chapter 4- test 2

what are civil liberties

constitutionally established guarantees and freedoms that protects citizens, opinions, and property against government

what are civil war amendments

the 13th 14th and 15th amendments added to the constitution which abolished slavery and granted civl liberties and voting rights to the newly freed people after the civil war

what is due process clause

part of the 14th amendment that forbids states from denying life liberty and property to any person without due process of law

what is the 14th amendment

it established birthright citizenship to anyone born in the usa

what are the basic ideas of the first 9 amendments

1- freedom of speech, press, religion, separation of church and state

2- right to bear arms

3- protection against forced quartering of troops

4- protection against random search and seizures

5- protects your rights in criminal cases, and double jeopardy

6- right to a speedy and public trial

7-right to a trial by jury in civil cases

8- protection against cruel and unusual punishments

9- powers not stated in the constitution given to the government are for the people or the states

what is double jeopardy

being tried twice for the same crime, prevented by the 5th amendment

what is selective incorporation

the process through which most of the civil liberties granted in the bill of rights were applied to the states by a case by case basis through the 14th amendment

barron v baltimore

established a clear doctrine of dual citizenship, meaning Americans had separate sets of rights protected by the federal and state governments respectively. Under this precedent, individuals could not use the U.S. Constitution to challenge state or local laws.

gitlow v new york

gitlow wrote a paper saying to overthrow the government, but new york threw him in jail, he said that this wasnt fair since first amendment but it was still dangerous to say that, while he lost the case, it set up the way for the states to have to listen to the first amendment

what is the establishment clause

part of the first amendment that states congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, which means that congress cannot sponsor a favor a religion

whats the free exercise clause

part of the first amendment that says congress cant prohibit or interfere with the practice of religion unless there are important reasons for doing so

engel v vitale

the school board set a prayer to be said and while it wasnt forced for people to say it parents said it promoted religion and school and supreme court sided and said state sponsored things shouldnt involve religion

what is the lemon test

established in lemon v kurtzman to determine whether a practice violates the first amendment’s establishment clause

• The Purpose Prong: The statute must have a valid, secular (non-religious) legislative purpose.

• The Effect Prong: The principal or primary effect of the law must neither advance nor inhibit religion.

• The Entanglement Prong: The statute must not result in "excessive government entanglement" with religion

lemon v kurtzman

Court unanimously ruled that state funding for non-public, non-secular (religious) schools violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

espinoza v montana department of revenue

said that state-based scholarship program that provides public funds to allow students to attend private schools cannot discriminate against religious schools under the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution.

wisconsin v yoder

a 1972 case in which the supreme court held that compelling amish students to attend school past the 8th grade violates the free exercise clause, this opened the door to homeschooling

what is strict scrutiny and how to meet the standard

highest level of scrutiny the courts can use when determining whether a law is constitutional. It is applied when a law or policy burdens a fundamental right (such as free speech) or targets a "suspect classification" (like race or national origin)

to meet the standard the law or policy must be shown to serve a compelling state interest or goal and there is no other better less intrusive way to do this

intermediate scrutiny

the middle level of scrutiny the court can use when determining whether a law is constitutional. to meet this standard the law or policy must be content neutral , must further an important government interest in a way that is related to the interest and means that are a close fit to the governemnt’s goal

clear and present danger test

established in schenck v united states, this test allowed the government to restrict certain types of speech deemed dangerous,

Speech is not protected if it is used "in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent

direct incitement test

established in brandenburg v ohio, this test protects threatening speech under the first amendment unless that speech aims to and is likely to cause imminent lawless action

replaced clear and present danger because they were just arresting any type of speech beforehand, now the speech has to cause danger right then and there such as yelling fire in a crowded area

symbolic speech

nonverbal expression such as the use of signs or symbols. benefits from many of the same constitutional protections as verbal speech

tinker v des moines school district

in 1969 the supreme court ruled that students may wear armbands to protest the vietnam war. the court noted that students were not disruptive and did not impinge upon the rights of others

what is hate speech

expression that is offensive or abusive typically in terms of race gender or sexual orientation, it is currently protected under the first amendment

what is prior restraint

a limit on freedom of speech of the press that allows the government to prohibit the media from publishing certain materials

new york times v united states

the supreme court ruled that in 1971 the government could not prevent the publication of the pentagon papers which realiced lies about the progress of the war in vietnam

what are fighting words

forms of expression that can incite violence, these are regulated by the government but difficult to define

what is libel

written false statements that can damage a persons reputation

what is commercial speech

public expression with the aim of making a profit

what is slander

spoken false statements that can damage a persons reputation

what is the miller test

established in miller v california this 3 part test is used by the supreme court to determine whether speech meets the criteria for obscenity

• Prurient Interest: The average person, applying contemporary community standards, finds the work as a whole appeals to a prurient (shameful or morbid) interest.

• Patently Offensive: The work depicts sexual or excretory acts in a manner clearly offensive, as defined by state law.

• Lack of Value: The work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value (this is where issues occur since people interpret things differently)

what is obscenity

Obscenity refers to language, behavior, or visual material that is highly offensive, shocking, or deeply contrary to prevalent standards of morality and decency.

mcdonald v chicago

case stemmed from a 1982 Chicago law that effectively banned new handgun registrations, making it nearly impossible for residents to legally own a handgun said that was against their 2nd amendment right to own a gun

the supreme court ruled in 2010 that the second amendment’s right to keep and bear arms for self defense in ones home is applicable to the states through the 14th amendment (since the dc v heller allowed it but only federally since dc isnt an offical state)

the ruling significantly limited the ability of cities and states to pass sweeping gun bans, although governments retained the right to enforce reasonable firearm regulations like licensing and background checks

what are due process rights

idea that laws and legal proceedings must be fair

what are exclusionary rules

the principle that illegally or unconstitutionally acquired evidence cannot be used in a criminal case

what are miranda rights

the list of civil liberties described in the 5th amendment that must be read to a suspect before anything the suspect says can be used in a trial

gideon v wainwright

gideon broke in to pool hall and was arrested, but they tried him and didnt give him an attorney which led him to defend himself and he was found guilty, he wrote saying this wasnt fair and wanted retrial, court found that that wasnt right.

ruled that the 6th amendment requires states to provide legal counsel to criminal defendants who are unable to afford their own attorneys, fundamentally expanded the right to a fair trial

what are privacy rights

liberties protected by several amendments in the bill of rights that shield certain personal aspects of citizens lives from government interference

roe v wade

1973 supreme court case that extended the right to privacy to a womens decision to have an abortion while recognizing the states interest in potential life and maternal health

webster v reproductive health services

said that since babies could now be held viable at second trimester they now had people rights and kinda limited on abortion and included states to have more of a say

planned parenthood v casey

ruled that states could regulate abortion throughout the entire pregnancy, provided the regulations do not place an "undue burden" (defined as a "substantial obstacle") on a woman's ability to obtain an abortion before the fetus becomes viable.

griswold v connecticut

challenged law that prohibited the sale or information about contraceptives, said the law in connecticut violated family privacy so married people could be allowed to have birth control if they wanred

furman v georgia

said that death penalty in georgia wasnt being applied fairly so it was called as cruel and unusual so they removed it from all the states

gregg v georgia

georgia rewrote death penalty so it was constitutional now and they brought it back

dobbs v jackson womens health organization

overruled roe and casey, said that abortion isnt constitutional right and that the national government had no say so it was left up to the states to decided whether it was legal or not

miranda v arizona

miranda rights were established as the person convicted was forced to admit he was guilty and he said he didnt know he had any of these rights in the first place, so now if you get arrested they have to read you these rights also established double jeopardy

mapp v ohio

established the exclusionary rule, they tried to search in her house for something, didnt find it but they arrested her for something else in her house without a warrent which is illegal so it doesnt count

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen

said that the average person doesnt need to have a reason for them to carry a gun they can just carry it as long as they arent crazy

us v miller

said that the shotgun wasnt protected by the second since it only applies to military weapons

dc vs heller

residents filed lawsuit saying dc had to strict of rules not allowing them to have guns and the court said the second Amendment protects an individual's right to own a gun for self-defense but since its dc people said it doesnt count as a state

texas vs johnson

flag was burned and courts said we can have non verbal protest so its okk to burn a flag

snyder v phelps

ruled that even hurtful speech is protected by the first amendment because church protested with all the laws and didnt distrupt anything it was ok

brandenburg v ohio

made threatening speech and said his speech was ok, before that saying anything bad meant they could throw you in jail, this case made it stricter and said that as long as your speech isnt creating a direct incitement such as burn down this building rn then its ok for you to say stuff

U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in 1969 that the First Amendment protects speech advocating violence unless it is directed at inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action (more proper definition)

open fields doctrine

said that even if you own land an open field but it can still be seen then you can be charged for whatever you do on that land

schenck v united states

allowed congress to ban speeches that posed clear and present danger to society

miller v california

landmark Supreme Court case that answers one of the trickiest questions in constitutional law: What counts as "obscenity," and how much can the government restrict it under the First Amendment? set up the miller tests