through 5th Amendment - Groups of people can be treated differently if distinction is logical and rationally related to a valid objective
59
Q

Skinner v. Oklahoma

A

A sterilization law requiring sterilization after multiple convictions of grand larceny, but not embezzlement, was struck down due to lack of logical basis for distinguishing between the two crimes

60
Q

Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Ward

A

An Alabama tax law taxing non-resident corporation more than local companies was struck down due to there not being a legitimate governmental purpose for the distinction

61
Q

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

A
  • Connecticut had a law forbidding the use of contraceptive by married or single people - Supreme Court held that the law violated the rights to marital privacy - Began recognition of Right to Privacy
62
Q

Roe v. Wade (1972)

A

Supreme Court held that a woman had a right of privacy to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy in the first trimester

63
Q

Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

A

Texas statute making it a crime for same-sex sexual conduct was declared a violation of the Due Process Clause and the Right of Privacy

64
Q

Writ of Certiorari

A

A higher court reviewing the case of a lower court

MGMT (4 decks)

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