Chapter 2 Flashcards
10th Amendment
Reserved Powers Clause
Sugar Act of 1764
- Sugar - Wine - Coffee - Most of the imported products
Stamp Act of 1765
All paper goods
Stamp Act Congress
- 1975 - 9/13 colonies met in New York city
Townshend Acts
Harsher tax (w/ tea)
Articles of Confederation
Led to the Chaotic Period
Shay’s Rebellion
- 1786 - State wouldn’t stop Shay, Feds could not - change in Gov. required
Constitutional Convention
- Rhode Island did not attend
Virginia Plan
Large States would dominate Federal Power
New Jersey Plan
Favored by smaller States - one vote per state
Connecticut Compromise
- “Great Compromise” - House and Senate
Federalists
- for Constitution - James Madison, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton
Anti-federalists
- against Constitution - Thomas Jefferson - thought Constitution took too much power from States
Bill of Rights
- called for by Massachusetts
Youngstown Steel & Tube Co. v. Sawyer
- 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
Gibbons v. Ogden
- 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
NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.
- Congress can regulate in areas that have a “serious effect upon interstate commerce”
Wickard v. Filburn
Congress can regulate in areas where the aggregate effect is nationally significant
McLain v. Real Estate Board of New Orleans, Inc.
Even purely local activity can be regulated if the activity “substantially affects interstate commerce”
McCulloch v. Maryland
- 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
Plessy v. Ferguson
Separate but Equal Doctrine est. - allowed Jim Crow laws
Smith v. Allwright
Declared Texas White Primary unconstitutional
Desegregated Military
President Truman with an Executive Order in 1948
Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
Supreme Court overruled Plessy v. Ferguson
Civil Rights Act of 1964
- guaranteed civil rights to all - Forced Southern States to follow ending of Separate but Equal
Katzenbach v. McClung
- Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US - both cases ruled against Southern business by interstate commerce
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US
- Katzenbach v. McClung - both cases ruled against Southern business by interstate commerce
US v. Lopez (1995)
- Gun-Free School Zones Act exceeded Congresses authority under interstate commerce
Cases that limited Commerce Clause
- US v. Lopez (Gun-Free School Zones) - Printz v. US (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) - US v. Morrison (Violence Against Women Act)
Minnow Cases
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
Barron v. Baltimore
Court decided that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the State Governments
Gitlow v. New York
- 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)
Doctrine of Incorporation
- began with Gitlow v. New York and 1st amendment - most recent was 2nd amendment with DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago
Amendments NOT Incorporated
- 3rd Amendment (Quartering Soldiers) - 5th Amendment (Grand Jury) - 7th Amendment (Jury Trial in Civil Cases)
Schenck v. US
- 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)
Garcetti et al. v. Ceballos
- 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
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
- changed everything about political speech by a business - Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 ruled unconstitutional - upheld disclaimer/disclosure requirement associated with political speech
Free Exercise Clause
- 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
Current Education Laws under Establishment Clause
- 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)
County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union (1989)
a religious display by gov. is allowed if it gives no endorsement of a specific religion
Van Orden v. Perry (2005)
Texas case, religious monument allowed due to being a group of several monuments no endorsing a specific religion
McCreary County, Kentuck, et al. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky (2005)
courtroom display of 9 Christian documents held to be unconstitutional
Employee’s right to Free Exercise
A business must make REASONABLE accommodations for the religious practices of their employees
Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of the State of Oregon v. Smith
- 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
Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993
- 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
Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao Do Vegetal (2006)
- 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)
4th Amendment
- Protection from unwarranted Search and Seizure
Allowed Warrantless Searches
- 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
Hester v. US (1924)
No expectation of privacy in an open field
Exclusionary Rule
Evidence seized improperly must be excluded from the trial (w/ exceptions)
Brigham City v. Stuart (2006)
Officers have the right to enter a home when they reasonably believe that an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened
Hudson v. Michigan (2006)
Police do NOT have to “knock-and-announce” before entering
Georgia v. Randolph (2006)
Warrantless search is allowed if a co-occupant allows the search
Illinois v. Rodriguez (1990)
If even one co-occupant objects, than a search is invalid
5th Amendment
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
Miranda v. Arizona (1996)
- attempts to prevent coerced confessions - “Miranda Warnings” - has been weakened in recent years
Due Process
- 5th and 14th Amendments - not defined by Constitution - Substantive and Procedural
14th Amendment
- 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
Skinner v. Oklahoma
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
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Ward
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
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
- 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
Roe v. Wade (1972)
Supreme Court held that a woman had a right of privacy to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy in the first trimester
Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
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
Writ of Certiorari
A higher court reviewing the case of a lower court
