|
|
McCulloch v. Maryland clause
|
necessary and proper clause and supremacy clause
|
McCulloch v. Maryland ruling
|
unanimous for McCulloch, the federal government has implied powers, states can't tax a federal institution
|
McCulloch v. Maryland facts
|
Maryland tried to tax federal banks in the state, McCulloch, the chief cashier in the Baltimore branch refused to pay. the state sued. (1819)
|
McCulloch v. Maryland question
|
Does the federal government have implied powers?
|
McCulloch v. Maryland impact
|
established supremacy of federal laws and the implied powers of congress
|
US v. Lopez clause
|
Commerce Clause
|
US v. Lopez ruling
|
5:4 for Lopez, the state cannot regulate guns on school property under the commerce clause
|
US v. Lopez facts
|
Lopez, a senior brought a gun to his public high school, illegal under the federal Gun Free School Zones Act. He was arrested and tried in federal court. He sued saying that regulation on state property (schools) was state business. (1995)
|
US v. Lopez question
|
Under the commerce clause, does congress have the power to regulate guns near schools?
|
US v. Lopez impact
|
limited commerce clause, lessened federal power
|
Baker v. Carr clause
|
14th amendment equal protection clause
|
Baker v. Carr ruling
|
6:2 for Baker, SCOTUS has the power to rule on congressional districts
|
Baker v. Carr facts
|
In Tennessee district boundaries were not being redrawn despite unequal spread of voters. Baker, a Tennessee citizen, sued on the grounds that the district lines made rural votes worth more than urban ones. (1962)
|
Baker v. Carr question
|
Can the supreme court rule on issues of legislative districts?
|
Baker v. Carr impact
|
establishes One Person-One Vote principle which expands the rights of minorities
|
Shaw v. Reno clause
|
14th amendment equal protection clause
|
Shaw v. Reno ruling
|
5:4 for Shaw, factoring race into redistricting is unconstitutional
|
Shaw v. Reno facts
|
In an attempt to create an additional legislative district with a majority of African-American voters, the state of North Carolina created a district connecting pockets of minority voters by nothing more than the width of the freeway. Shaw, a republican from NC, sued the US Attorney General who had forced the changes on 14th amendment violations (1993)
|
Shaw v. Reno question
|
Does redrawing district lines based solely on race violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment?
|
Shaw v. Reno impact
|
claims of racial redistricting must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny. laws that results in classification by race must have a compelling state interest or a clear 14th amendment violation
|
Marbury v. Madison clause
|
appellate jurisdiction clause of Article III
|
Marbury v. Madison ruling
|
4:0 for Marbury, kinda. Marbury does deserve his commision, but SCOTUS shouldn't have heard the case first
|
Marbury v. Madison ruling
|
4:0 for Marbury, kinda. Marbury does deserve his commision, but SCOTUS shouldn't have heard the case first
|
Marbury v. Madison question
|
Do the plaintiffs have a right to their commissions?
|
Marbury V. Madison impact
|
established judicial review
|
Engel v. Vitale clause
|
1st Amendment Establishment Clause
|
Engel v. Vitale ruling
|
6:1 for Engel, since it was a public school, it does violate the establishment clause
|
Engel v. Vitale facts
|
Public schools in New York began the school day by having students to recite a nondenominational prayer each morning. Engel, a parent at the school sued the district for violating the establishment clause (1962)
|
Engel v. Vitale question
|
Does the reading of a nondenominational prayer at the start of the school day violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment?
|
Engel v. Vitale impact
|
School sponsorship of religious activities violates the establishment clause
|
Wisconsin v. Yoder clause
|
1st Amendment Free Exercise Clause
|
Wisconsin v. Yoder ruling
|
7:0 for Yoder, forcing people to go to school despite a religious disagreement violated the free exercise clause
|
Wisconsin v. Yoder facts
|
For religious reasons Amish families refused to send their children to high school citing a religious exemption, violating a Wisconsin law and were fined. They sued the state for violating their freedom of religion (1972)
|
Wisconsin v. Yoder question
|
Did Wisconsin's requirement that all parents send their children to school at until age 16 violate the First Amendment's free exercise clause?
|
Wisconsin v. Yoder impact
|
religion trumps schooling
|
Tinker v. Des Moines clause
|
free speech clause
|
Tinker v. Des Moines ruling
|
7:2 for Tinker, symbolic speech is protected under freedom of speech, students have free speech rights
|
Tinker v. Des Moines facts
|
Students were suspended for wearing black armbands as a symbol to protest the Vietnam War after being told that wearing the armbands would result in punishment. Their parents sued the school system for violating the students right to free speech (1969)
|
Tinker v. Des Moines question
|
Does banning the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of protest, violate the students' freedom of speech guaranteed in the First Amendment?
|
Tinker v. Des Moines impact
|
students have free speech rights, symbolic speech is speech and protected
|
Schenck v. US clause
|
1st Amendment freedom of speech
|
Schenck v. US ruling
|
unanimous for US, Schenck's encouragement of draft dodging was a clear and present danger
|
Schenck v. US facts
|
During World War I, Schenck, secretary of the socialist party, mailed a pamphlets to draftees declaring that the Thirteenth Amendment prohibition against involuntary servitude meant that the draft was unconstitutional. He was charged with violation of the Espionage Act and sued saying that he was just exercising free speech (1919)
|
Schenck v. US question
|
Did Schenck's conviction under the Espionage Act for criticizing the draft violate his freedom of speech?
|
Schenck v. US impact
|
until it was overturned decades later, Schenck v. US was used to uphold the Espionage Act, causing many other convictions
|
New York Times v. US clause
|
1st amendment freedom of press
|
New York Times v. US ruling
|
6:3 for NYTimes, except in the case of a Clear and Present danger the US government does not have the power of prior restraint over the press
|
New York Times v. US facts
|
The Nixon administration attempted to prevent several newspapers from publishing materials belonging to a classified Defense Department study, known as the Pentagon Papers, detailing US actions in Vietnam. The president argued that prior restraint was necessary to protect national security. NYTimes sued on 1st amendment grounds (1971)
|
New York Times v. US question
|
can the executive branch block the publication of classified government documents without violating the first amendment freedom of press clause?
|
New York Times v. US impact
|
protected freedom of press, government cannot stop printing
|
McDonald v. Chicago clause
|
2nd Amendment right to bear arms, 14th amendment due process clause
|
McDonald v. Chicago ruling
|
5:4 for McDonald, the right to bear arms applies to the states
|
McDonald v. Chicago facts
|
The Chicago system for obtaining gun permits was so annoying that it was almost impossible to obtain one. McDonald sued Chicago for violating his 2nd amendment rights (2010)
|
McDonald v. Chicago question
|
Does the 2nd Amendment apply to state and local governments through the 14th Amendment's due process clause and thus prevent states from banning gun ownership?
|
McDonald v. Chicago impact
|
states cannot infringe on the right to bear arms
|
Gideon v. Wainwright clause
|
6th amendment, right to an attorney
|
Gideon v. Wainwright ruling
|
unanimous for Gideon, the right to an attorney applies to felony cases
|
Gideon v. Wainwright facts
|
Gideon was convicted for a felony in florida where there were no state laws protecting right to an attorney. in prison he researched law and sued citing violations of his 6th amendment rights (1963)
|
Gideon v. Wainwright question
|
Does the 6th Amendment's right to counsel in criminal cases extend to defendants in state courts, even in cases in which the death penalty is not at issue?
|
Gideon v. Wainwright impact
|
Guaranteed the right to an attorney for the poor or indigent in a state felony case
|
Roe v. Wade clause
|
a bunch, 9th implied rights, 14th due process especially
|
Roe v. Wade ruling
|
7:2 for Roe, women have the right to an abortion
|
Roe v. Wade facts
|
Roe, a Texas resident, sought to terminate her pregnancy by abortion. Texas law prohibited abortions except to save the pregnant woman's life, Roe sued "on behalf of all women" (1973)
|
Roe v. Wade question
|
Does the Texas laws banning abortions violate the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment and a woman's constitutional right to an abortion?
|
Roe v. Wade impact
|
Extended the right of privacy to a woman's right to an abortion
|
Brown v. Board of Education clause
|
14th amendment equal protection clause
|
Brown v. Board of Education ruling
|
9:0 for Brown, school segregation violates the equal protection clause
|
Brown v. Board of Education facts
|
Brown was a student at a Topeka school. She had to travel much farther to the nearest black school than she would to the white one. With support from the NAACP Brown sued (1954
|
Brown v. Board of Education question
|
Do state school segregation laws violate the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment?
|
Brown v. Board of Education impact
|
overruled "sperate but equal" (from Plessy v. Ferguson) and gave legal precedent for desegregation
|
Citizens United v. FEC clause
|
1st Amendment freedom of speech
|
Citizens United v. FEC ruling
|
5:4 for Citizens United, political ads by corporations/nonprofits are protected under free speech, giving money to a campaign doesn't necessarily mean that they will be biased towards you
|
Citizens United v. FEC facts
|
BCRA law banned Citizens United from showing an ad they made casting Hilary Clinton in a negative light calling it "electioneering" and thus against the BCRA. Citizens United appealed that the ad fell under their right to free speech and thus the BCRA was unconstitutional (2010)
|
Citizens United v. FEC question
|
Does a law that limits the ability of corporations and labor unions to spend their own money to advocate the election or defeat of a candidate violate the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech?
|
Citizens United v. FEC impact
|
used as precedent to declare the cap on campaign funding unconstitutional, now money=free speech
|
0 recently 
0/10
Amelia S 
U.S Government
Used practice mode
Matched flashcards
Studied flashcards
Willie 
Matteo Z 
