Unit 2 Flashcards
Preamble
An introduction
Consent of the Governed
the government power comes from the people’s consent (approval)
Federalism
divides power between the national (federal) government and the states.
popular sovereignty
government power comes from the people
republic
a government where citizens elect representatives
limited government
the government only has power that has been given to it.
amendment
change
rule of law
principle that society is governed by law, and the government must follow the law
checks and balances
Each branch to respond to the actions of the others, preventing any one branch from becoming too powerful
separation of power
three branches with unique roles and responsibilities and operates to ensure no branch has absolute power
judicial review
judicial branch gained power to interpret the Constitution
Bill of Rights
Ten amendments added to the Constitution to protect individual liberties and rights from government interference
civil liberties
The rights of citizens to be free from undue government interference in their lives, including those rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights and those established by long legal precedent (such as the right to marry or travel freely)
individual liberties
constitutionally -established rights and freedoms protected by law from interference by the government
1st Amendment
Freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and to petition
2nd Amendment
Right to keep and bear arms
3rd Amendment
Right to not quarter (or house) soldiers during time of war
4th Amendment
Right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure
5th Amendment
Rights in criminal cases, including due process and protection from self-incrimination; no person can be tried for a serious crime without the indictment of a grand jury
6th Amendment
Right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury, to an attorney, and to confront witnesses
7th Amendment
Right to a trial by jury in civil cases
8th Amendment
Right to not face excessive bail, fines, or cruel and unusual punishment
9th Amendment
There are other rights besides the ones listed in the Bill of Rights and the federal government cannot violate those rights
10th Amendment
All powers not given to the national government or prohibited to the states are reserved to states or to the people
Charles de Montesquieu
French Judge, Enlightenment Philosopher: Separation of Powers
Congress
Senate + House of Representatives
Executive Branch
Enforces the law (President + Vice President)
Judicial Branch
Interprets the law
Legislative Branch
Creates the law (Congress = House of Rep + Senate)
veto
reject a decision or proposal made by a governing body
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Issue: Who can ultimately decide what the law is?
Result: “It is explicitly the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.”
Importance: This decision gave the Court the ability to strike down laws on the grounds that they are unconstitutional (a power called judicial review).
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
Issue: Can Congress establish a national bank, and if so, can a state tax this bank?
Result: The Court held that Congress had implied powers to establish a national bank under the “necessary and proper” clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Court also determined that United States laws trump state laws and consequently, a state could not tax the national bank.
Importance: The McCulloch decision established two important principles for constitutional law that continue today: implied powers and federal supremacy.
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831);
Issue:
Result:
Importance: Established the legal relationship between the U.S. government and federally recognized Native American tribes, and its implications for tribal sovereignty
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857);
Issue: In this pre-Civil War case, the question was whether Congress had the constitutional power to prohibit slavery in free territories. A second question was whether the Constitution gave African Americans the right to sue in federal court.
Result: The 1857 Court answered no on both accounts: Congress could not prohibit slavery in territories, and African Americans also had no right to sue in federal court. In reaching these answers, the Court, interpreting the Constitution as it existed before the Civil War Amendments (Constitutional Amendments 13, 14, and 15) abolished slavery, concluded that people of African descent had none of the rights of citizens. The Court further reasoned that slaves were “property” and therefore could not be taken from their owners without due process.
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896);
Issue: In this pre-Civil War case, the question was whether Congress had the constitutional power to prohibit slavery in free territories. A second question was whether the Constitution gave African Americans the right to sue in federal court.
Result: The 1857 Court answered no on both accounts: Congress could not prohibit slavery in territories, and African Americans also had no right to sue in federal court. In reaching these answers, the Court, interpreting the Constitution as it existed before the Civil War Amendments (Constitutional Amendments 13, 14, and 15) abolished slavery, concluded that people of African descent had none of the rights of citizens. The Court further reasoned that slaves were “property” and therefore could not be taken from their owners without due process.
Importance: The Dred Scott case became a central issue in the debate surrounding the expansion of slavery and further fueled the flames leading to the Civil War.
Schenck v. United States (1919);
Issue: Does the Separate Car Act violate the Fourteenth Amendment?
Result: The court ruled that laws requiring “separate but equal” facilities for white and Black Americans did not violate the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. This decision, known as “separate but equal”, legitimized the Jim Crow laws that had been passed in the American South after Reconstruction in 1877, and these laws remained in place until the 1960s
Importance: The Plessy v. Ferguson decision established the constitutionality of racial segregation in the United States. It remained a controlling legal precedent for over 50 years, until the Supreme Court overturned it in 1954 with the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka decision.
Korematsu v. United States (1944);
Issue: In response to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor during World War II, the U.S. government decided to require Japanese-Americans to move into relocation camps as a matter of national security. President Franklin Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 in February 1942, two months after Pearl Harbor. Did the President and Congress go beyond their war powers by implementing exclusion and restricting the rights of Americans of Japanese descent?
Result: The courts ruled to uphold Korematsu’s conviction.
Importance: In addition to its historical significance, the case had great legal impact because it was the first time the Court created a separate standard of review for a law utilizing a suspect classification, stating that laws which discriminate on the basis of race “are immediately suspect” and must be subjected to “the most rigid scrutiny.”
Brown v. Board of Education (1954);
Issue: Do racially segregated public schools violate the Equal Protection Clause?
Result: Yes. A unanimous Court overturned Plessy v. Ferguson and held that state laws requiring or allowing racially segregated schools violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court famously stated “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.”
Importance: The Brown decision is heralded as a landmark decision in Supreme Court history, overturning Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) which had created the “separate but equal” doctrine. In Plessy, The Court held that even though a Louisiana law required rail passengers to be segregated based on race, there was no violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause so long as the accommodations at issue were “separate, but equal.” By overturning this doctrine, the Brown Court helped lay the ground for the civil rights movement and integration across the country.
Baker v. Carr (1962);
Issue: The case involved a plaintiff from an underrepresented urban voting district in Tennessee, where state law required districts to be redrawn every decade but hadn’t been for decades. Did the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over questions of legislative apportionment?
Result: The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, establishing that federal courts could hear cases alleging that redistricting violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Importance: The ruling established the principle of “one person, one vote” and allowed federal courts to review states’ redistricting processes., it led to a significant shift in political power from rural to urban areas, as states reapportioned their districts to balance the weight of votes. These changes often added legislative seats to urban districts and improved voting conditions for minorities, who often lived in urban areas.
Engel v. Vitale (1962);
Issue: The New York State Board of Regents authorized a short, voluntary prayer for recitation at the start of each school day. A group of organizations joined forces in challenging the prayer, claiming that it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The New York Court of Appeals rejected their arguments.
Result: The case ruled that it is unconstitutional for public schools to sponsor prayer, such as by requiring students to recite an official prayer at the beginning of the school day. The court ruled that the practice violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from establishing a religion or favoring one religion over another.
Importance: Established the boundaries between church and state.
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963);
Issue: Does the Constitution require that any individual charged with a felony, but unable to pay for a lawyer, be guaranteed the free assistance of legal counsel?
Result: Yes, according to a unanimous Supreme Court. The Court held that the Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel applies to criminal state trials and that “lawyers in criminal court are necessities, not luxuries.”
Importance: Along with the right to assistance for state criminal defendants, the Gideon decision had the effect of expanding public defender systems across the country.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966);
Issue: Are police constitutionally required to inform people in custody of their rights to remain silent and to an attorney?
Result: Yes, the Court found that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require police to inform individuals in custody that they have a right to remain silent and to be assisted by an attorney. According to the Court, if the police fail to do so, a criminal court judge may rule that any statements made by the accused cannot be admitted as evidence during trial.
Importance: The now famous “Miranda warnings” are required before any police custodial interrogation can begin if any of the evidence obtained during the interrogation is going to be used during a trial; the Court has limited and narrowed these warnings over the years.
Loving v. Virginia (1967);
Issue: The case involved Richard Loving, a white man, and his wife Mildred Loving, a person of color, who were sentenced to prison in 1959 for violating Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act of 1924.
Result: The court found that the law violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that the freedom to marry is a fundamental freedom protected by the Constitution.
Importance: The decision that struck down laws banning interracial marriage. The decision ended all race-based restrictions on marriage. It also laid the groundwork for future cases that challenged restrictions on same-sex marriage, including Obergefell v. Hodges in 2013
Tinker v. Des Moines (1969);
Issue: Does the First Amendment prohibit public school officials from barring students’ from wearing black armbands to symbolize anti-war political protest?
Result: According to the Court, yes. The Supreme Court held that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech…at the schoolhouse gate.” Consequently, the Court found that the students’ speech could only be prohibited if it actually disrupted the educational process. Because there was no evidence of such a disruption, the school was in violation of the First Amendment freedom of speech.
Importance: Tinker has become the central case for any challenges to school-based First Amendment rights.
New York Times Co. v. United States (1971);
Issue: Did the Nixon administration’s efforts to prevent the publication of what it termed “classified information” violate the First Amendment?
Result: The court ruled that the government could not overcome the “heavy presumption against” prior restraints, or efforts to block others from publishing information. The court also stated that the First Amendment supports the press’s freedom to publish news without censorship, injunctions, or prior restraints, even in cases involving national security.
Importance: The ruling protected the press so that it could expose government secrets and inform the public. It also reinforced the press’s role in American society and established a precedent for the public’s right to know
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972);
Issue: Did Wisconsin’s requirement that all parents send their children to school at least until age 16 violate the First Amendment by criminalizing the conduct of parents who refused to send their children to school for religious reasons?
Result: The court ruled in favor of the parents, holding that the state’s interest in educating children did not outweigh the First Amendment’s protection of religious freedom. The court found that the state’s requirement of compulsory education after the eighth grade would endanger the Amish’s ability to practice their religion, and that the Amish’s beliefs were genuine and connected to their way of life.
Importance: established the precedent that parents can educate their children outside of public or private schools, and that this right takes precedence over state interests.
Roe v. Wade (1973);
Issue: Does the Constitution prohibit laws that severely restrict or deny a woman’s access to abortion?
Result: Yes. The Court concluded that such laws violate the Constitution’s right to privacy. The Court held that, under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, states may only restrict abortions toward the end of a pregnancy, in order to protect the life of the woman or the fetus.
Importance: Roe has become a center-piece in the battle over abortion-rights, both in the public and in front of the Court.
United States v. Nixon (1974);
Issue: Is the President’s right to safeguard certain information, using his “executive privilege” confidentiality power, entirely immune from judicial review?
Result: Chief Justice Warren Burger said that the President didn’t have an absolute, unqualified privilege to withhold information.“We conclude that when the ground for asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use in a criminal trial is based only on the generalized interest in confidentiality, it cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice. The generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial,”
Importance: The Court granted that there was a limited executive privilege in areas of military or diplomatic affairs, but gave preference to “the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of justice.” i.e the President is not above the law.
Shaw v. Reno (199
Issue: Did the North Carolina residents’ claim, that the State created a racially gerrymandered district, raise a valid constitutional issue under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause?
Result: The Court held that North Carolina’s reapportionment plan resulting in a district shape was bizarre enough to suggest that it constituted an effort to separate voters into different districts based on race.
Importance: In the aftermath of the Shaw v. Reno decision, redistricting was held to new standards of justification; in general, race could no longer be the sole basis for creating or modifying a voting district.
United States v. Lopez (1995);
Issue: Is the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act, forbidding individuals from knowingly carrying a gun in a school zone, unconstitutional because it exceeds the power of Congress to legislate under the Commerce Clause?
Result: The possession of a gun in a local school zone is not an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The law is a criminal statute that has nothing to do with “commerce” or any sort of economic activity.
Importance: the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had exceeded its constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause when it passed a law prohibiting gun possession in local school zones.
Bush v. Gore (2000);
Issue: On election day, Nov. 7, 2000, the race was too close to call. By the following day, every state save Florida had determined its results, but neither candidate had secured enough electoral votes to take the presidency.
Result: Bush was ultimately certified as the winner, based on Florida’s initial results.
Importance: the case remains controversial for its implications about judicial power and the role of the Supreme Court in the electoral process.
McDonald v. Chicago (2010);
Issue: Does the Second Amendment apply to the states because it is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges and Immunities or Due Process clauses and thereby made applicable to the states?
Result: that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” applies to state and local governments as well as to the federal government
Importance: The case was a pivotal moment in the understanding of gun rights and regulation in the United States.
