AP Gov Test 2

if 55 of y'all are using my knowt the LEAST you can do is give it a review

Free Exercise Clause

Provision in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that protects individuals' rights to practice their religion freely, without government interference. It ensures that the government cannot prohibit or penalize religious beliefs or practices.

Establishment Clause

Provision of the First Amendment that prohibits the government from establishing an official religion or favoring one religion over another.

Interstate Commerce Clause - what is it, where is it in Consitution

-Gives Congress the power to regulate trade and economic activity that crosses state lines or affects multiple states.

-Found in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution and has been used to justify a wide range of federal legislation affecting economic affairs.

Reserved Powers

Powers not delegated to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution (10th Amendment). These powers belong to the states or the people (e.g, regulating education, law enforcement)

Due Process Clause

In both the 5th and 14th Amendments, guarantee that the government cannot deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without fair legal procedures. 14A applies this protection to state governments.

Privileges or Immunities Clause

Part of 14A that prohibits states from denying citizens the rights afforded to them by the federal government. 

Also in Article 5, which requires states to treat citizens of other states the same as their own citizens when it comes to fundamental rights (ex: right to travel)

Selective Incorporation

Provisions of the Bill of Rights are applicable to states on a case-by-case basis determined by the SC.

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) (Provision, facts, question, holding, reasons)

Provision: Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Facts: Washington, D.C. (federal government) had a law effectively banning handgun possession in homes. Dick Heller, a D.C. special police officer, was denied a permit to keep a handgun at home and sued.

Question: Does the D.C. handgun ban violate the Second Amendment?

Holding: Yes. The Court ruled the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms, unconnected to service in a militia, for lawful purposes like self-defense.

Reasons: The text and history of the Second Amendment show that “the right of the people” applies to individuals, and the D.C. ban destroyed the core purpose of that right.

Clear and Present Danger Test

Legal doctrine that says that speech cannot be limited unless its expression creates a clear and present danger of bringing evil/harm. (1A, originated in Schenck v. US)

Symbolic Speech

Nonverbal expression of beliefs or ideas that conveys a political message (e.g, flag burning, sit-ins, wearing armbands) SC recognizes symbolic speech as protected under the 1A unless it incites violence, disrupts public order, or poses a serious threat.

What is the Imminent Lawless Action Test, and what did it replace?

AKA Brandenburg Test. Speech can only be restricted if it is intended to incite and likely to produce imminent lawless action. (Brandenburg v. Ohio, KKK rally) This replaced the “clear and present danger” test, greatly expanding free speech protection.

Gerrymandering

The deliberate drawing of district lines to favor a political party, which is legal if political. Applies to Congress/state legislatures

Racial Gerrymandering

Drawing districts based on race/ethnicity in order to create a majority-minority district.

Majority-Minority Districts

Electoral districts designed so that a racial or ethnic minority group makes up a majority of voters. Created to ensure minority representation in Congress but sometimes challenged under Equal Protection if race was the primary criterion in drawing the lines.

Political Question - What is it, case

Rule that Federal courts will refuse to hear a case if they find that it presents a political question, limiting their jurisdiction. (e.g impeachment procedures, foreign policy questions). Question in Baker v. Carr.

Descriptive Representation

When elected officials share key physical or demographic characteristics with their constituents (such as race, gender, or background), helping constituents feel “seen” in government.

Substantive Representation

When elected officials advocate for and advance the actual interests, policy preferences, and needs of their constituents, even if they do not share their demographics. (e.g white person representing black population)

Voting Rights Act of 1965 - What is it, what did it do?

Landmark civil rights law prohibiting past voting discrimination. Amended over time. Eliminated literacy tests, said that if more than 50% of pop of a group weren’t registered to vote, it would be investigated, made a preclearance (list of states that discriminated in voting), and that any changes to voting laws by those states must be approved by the DOJ (federal gov). Law was effective (e.g, 5% → 60% black voters in Miss.) and strengthened 15A. Challenged in Shaw v Reno

Reapportionment

The redistribution of congressional seats among the states every ten years following the U.S. census, based on population shifts. It ensures that representation reflects population changes.

Malapportionment

When districts are drawn with unequal populations, giving more influence to voters in smaller districts. No longer happens.

Equal Protection Clause

Part of the 14th Amendment stating that no state shall deny any person equal protection under the law.  Everyone, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, or other factors, should be equally treated under the law. (also part of 5a for gov)

Strict Scrutiny Test (what is it, when is it used?)

The highest level of judicial review used when a law discriminates based on race or affects fundamental rights. Government must prove that the law is narrowly tailored (necessary) to achieve a compelling interest (DAMN good reason)

Intermediate Scrutiny Test

A middle-level judicial standard applied to classifications based on gender or legitimacy. The government must show the law serves an important interest and is substantially related to achieving that interest. (good reason)

Engel v. Vitale (1962) (Provision, facts, question, holding, reasons)

Provision: Establishment Clause of the First Amendment

Facts: The New York State Board wrote a voluntary, non-denominational prayer for public schools. It was required to be given by teachers, but optional for students. Some parents sued, claiming it violated the Establishment Clause.

Question: Does school-sponsored prayer in public schools violate the Establishment Clause?

Holding: Yes. The Court ruled that even voluntary, non-denominational prayer led by government officials in public schools is unconstitutional.

Reasons: By promoting prayer at public schools and having teachers read the prayers, the government endorsed religion, which violates the principle of the Establishment Clause and the historical intent of the First Amendment.

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) (Provision, facts, question, holding, reasons)

Provision: First Amendment freedom of speech and expression, symbolic speech

Facts: Students wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War and were suspended for violating a new school policy banning the armbands.

Question: Does prohibiting students from wearing armbands violate their free speech rights?

Holding: Yes. The Court ruled in favor of the students.

Reasons: Students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” The armbands were symbolic speech and caused minimal disruption; the school acted out of fear, not necessity.

Schenck v. United States (1919) (Provision, facts, question, holding, reasons)

Provision: First Amendment freedom of speech.

Facts: During WWI, Charles Schenck distributed leaflets urging men to resist the draft, claiming it violated the 13th Amendment’s ban on involuntary servitude. He was charged under the Espionage Act for interfering with recruitment.

Question: Did the Espionage Act violate Schenck’s right to free speech?

Holding: No. The Court upheld his conviction.

Reasons: Speech that presents a “clear and present danger” of substantive evil can be restricted. In wartime, speech likely to obstruct military efforts is not protected.

United States v. Lopez (1995) (Provision, facts, question, holding, reasons)

Provision: Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8) and 10th Amendment reserved powers. Discussed federalism

Facts: High school student Alfonso Lopez was charged under the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act for bringing a gun to school, as well as the state law disallowing guns in school. 

Question: Does the Gun-Free School Zones Act exceed Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause?

Holding: Yes. The law was unconstitutional.

Reasons: Possessing a gun in a school zone is not an economic activity that substantially affects interstate commerce. The ruling limited federal power and reinforced the principle of state sovereignty. First time SC sided with states in 60 year.

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) (Provision, facts, question, holding, reasons)

Provision: Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment

Facts: Wisconsin required children to attend school until age 16. Amish parents, citing religious beliefs, refused to send their children to high school after 8th grade and were fined under the law.

Question: Did Wisconsin’s compulsory school attendance law violate the Free Exercise Clause by criminalizing the conduct of parents for religious reasons?

Holding: Yes, the law violated the Free Exercise Clause.

Reasons: The Court ruled that the Amish families’ religious beliefs and way of life outweighed the state’s interest in compulsory education. The Amish provided informal vocational education consistent with their faith, and forcing attendance would substantially interfere with their religious practices. The state’s interest in universal education was not compelling enough to override this freedom.

McDonald v. Chicago (2010) (Provision, facts, question, holding, reasons)

Provision: Due Process Clause of 14th Amendment (also 2A but irrelevant for Big)

Facts: Otis McDonald, a Chicago resident, wanted a handgun for self-defense in his home but was prohibited by a citywide handgun ban. After the D.C. v. Heller decision recognized an individual right to bear arms in federal areas, McDonald sued to apply the same protection to states and cities.

Question: Does the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause?

Holding: Yes. The Court struck down Chicago’s handgun ban.

Reasons: The Court held that the Second Amendment is a fundamental right incorporated to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Using selective incorporation, the Court extended Heller’s precedent to cities, emphasizing that self-defense is a deeply rooted right in American history and tradition.

Shaw v. Reno (1993) (Provision, facts, question, holding, reasons)

Provision: Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause

Facts: NC created two majority-minority congressional districts after the 1990 census, one of which was extremely irregular in shape and stretched for miles along a highway. White residents sued, arguing the plan was racially gerrymandered.

Question: Did the creation of a racially gerrymandered district violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Holding: Yes. The Court ruled against North Carolina.

Reasons: The bizarre shape of the 12th District suggested race was the predominant factor in drawing district lines, which violated the Equal Protection Clause. While race can be one factor in redistricting, it cannot be the sole or overriding factor, even if complying with the VRA. The decision emphasized that racial classifications in redistricting are subject to strict scrutiny.

Baker v. Carr (1962) (Provision, facts, questions, holding, reasons)

Provision: Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause

Facts: Charles Baker, a Tennessee resident, argued that legislative districts had not been redrawn in 60 years, leading to unequal representation—rural districts had far fewer people than urban ones but the same number of representatives. The state claimed redistricting was a “political question” outside judicial review.

Question(s): Does the SC (federal court) have the right to hear cases about legislative apportionment, or is it a matter of politics? Does Baker have standing to bring this case to Court? (is he harmed by the law?) Is redistricting a justiciable issue?

Holding: The Court ruled in favor of Baker.

Reasons: The Court held that redistricting issues are justiciable under the Equal Protection Clause. Unequal representation violated the “one person, one vote” principle because it diluted urban votes. This case opened the door for federal courts to review and intervene in redistricting cases involving constitutional rights.

What is judicial review? How is it a check on other branches, and state governments?

Judicial review is the power of the Supreme Court to determine if a law/governmental action is unconstitutional.

It checks the power of other branches and states because it holds them accountable for their actions and protects citizens by making sure that actions are constitutionally valid.

What does Article III of the Constitution establish?

• Establishes the judicial branch of the federal government, creating a Supreme Court and allowing Congress to establish inferior courts

• Outlines the jurisdiction of federal courts/creates federal courts

• Defines treason

• Federal judges hold their office during "good behavior" (can’t be fired) and receive a salary that cannot be lowered

What are constitutional courts and the four types?

Constitutional courts are federal courts created by Article III of the Constitution which mainly have jurisdiction over the Constitution and laws. In constitutional courts, judges cannot be fired unless impeached (good behavior) and their salary can’t change. Includes US District Courts, US Appeals Courts, SCOTUS, and Court of International Trade.

What are legislative courts and two examples?

Legislative courts are federal courts created by Congress under its legislative powers (unlike Article III courts) to serve specialized purposes. Legislative court judges don’t have the same protections as Article III judges. Examples include the Court of Military appeals or territorial courts.

What is jurisdiction?

Jurisdiction refers to the legal authority of a court to hear and decide cases. It determines the extent to which a court can exercise its power and make binding decisions.

What is original jurisdiction?

Original jurisdiction is the authority of a court to hear a case for the first time, as opposed to appellate jurisdiction, where a higher court reviews a lower court's decision.

What is appellate jurisdiction?

Appellate jurisdiction is when higher courts hear cases that have already been heard through appeals, and review/revise the lower court’s decision. It does not involve a new trial, but instead focuses on issues raised in the original case.

What is dual sovereignty, and an example?

Dual sovereignty is a legal doctrine where both the federal and state governments have the authority to legislate and enforce laws within their own jurisdictions. This principle allows for state and federal laws to coexist and creates separate legal systems. (ex: Charlie Kirk shooter - tried in Utah state court, gets death penalty for murder. Could also get a federal charge, like terrorism)

Exclusive jurisdiction

Exclusive jurisdiction refers to the authority of only one type of court to hear and decide a particular type of case, preventing other courts from having jurisdiction over that matter.

Concurrent jurisdiction

Concurrent jurisdiction occurs when two or more courts from different systems have the authority to hear the same case, allowing for multiple courts to potentially rule on overlapping issues. Usually state and federal. (Ex: diversity case)

What is power?

The ability of someone to make someone do something you want them to do. 

What is authority?

The right to use power.

What is legitimacy?

Legitimacy is the acceptance and recognition of an authority, often based on legal or moral grounds, that justifies the exercise of power to the people.

Explain how the exercise of judicial review in conjunction with life tenure can lead to controversy about the legitimacy of the Supreme Court’s power.

The exercise of judicial review in conjunction with life tenure can lead to controversy about the legitimacy of the SC’s power because it allows unelected SC justices to make impactful decisions that can conflict with the will of the public and overturn laws passed by elected officials.

Explain the role of litmus test, judicial philosophy, gender, race, scandals, filibuster, and politics in judicial nominations. 

In judicial nominations, a litmus test on issues like abortion, judicial philosophy, identity factors like gender and race, past scandals, a filibuster could indefinitely delay or block a judicial nominee and slow the pace of appointments, and the overarching political climate can influence the selection and confirmation process.

 

Describe the role of US Attorneys, Attorney General, and Solicitor General in the federal judiciary.

US Attorneys - federal prosecutors that represent the US gov in federal court

Attorney General - head of the Department of Justice and oversees federal law enforcement

Solicitor General - represents the United States before the Supreme Court

Precedent

 A judicial decision that should be followed by a judge when deciding a later similar case.

Stare decisis

The legal principle of adhering to precedent established in previous cases. “Let the decision stand”

How have ideological changes in the composition of the Supreme Court due to presidential appointments have led to the Court’s establishing new or rejecting existing precedent?

Ideological shifts in the Supreme Court can result in significant alterations in precedent, as new justices may interpret the Constitution and existing laws through different ideological lenses, leading to new rulings or the overturning of previous decisions. Ex: Roe v. Wade overturned, conservative appointments

What is judicial activism, and an example?

A philosophy holding that courts can and should go beyond the applicable law to consider broader societal implications of their decisions, usually involving judges personal opinions. Ex: Brown v. Board, which de-segregated schools

What is judicial restraint, and an example?

A philosophy that encourages judges to limit the exercise of their own power and to uphold laws and precedents established by the legislative and executive branches, as well as uphold precedent. Ex: Gibbons v Ogden, where the court strengthened Congress’s commerce power.

How can the other branches limit the Supreme Court’s power?

Executive branch: Can appoint judges, enforce decisions, and influence public opinion (bully pulpit)

Legislative branch: Can impeach judges, advise and consent to appointments, change number of judges, create laws or amendments that limit rulings, or change the jurisdiction of courts

What are amicus curae briefs and why are they submitted?

They are briefs submitted by a “friend of the court”, or from an interested party not directly involved in the suit. Often submitted by interest groups showing what side they are on, to have influence in a case.

Majority opinion

Signed opinion supported by the majority of judges, written/summarized by one judge, stating the decision and the reasons behind it

Dissenting opinion

A signed opinion with one or more justices in disagreement with the majority opinion

Concurring opinion

 A signed opinion with one or more justices agreeing with the majority opinion, but for different reasons that they want to express

Writ of Certioari

A formal request for the Supreme Court to review a lower court's decision, typically used to bring a case before the Court.

Standing

The legal right to bring a case to a court. Must demonstrate whether there was 1. Actual controversy? 2. Harmed by the law? 3. Taxpayer?

Rule of four

A Supreme Court practice where at least four justices must agree to hear a lower court’s case before it is granted certiorari.

District court number of courts, number of judges, jurisdiction, and policy implications

Type of constitutional court

Number of courts: 94, with each state having at least one

Number of judges: Each district has multiple judges, varying by caseload.

Jurisdiction: Original jurisdiction for federal cases, including civil and criminal matters.

Policy implications: District courts handle federal cases, impacting legal precedents and the application of federal law, as well as bankruptcy cases.

Courts of Appeal type of court, number of courts, number of judges, jurisdiction, and policy implications

Type of constitutional court

Number of courts: 13, including 12 regional circuits and the Federal Circuit

Number of judges: Each circuit has multiple judges, with a total of around 179 judges

Jurisdiction: Appellate jurisdiction for federal cases, reviewing decisions from district courts

Policy implications: Courts of Appeal influence legal standards and interpretations of federal law.

Supreme Court number of courts, number of judges, jurisdiction, and policy implications

Type of constitutional court

Number of courts: 1, the highest court in the United States
Number of judges: 9 justices
Jurisdiction: Limited original jurisdiction, primarily appellate jurisdiction over federal and state cases
Policy implications: The Supreme Court has the final word on constitutional issues, shaping national policies and legal interpretations.

How does the Constitution protect individual liberties and rights?

The Constitution protects individual liberties and rights primarily through the Bill of Rights, which enumerates fundamental rights such as freedom of speech, religion, and assembly. Additionally, the Fourteenth Amendment extends these protections at the state level against infringement by state government.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) (Provision, facts, question, holding, reasons)

Provision: Sixth Amendment right to counsel

Facts: Clarence Gideon was charged with breaking and entering in Florida. The state only provided attorneys for capital offenses. Gideon, unable to afford one, defended himself and was convicted. He appealed, claiming violation of his right to counsel.

Question: Does the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel in criminal cases extend to state courts via the Fourteenth Amendment?

Holding: Unanimous decision for Gideon.

Reasons: The Court ruled that the right to an attorney is a fundamental right essential to a fair trial. The Fourteenth Amendment makes this right applicable to the states through selective incorporation. Ordinary citizens cannot be expected to know complex legal procedures without legal assistance.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954) (Provision, facts, question, holding, reasons)

Provision: Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause.

Facts: The case was triggered when Linda Brown, a nine-year-old girl, was denied enrollment in an all-white elementary school near her home in Topeka, Kansas, and was instead forced to walk a long distance to an all-Black school. Brought with other cases of a similar nature. Schools were segregated under the “separate but equal” doctrine from Plessy v. Ferguson.

Question: Does segregation of public schools by race violate the Equal Protection Clause?

Holding: Unanimous decision for Brown.

Reasons: Segregation in public schools is inherently unequal and creates feelings of inferiority among Black children. The Court used psychological studies (like the “doll test”) to show harm caused by segregation. Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned in public education. In Brown II (1955), the Court ordered desegregation “with all deliberate speed.”

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) (Provision, facts, question, holding, reasons)

Provision: First Amendment freedom of speech.

Facts: Citizens United, a nonprofit organization, created a film critical of Hillary Clinton and wanted to broadcast it close to the 2008 primary elections. Federal law prohibited electioneering communications within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election.

Question: Does the restriction on independent political expenditures by corporations and unions violate the First Amendment?

Holding: Yes. The Court ruled in favor of Citizens United.

Reasons: Political spending is a form of protected speech. The government cannot limit corporate or union spending on independent political communications. The ruling struck down portions of the BCRA, allowing unlimited independent expenditures by corporations and PACs.

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) (Provision, facts, question, holding, reasons)

Provision: Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause

Facts: James Obergefell and John Arthur, a same-sex couple, were legally married in Maryland. Their home state of Ohio refused to recognize their marriage. After Arthur’s death, Obergefell sued, seeking recognition as his spouse.

Question: Does the Fourteenth Amendment require states to license and recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states?

Holding: Yes. The Court ruled in favor of Obergefell.

Reasons: The right to marry is a fundamental liberty protected by the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. Denying same-sex couples this right demeans their dignity and places their children at a disadvantage. States must both license and recognize marriages between two people of the same sex.

New York Times Co. v. United States (1971) (Provision, facts, question, holding, reasons)

Provision: First Amendment freedom of the press.

Facts: During the Vietnam War, the New York Times and Washington Post obtained classified documents known as the “Pentagon Papers,” which revealed government deception about the war. The Nixon administration sought an injunction to prevent publication, claiming it would harm national security. Question: Did the Nixon administration’s attempt to prevent publication of the Pentagon Papers violate the First Amendment’s freedom of the press?

Holding: Yes. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the New York Times and the Washington Post.

Reasons: The Court held that the government did not meet the heavy burden of proof required for prior restraint (censorship before publication). Since the government failed to show that publication would cause a direct, immediate, and irreparable harm to national security, stopping the press was unconstitutional. The case reaffirmed strong protections for freedom of the press against government censorship.

What does the 1A protect?

It protects the freedom of religion, assembly, press, petition, and speech. It also has the free exercise clause (government cannot restrict religious practices) and the establishment clause (prohibiting government from establishing a religion).

What does the 2A protect?

The right to bear arms

What does the 4A protect? (and when are warrants allowed?)

No unreasonable searches and seizures.

Warrants are only allowed with probable cause, by a judge, and specific about person and place.

and exigent circumstances can allow for no warrant

What does the 5A protect?

Grand jury, double jeopardy, self incrimination, due process

• You won’t be charged with a crime unless by grand jury 

• You can’t be charged for the same offense more than once (no double jeopardy) 

• You do not ever have to incriminate yourself (right to remain silent) 

• The law will be followed and you will be treated fairly (due process) 

What does the 6A protect?

Right to a speedy trial by jury, witnesses, and counsel

Defendants have the right to…

• a timely and public trial 

• a jury of their peers 

• a search for witnesses to defend them 

• a lawyer to defend them

What does the 8A protect?

No excessive fines or cruel & unusual punishment - Excessive bail, excessive fines, or “cruel and unusual punishment” may not be inflicted in our criminal justice system.

What does the 9A protect?

The right to rights not listed - Protection of unenumerated rights: Just because it’s not in the Constitution doesn’t mean that the people don’t have the right. 

What does the 10A protect?

States have rights - Powers not mentioned in the Constitution are up to states or the people. 

Explain the extent to which the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the First and Second Amendments reflects a commitment to individual liberty

The Supreme Court's interpretation of the First and Second Amendments demonstrates its commitment to individual liberty by broadly protecting freedom of speech, religion, and the right to bear arms. This reflects an ongoing balance between governmental authority and individual rights.

What are time, place, and manner regulations?

These are rules set by governments to regulate when, where, and how speech can occur, ensuring public order while respecting the First Amendment.

What is the Miller test?

The Miller test is a standard established by the Supreme Court for determining whether material is obscene and not protected by the First Amendment.

What is prior restraint?

Prohibiting speech/expression before it occurs.

What was Mapp v. Ohio, and what is the exclusionary rule?

Dollree Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials after an admittedly illegal police search of her home for a fugitive. Mapp v. Ohio is a case that established the exclusionary rule, which prohibits the use of illegal evidence obtained during illegal searches and seizures in state courts.

What is the Patriot Act?

The Patriot Act is a law enacted after the September 11 attacks that expanded the government's surveillance and investigative powers to combat terrorism, including measures for wiretapping and monitoring electronic communications.

What were the basic facts and ruling in Gitlow v. NY?

Gitlow v. NY established that the First Amendment does not prevent the government from punishing political speech that directly advocates its violent overthrow. Created the idea of selective incorporation, allowing the Bill of Rights to be applied to states as well as the federal government.

What is the Miranda Rule?

The Miranda Rule requires law enforcement to inform individuals in custody of their rights to remain silent and to an attorney before interrogation. This rule was established in the landmark case Miranda v. Arizona to protect against self-incrimination.

What is an example of an occasion where the SC ruled in favor of states restricting individual liberty?

Plessy v. Ferguson, where the Supreme Court ruled that racial segregation in public facilities was constitutional under the "separate but equal" doctrine.

What are the basic facts and ruling in Roe v. Wade?

Roe v. Wade was a landmark Supreme Court case that ruled a woman's right to choose to have an abortion was protected under the right to privacy. The Court held that states could not impose excessive restrictions on this right during the first trimester of pregnancy.

What was the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and two important sections?

Landmark federal law that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It ended segregation in public places, provided for equal employment opportunities, and prohibited discrimination in federally funded programs

1. Title VI (6): no discrimination (race, color, national origin, religion) in public places

2. Title VII (7): Bans discrimination in hiring, firing, promotion, and other employment aspects based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

How has the government responded to social movements in the past?

Governments have historically responded to social movements through a combination of legislative and judicial actions, and suppression tactics. Responses can be positive, such as passing landmark legislation like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Americans with Disabilities Act, or negative, involving surveillance, misinformation, and force

De jure segregation & what case is it related to?

 “Segregation by law”, Brown overturned this.

De facto segregation

“Segregation by fact” What happens outside of the law (e.g housing segregation/black and white neighborhoods)

15th Amendment significance, and what was created to bypass it?

 Made after the Civil War. States cannot prevent people from voting based on race. To bypass, literacy tests, poll taxes (fees to vote), Grandfather Clause (if ancestors voted prior to 1867, you would be exempt), were created.

Letter from Birmingham Jail

A letter written by Martin Luther King Jr. in 1963, defending the strategy of nonviolent resistance to racism. It addresses the criticism of his actions during the Birmingham Campaign and emphasizes the urgency of civil rights and the need for direct action.

Rational basis test

Lowest standard of judicial review that assesses if a law is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Applies to everything else, like wealth/age/education. (reason)

Powers of federal courts

1. Making policy through judicial review

2. Establish legal precedent by making rulings

3. Political questions and defining what is politics

4. Provide a remedy to problems (e.g prisons emptying out bc of overcrowding)

Class Action Lawsuit

A case brought by someone to help themselves and all others similarly situated. Citizens can benefit from a decision, even if they themselves haven’t been to court (ex: Brown v. Board)

Article I (1) of the Constitution

Establishes the legislative branch (powers of Congress)

Article II (2) of the Constitution

Establishes the executive branch (powers of president)

Article III (3) of the Constitution

Establishes the judicial branch (the federal court system) and insulates courts from public opinion.

Article IV (4) of the Constitution

Establishes the relationships between states and the federal government, including states' rights and responsibilities.