JS EXAM Flashcards
First Amendment
- Free Speech
- Religion
- Assembly
- Petition
- Free Press
Second Amendment
- Right to bear arms
Third Amendment
- soldiers cannot be quartered in your house
Fourth Amendment
No unreasonable search and seizure
Fifth Amendment
- Self incrimination
- Due process
- Grand Jury Trials
- Just Compensation
- No physical evidence but verbal
Sixth Amendment
- right to a speedy trail
- right to counsel
- right to confront a witness
Seventh Amendment
right to a jury trail for civil cases
Eighth Amendment
- no cruel and unusual punishment
Ninth Amendment
Guarantees rights that are not specifically stated in the Constitution are still there
Tenth Amendment
Any power not given to the federal government were given to the states
United States v O’Brien
- burned his draft card
- argued that the amendment he was convicted under abridged his first amendment rights and served no legislative purpose
- this argument was rejected due to the governmental interest of the draft
Texas v Johnson
- flag burning at a protest
- Is flag burning a form of speech that is protected under the First Amendment?
- the court agreed with Johnson, finding that it was expressive conduct and distinctively political
Barron v Baltimore
- Wharf owner alleged that the construction by the city had diverted water flower in the habor area. This reduced his earning power. He sued the city under the 5th Amendment(can’t take private property without compensation)
- Court found that the BOR only applied to the federal government and not the states
Gitlow v New York
- Gitlow was arrested for passing out the “left wing manifesto” calling for socialism, convicted under the Criminal Anarchy Code. He argued since there was no results from his speech, it violated his first amendment rights
- Court ruled that New York was allowed to prohibit speech that threatens national security
- also applies the First Amendment to the States
Buckley v Valeo
- attempt to remove corruption from politcal campaigns by restricting financial contributions to candidates
- does limiting the amount people can give violate the first amendment
- yes, it limits freedom of expression
South Florida Free Beaches v Miami
- unconsitutional infringement on the right to sun bathe nude
- the Court found that nudity itself is not protected under the First Amendment, unless combined with other protected speech
Southeastern Promotions v Conrad
- theater requested to put on the show HAIR. Company said no based on the controversial content in the production
- violated the first amendment, because it was an attempt to censor speech using prior restraint
Crown v Zenger
- charged for seditious libel for publishing a newspaper that criticized the Governor
- established that true statements critizing the government cannot be punished.
- Early influence of the First Amendment
Shenck v United States
- passing out leaflets, urging men to resist the draft
- during the time of war
- Arrested under the espionage act, and argued it was a violation of the first amendment
- the court ruled that it wasn’t protected, as it actively encouraged people to evade the draft during war time
- shouting “FIRE” in a crowded theater(clear and present danger)
Debs v United States
- gives a public speech that encourages his audience to interfere with the draft
- arrested under the espionage act
- like Shenck, the Court ruled that arrest of an individual for distributing leafets encouraging readers to oppose th draft was constitutional
Abrams v US
- Russian immigrants circulated literature calling for a strike of ammunition plants to undermine the war effort
- arrested for two leaflets thrown out the window(denoucing the war and advocating for cessation of production of weapons”)
- sufficent to meet the clear and present danger test
- protection of speech is lower during war time
Tinker v Des Moines
- arm band protest
- Tinker and Eckhardt were sent home
- parents sued the school district for violating the rights of students
- The court ruled that the armbands represented pure speech, and that students don’t lose their rights the moment they walk into school
- the conduct must cause “materially and substantially interfere” with the operates of the school
Bethal vs Fraser
- Fraser delievered a graphic and explicit speech for his friends campaign for student office
- students were visibly riled up and - Fraser has been warned not to give the speech
- He was suspended for three days and was removed the graduate speaker list
-The court distinguished the case from Tinker, which was political speech compared to sexual content of Fraser’s.
it was inconsistent with the “fundamental values of public school education”
Hazelwood v Kuhlmeir
- school newpaper wanted to publish an article that had ‘inappropriate’ topics for students and the principal denied the request
- the court held the school was not required to promote certain kinds of student speech since it was a school run activity
- the topics went against the shared values of the social order
Morse v Frederick
- olympic torch was going through alaska and a school permitted students to watch outside
- frederick and friends unfurled a sign that said “Bong Hitz for Jesus”
- The court ruled although students have some right to political speech, rights do not extend to messages that are against school policies
- Although cryptic it was reasonable to interpret as a promotion for marijuana use
Mahanoy Area v BL
- BL tried out for the varsity cheerleading squad but didn’t make it. She then posted during the weekend, off campus an explicit message about the team. when the coach found out BL was kicked off the team
- 1st amendment speech has some limits for students, but does not completely regulate all off campus speech.
- she was in justidiction of parents and her speech was not substantial disruption or a threat to others
feminist jurisprudence
- simply a practice of examining and evaluating the law from a feminist perspective
suffrage
- the right to vote