1/10
Name | Mastery | Learn | Test | Matching | Spaced |
---|
No study sessions yet.
Shaw v. Reno
FACT: North Carolina created a bizarrely shape district, which would increase black voters representation to comply with the voting rights act of 1965.
HOLDING: Residence might challenge majority- minority districts, if race was the only factor used in creating the district.
REASONING: Drawing a congressional district based only on race violated the equal protection clause and opposes the color, blind ideal of US law.
United States v. Lopez
FACTS: A student in Texas brought an unloaded gun to school and was charged with violating the federal gun free school zones act of 1990.
HOLDING: The gun free school act of 1990 is unconstitutional.
REASON: Possession of a gun in a school zone does not substantially affect interstate commerce.
Marbury v. Madison
FACTS: Marbury was appointed by John Adams as justice of the peace. But Madison refused to deliver his commission. So Marbury sued.
HOLDING: Marbury was entitled to his commission. However, the court was unable to grant it because the relevant of the judiciary act of 1789 was unconstitutional.
REASONING: Congress couldn’t pass legislation that supersedes the constitution because the supremacy clause places the constitution above laws.
Engel v. Vitale
FACTS: Public schools in New York began school days by inviting students to recite nondenominational prayer each morning.
HOLDING: States cannot hold prayers in public schools even if participation is voluntary and the prayer isn’t tied to a specific religion.
REASONING: Public school sponsorship of religious activities violate the first amendment’s establishment clause.
Wisconsin v. Yoder
FACTS: Wisconsin law that mandated School attendance until the age of 16. Amish families refused due to religious reasons to send their children to high school once they finish eighth grade.
HOLDING: Wisconsin may not compel Amish students to attend public school beyond eighth grade.
REASONING: Individuals’ interest in free exercise of religion outweighs the state interest in compelling school attendance beyond eighth grade.
Snhenk v. US
FACTS: Charles Schenk distributed leaflets opposing the military draft. He was arrested for violating the Espionage Act by attempting to obstruct the draft.
HOLDING: No. The Espionage Act Was an appropriate exercise of Congress' wartime authority.
REASONING: The students' right of political, symbolic speech based on the First Amendment’s free speech clause override the school w' concern for potential disorder.
New York Times v. US
FACTS: The Nixon Administration Attempted To Stop The Publication Of The Pentagon Papers By The New York Times & Washington Post
HOLDING: The Government Did Not Have The Right To Block Publication Of The Pentagon Papers.
REASONING: Because Of The First Amendment’s Freedom Of Press, There Is a Heavy Presumption Against The Constitutional Validity Of Governments Claims Of Prior Restraint.
Gideon v. Wainwright
FACTS: Clarence Earl Gideon Was Charged With a Felony And Requested That The State Court Appoint a Lawyer For Him. The State Refused.
HOLDING: States Must Provide Attorneys For Defendants Who Can’t Afford One
REASONING: The 6TH Amendments Guarantee To the Right Of Counsel Extends Procedural Due Process Protections To Defendants In State Court Through The 14TH Amendment
Brown v. Board of Education
FACTS: BLACK STUDENTS IN SEVERAL STATES WERE DENIED ADMITTANCE TO CERTAIN PUBLIC SCHOOLS BASED ON RACE.
HOLDING: CORPORATIONS ARE PEOPLE, THEREFORE CORPORATE
FUNDING OF INDEPENDENT POLITICAL EXPENDITURES CANNOT BE LIMITED.
REASONING: BASED ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT'S FREE SPEECH CLAUSE, CORPORATIONS HAVE THE RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN POLITICAL SPEECH.
McCulloh v. Maryland
FACTS: several states, including Maryland passed laws to tax the bank of the US.
HOLDING: Congress may establish a national bank, states may not tax the federal government.
REASONING: through the necessary and proper clause, Congress has implied powers and is not limited to its expressed powers. The second one is supremacy clause, which asserts that federal government is superior than state.