Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Politics > POL 3314 final exam > Flashcards

POL 3314 final exam Flashcards

1
Q

What is Habeas Corpus? Who is able to suspend it?

A

“Bring forth the body” - Being told of what you stand accused of. Only Congress, according to Article I, may suspend it, and only in times of insurrection or rebellion.

-If you are arrested or stand charge, you have the right to be told what you are being charged for
- first mentioned ex parte merryman (1861)
- Lincoln violated the constitution – not a presidential, yet congressional power

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

Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld (2006)

A

Court ruled that the Geneva Conventions granted Hamdan a writ of Habeas Corpus, and ruled that Congress and the President did not have the authority to authorize military tribunals in this case

-Hamdan was Osama Bin Laden’s former Chauffeur
- Bush had passed the Detainee Treatment Act (2005) to validate Hamdan’s detainment
- international law applies even if there was an argument the U.S. law does not (Hamdan was held in Guantanamo Bay.

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

1st amendent

A

“Congress shall make no law” regarding an establishment of religion, or abridging the freedom of speech, press, assembly, or petitioning the gov’t for a redress of grievances.

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

2nd amendment

A

“A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”

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

3rd amendment

A

No quatering of soldiers in the home

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

4th amendment

A

Warrants required for home searches, and no unreasonable searches and seizures; secure in their persons

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

5th amendment

A

No one shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process or just compensation; no double jeopardy, protection for hearing witness against oneself

  • no self-incrimination
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

6th amendment

A

Right to jury trial in criminal cases

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

7th amendment

A

Right to jury in civil cases

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

8th amendment

A

No excessive fines shall issue, nor cruel or unusual punishments unless a part of due process.

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

9th amendment

A

the enumeration of certain rights, or abscence, does not deny or disparage others that are implied or retained by the people

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

10th amendment

A

Powers not granted to the government, or forbidden by the constitution to the states, are reserved to the states respectively

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

What is the 13th amendment?

A

Slavery and involuntary servitude (unless as a punishment for a crime that one has been convincted for) shall not be imposed; slavery abolished

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

What is the 14th amendment?

A

Birthright citizenship; “No state shall” deprive someone of life, liberty, and property without due process; equal protection for all; privileges and immunities for all.

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

Defamation

A

-Proven by the petitioner (the one suing this case), who suffered the damages and has the burden of proof.
- must prove that the defamation: 1) false 2) the other party knew it was false, and did so with malicious intent; and 3) the petitioner suffered provable damages as a result.

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

Libel and Slander

A

Libel and slander are both forms of defamation; libel is literary (written); Slander is stated/verbal

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

Who are the current justices of the Supreme Court/constitutional cap on membership

A
  • John Roberts (Chief Justice); Clarence Thomas; Samuel Alito; Sonia Sotomayor; Elena Kagan; Neil Gorsuch; Brett Kavanaugh; Amy Coney Barrett; Ketanji Brown Jackson.
  • No constitutional cap on membership

-Ever since the 1870s has stayed at 9
- FDR attempted to court pack; if justices were more than 70 years of age would add one more

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

Qualifications for Court Membership/Process for confirmation

A
  • There are no qualifications, other than being confirmed by the Senate and nominated by the President
  • process has become very contentious, due to high amounts of partisanship and polarization; Presidents nominate justices based on their ideologies, and the Senate either confirms or opposes them in turn.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Strict Scrutiny Test

A
  • Derived from US v. Carolene Products (1938)
  • first established in footnote 4, where an outline was given for “strict scrutiny,” or rational basis review.
  • Government had burden of proof for its actions
  • Must prove: 1) the law was narrowly-tailored for a certain goal, 2) serves a “compelling state” interest, 3) uses the “least restrictive means”
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Marbury v. Madison

A
  • Occured after the “Midnight Judges,” including John Marshall, were appointed by John Adams.
  • Established the notion of judicial review, or the ability of the court to declare acts of other branches constitutional or not.

  • Most important case
  • Established in 1800
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

What is the difference between “civil liberties” and “civil rights”

A
  • Civil Liberties - “Freedoms from” government actions; protect citizens from gov’t overreach.
  • Civil Rights - Legal guarantees that individuals will be treated Equally under the laws.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

What is Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint

A
  • Judicial Activism - idea that the court gets more involved in policy realms, and takes up new cases that it did not previously, or does so to overtun previous decisions
  • Judicial Restraint - idea that the court should not involve itself in more realms, and defer the decisions to Congress, President, and states.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Standing/ Mootness

A
  • Standing- whether one of the parties has the right to sue in a certain case, based on injury they have suffered from the other party
  • Mootness - when the facts of the case, for which a party is suing, are no longer applicable, and therefore standing is no longer present. This can happen if the issue at hand has been solved, or is non-existent
24
Q

Rights guaranteed PRIOR to Amendments

A
  • Habeas Corpus - “Bring forth the body”; be told of what you stand accused of
  • Bill of Attainder - Thrown into incareration and sentenced, without a trial (you have a right to trial)
  • Ex Post Facto Law - Law that retroactively incriminates someone, even if what they did was not illegal at the time they did it (you cannot be charged for a crime you commited before it become illegal)
25
Q

Stare Decisis

A

“let the decision stand”

  • its rare for the court to overtun decisions on cases
26
Q

According to Article VI, what is the constitution?

A

“The Supreme Law of the Land”

is a legal binding document

27
Q

West Virgina Board of Regents v. Barnette (1943)

A
    • Case in which a Jehovah’s Witness student refused to stand for the pledge; the court ruled that this action was protected under the 1st amendment.
  • -In 1942, the West Virginia Board of Education required public schools to include salutes to the flag by teachers and students as a mandatory part of school activities.
  • In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court overruled its decision in Minersville School District v. Gobitis and held that compelling public schoolchildren to salute the flag was unconstitutional.
28
Q

Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969)

A
  • Students wore armbands in protest of vietnam war
  • School became aware of planned protest and warned those participating would be punished
  • Court ruled that this is protected under 1st amendment, as a form of “symbolic speech”
29
Q

Prior Restraint

A

The prevention of publication of something, on the basis that it presents a danger to national security, by the government. This is rarely granted, as First Amendment proteections come into play.

  • first mentioned in Near v. Minnesota
  • Known for dissonance publishing false things and accused locals from being aligned with the mafia
  • Unless real substantive reason for taking away publication of something, it will not be able to be prevented from being published (goes through strict scrutiny test)
30
Q

Schenck v. United States (1919)

A
  • 1917 espionage act to outlaw any hindarances to military recruitment
  • Charles Schneck wrote a pamphlet to resist the draft; claimed it had been nothing more than intimidation and similar to involunatary servitude
  • he argued his first amendment right to free speech had been violated; court did not agree with Schneck
  • Court established a “clear and present danger” test as a result. Claimed this action was not protected by first amendment
31
Q

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)

A
  • Clarence Brandenburg, leader in KKK, made a speech at a Klan rally and was later convicted under and Ohio syndicalism law
  • Court held that Ohio law violated Brandenburg’s right to free speech
  • Established a two-pronged test to evaluate speech acts
  • Speech can be prohibited if its “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action” or “likely to incite or produce such action”

  • somewhat overruled Schenck, by stating a clear and present danger could not be proven in this case, prior to the event
32
Q

Commonwealth v. Carter (2019)

A
  • Involved actions of an individual that were deemed responsible for the suicide of another; she was convicted as a result, as this was not protected under the First Amendment.
  • Carter was convicted of manslaughter for encouraging boyfriend, Conrad Roy to kill himself
33
Q

What were the Pentagon Papers?

A

Government documents that detailed true events transpiring during the Vietnam War. The court ruled that the government could not issue prior restraint in this case, on the basis of protecting national security.

34
Q

NY Times/ WashPost v. US (1971)

A
  • In very limited cases the government, can argue that the release of something is bad for the country
  • Prior Restraint on Pentagon Papers violates First Amendment. (Pentagon Papers had already been released; could no longer prove prior restraint was necessary.
  • The Court upheld the right of the news organizations to release information from the Pentagon Papers.
35
Q

Moreland, “The H-Bomb Secret”

A
  • Moreland had gotten information on how to make hydrogen bombs, simply by asking officials directly, and published a work detailing his findings; the Court found that this information was dangerous to national security.

  • published his findings in “The Progressive”
36
Q

Right to be Forgotten

A

Refers to a right to have private information about a person be removed from internet search engines, especially in cases where the individual has a crime on their record.

37
Q

Warren and Brandeis, “Right to Privacy”

A
  • “Right to be left alone” is what they believe is entailed by a right to privacy.
38
Q

Buck v. Bell (1927)

A
  • related to Eugenics (sterilization for individuals of “low competence”)
  • Involved the forced sterilization of a woman, on the basis of the government having an interest in preventing “more generations of imbeciles” from being produced.

  • Buck resided in mental facility where they would sterilize patients
  • Oliver Wendell Holmes was pro-sterilization and wrote opinion for this case.
39
Q

Griswold v. Conneticut (1962)

A
  • Conneticut had a statute, as far back as 1878, banning contraceptives; applied to unmarried and married couples
  • Concerned the use of contraceptives by married couples; Court ruled that through substantive due process, the 4th Amendment entails a “right to privacy,” which protects this action.

7-2 decision involving the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendment

40
Q

Roe v. Wade (1973) – Opinion by Blackmun. Trimester Framework/Right to Privacy implied by Amendments

A
  • Blackmun, in this case, creates a “trimester framework” through which the right to abortion is protected, but as trimesters conclude, the state can claim a compelling interest to restrict the right.
  • Right to privacy is implied by 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendments.
41
Q

Planned Parenthood v. Casey – Trifecta of Souter, Kennedy, and O’Connor shifted decision. “Undue Burden” standard. Which provision of the law in this case was deemed an “undue burden?”

A
  • Initially, it was believed that this case would overrule Roe v. Wade.
  • A trifecta of Sandra Day O’Connor, David Souter, and Anthony Kennedy shifted sides, and created a new “undue burden” standard, through which Roe was preserved by having a new system; if state laws impose an “undue burden,” they are not constitutional.
42
Q

Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt (2016)

A
  • Case where the Court reviewed laws that made abortion access more difficult, such as emergency department qualifications, and doctor’s residency within a certain amount of miles of a hospital.
  • These imposed greater costs to permit abortion access.
  • 5-3 decision, justices agreed it created an undue burden
43
Q

Dobbs v. Jackson (2022) – Opinion by Alito. Historical tradition and abortion rights. “Substantive due process should be overturned.”

A
  • Overturned Roe and Casey in entirety. Alito writes the opinion, claiming that there is no “historical tradition” of the right to abortion. Deferred the decisions back to states.
  • Clarence Thomas, in a concurring opinion, says that “we should not stop here” in overturning substantive due process cases, arguing that Griswold (contraception), Obergefell (same sex marriage), and others should be overturned.
44
Q

Bostock v. Clayton County (2020)

A
  • Case involving the termination of an individual, due to his participation in a gay softball league, and “conduct unbecoming of an official.”
  • He sued, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which forbids employment discrimination “…on the basis of…sex.”
  • “Sex,” in the Court’s ruling, also covers sexual orientation.
45
Q

Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942)

A
  • Involved the sterilization of a criminal, who had twice been convicted of robbery and once of “stealing chickens.” The Court overturned Buck v. Bell, believing that this punishment was excessive.
  • Oklahoma law making it that three crimes would result in sterilization for criminals was not protected

  • judicial court shifted ideologies
46
Q

Euthanasia – Passive and Active

A
  • Derived from Greek “eu” and “thanos,” meaning “A Good Death.”
  • Passive euthanasia involves no doctor intervention, to allow death to take its course
  • Active euthanasia involves doctor intervention to assist in the process of death.
47
Q

In re Quinlan

A
  • Concerned Karen Quinlan, who was put in a vegetative state after consuming substances on a crash diet. Her respirator was removed, but she continued to live with a feeding tube, dying 9 years later.

  • right to die case
  • was unsure of her wishes as she did not specify and was 18
48
Q

Cruzan v. Director of Missouri Dept. of Health (1990)

A
  • Nancy Cruzan was placed in a vegetative state following a car accident. Her parents petitioned for feeding tubes to be removed; the state denied with the request, and the Court ruled in favor of the state, as a clear indication of her wishes had not been proven.
  • Later, the feeding tubes were removed on appeal, when her former co-workers testified that she would not have wished to have her life prolonged.

-right to die case
-did not need formal wishes; here say was okay in this case

49
Q

Superintendent v. Saikewicz (1977)

A
  • Saikewicz was over 65, had a non-verbal IQ, and was diagnosed with leukemia, for which chemotherapy was prescribed. The Court in this case ruled that, due to the dangers and potential suffering he would receive if treated, allowing the condition to progress was in a better interest.
50
Q

Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

A
  • Police went to Lawrences house on charges of weapon possession
  • allegedly found him engaging in sexual activity with another man (Tyron Garner)
  • Texas law forbade sodomy for homosexuals (permitted heterosexuals to engage in homosexuals)
  • Law was found to be violation of 14th amendment; overturned Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)
  • Concerned sodomy laws, but unlike previous cases, this case law was directed at same-sex activity. Court ruled against the law.
51
Q

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018)

A
  • Owner of cakeshop refused to make a cake for a same-sex couple, on grounds that it violated his freedom of religious expression
  • couple sued under the Colorado Civil Rights Law
  • 7-2 decision, court ruled that since the case originated in 2012, before laws recognizing same-sex marriage were validated, he acted lawfully at the time
  • Court ruled that the cakeshop’s decision was protected, under the “Establishment Clause” of the First Amendment.

  • Ex Post Facto Laws
52
Q

United States v. Windsor (2013)

A
  • Concerned the right of same-sex marriage for purposes of application of federal taxation laws. The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, claiming that they could claim injury here.
  • DOMA was found to violate due process and equal protection

relates to the Defense Marriage Act (DOMA)

53
Q

Obergefell v. Hodges (2016)

A
  • Class action suit, under which the Court ruled that under the Equal Protection clause, the right to marry is also extended and granted to same-sex couples.
  • Anthony Kennedy writes in his opinion that marriage is a fundamental right, dating back centuries.
  • 5-4 decision looked into procedural and traditional history and was subjected to strict scrutiny test
54
Q

Signing Statements (extra credit)

A
  • Issued by Presidents when signing a law that they do not veto.
  • In the case of George W. Bush, he notably did this in response to the detainee treatment act.
  • Bush used it to permit enhanced interrogration and argued with this law as commander in chief and unitary executive laws are faifthfully executed he is allowed to interpret what faifthful execution of the president is.
55
Q

Supreme Court cases – How are they conducted?

A
  • No video recordings; only audio exists.
  • Rule of 4: if 4 out 9 justices show interest in a case, then the case is used; John Roberts decides who writes opinion

  • concurrence statement - agrees with ruling
  • dissent statement - disagrees with ruling

Politics (9 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions