selective incorporation	Modern supreme court doctrine embraces the doctrine of selective incorporation of the bill of rights against the states meaning that the court has held on a case basis that many of the provisions of the bill of rights limit state government
2nd Amendment	A well-regulated military, being necessary to the the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed
NRA	National rifle Association The nra was founded in New York in 1987 as a governing body for the sport of shooting with rifles and pistols. By the early century, it claimed a number of nearly five million target shooters, hunters, collectors, gunsmiths, police, and other gun enthusiasts. They intended to establish codes for fair practices that would set prices production levels minimum wages, and maximum hours within each industry
Gun show loophole	Private parties who are not engaged in the business of selling firearms are not legally required by federal law:ask for identification or complete any forms, keep any sales record, as long as the sale is not made in interstate commerce (across state lines) does not fall under the purview of the national firearms
Charleston loophole	The Charleston loophole is a dangerous gap in the federal system that allows gun sales to proceed after three business days even if the background check has not yet been completed. States can address this loophole by giving background check operators more time to determine if a buyer is prohibited.
Bruen test	The bruen decision recognized, for the first time, an individual right to carry
Red flag laws	allow loved ones or law enforcement to intervene by petitioning a court for an order to temporarily prevent someone in crisis from accessing guns
4th Amendment	The rights of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation. And particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized
Unreasonable searches and seizures	The rights of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall be issued but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation. And particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized
warrant	A paper needed inorder to search a building or person. Hard to legally get and
probable cause	Probable cause refers to a reasonable basis for believing that a crime may have been committed or that evidence of a crime is present in the place to be searched
Mapp v. Ohio	Background The case originated in Cleveland, Ohio, when police officers forced their way into Dollree Mapp's house without a proper search warrant. Police believed that Mapp was harboring a suspected bomber, and demanded entry. No suspect was found, but police discovered a trunk of obscene pictures in Mapp's basement. Mapp was arrested for possessing the pictures, and was convicted in an Ohio court. Mapp argued that her Fourth Amendment rights had been violated by the search, and eventually took her appeal to the United States Supreme Court. At the time of the case unlawfully seized evidence was banned from federal courts but not state courts. 5-3 in favor of mapp
exclusionary rule	The exclusionary rule prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the united states constitution
NJ v. TLO	T.L.O. was a 14-year-old female student at a New Jersey high school. A teacher found T.L.O. and another student smoking cigarettes in the girls’ restroom in the school building in violation of school rules. The teacher brought the two students to a school administrator, who questioned each of them. The second student admitted to smoking cigarettes. T.L.O. denied the allegations. The administrator then accused T.LO. of lying to him, and demanded to see her purse in an attempt to find the cigarettes. Among other things, when the administrator opened her purse, he found a pack of cigarettes, and cigarette rolling paper. Due to the fact that the administrator knew that cigarette rolling paper is used to smoke marijuana he now suspected T.L.O. of marijuana use. He further searched T.L.O. 's purse, and found a small plastic bag containing a grass-like substance and items that could be drug paraphernalia, including a pipe, a wad of money, a piece of paper with the names of students who apparently owed T.L.O. money, and a letter that appeared to implicate T.L.O. in dealing marijuana. The administrator contacted the police who, in turn, contacted T.L.O.’s mother. Her mother brought T.L.O. to the police station, where she confessed to selling marijuana. The case that said reasonable suspicion is enough to check student items in school
reasonable suspicion	Reasonable suspicion means that the officer can explain why a crime has likely occurred and point to reasons for that conclusion
9th Amendment	The enumeration in the construction of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
privacy	A fundamental human right that underpins freedom of association, thought, and expression as well as freedom from discrimination
Due Process Clause (14th Amendment)	No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Nor shall any state deprive any person of life liberty or property without due process of law nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Griswold v. CT	In 1879, Connecticut passed a law that banned the use of any drug, medical device, or other instrument in furthering contraception. A gynecologist at the Yale School of Medicine, C. Lee Buxton, opened a birth control clinic in New Haven in conjunction with Estelle Griswold, who was the head of Planned Parenthood in Connecticut. They were arrested and convicted of violating the law, and their convictions were affirmed by higher state courts. Their plan was to use the clinic to challenge the constitutionality of the statute under the Fourteenth Amendment before the Supreme Court. In a 7-2 decision authored by Justice Douglas, the Court ruled that the Constitution did in fact protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on contraception. While the Court explained that the Constitution does not explicitly protect a general right to privacy, the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create penumbras, or zones, that establish a right to privacy. Together, the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments create the right to privacy in marital relations. The Connecticut statute conflicted with the exercise of this right and was therefore held null and void.
Roe v. Wade	In 1970, Jane Roe (a fictional name used in court documents to protect the plaintiff’s identity) filed a lawsuit against Henry Wade, the district attorney of Dallas County, Texas, where she resided, challenging a Texas law making abortion illegal except by a doctor’s orders to save a woman’s life. In her lawsuit, Roe alleged that the state laws were unconstitutionally vague and abridged her right of personal privacy, protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Justice Harry Blackmun delivered the opinion for the 7-2 majority of the Court.
Planned Parenthood v. Casey	The Pennsylvania legislature amended its abortion control law in 1988 and 1989. Among the new provisions, the law required informed consent and a 24 hour waiting period prior to the procedure. A minor seeking an abortion required the consent of one parent (the law allows for a judicial bypass procedure). A married woman seeking an abortion had to indicate that she notified her husband of her intention to abort the fetus. These provisions were challenged by several abortion clinics and physicians. A federal appeals court upheld all the provisions except for the husband notification requirement. In a bitter 5-to-4 decision, the Court again reaffirmed Roe
“Undue Burden Test”	The undue burden test is the legal standard that courts use to determine whether an abortion restriction violates the constitution
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health	In 2018, Mississippi passed a law called the “Gestational Age Act,” which prohibits all abortions, with few exceptions, after 15 weeks’ gestational age. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the only licensed abortion facility in Mississippi, and one of its doctors filed a lawsuit in federal district court challenging the law and requesting an emergency temporary restraining order (TRO). After a hearing, the district court granted the TRO while the litigation proceeded to discovery. After discovery, the district court granted the clinic’s motion for summary judgment and enjoined Mississippi from enforcing the law, finding that the state had not provided evidence that a fetus would be viable at 15 weeks, and Supreme Court precedent prohibits states from banning abortions prior to viability. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed.
pro-choice	A political legal and social movement aimed at increasing and preserving women's access to medical abortion
pro-life	Anti abortion movements also self styled as pro life movements are involved in the abortion debate advocating against the practice of abortion and its legality
5th Amendment	No persons shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in land or naval forces, or in malta when in actual service in time of war or public danger nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. Nor be deprived of life liberty or property without due process of law nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation
Pretrial rights	The accused is entitled to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation to be released on bail except for capital offense when the proof is evident or the presumption great to be confronted with the witnesses against him to have compulsory process for the obtaining of witnesses in his favor.
Self-incrimination Clause	Self-incrimination is the intentional or unintentional act of providing information that will suggest your involvement in a crime or expose you to criminal prosecution
Due Process Clause (5th Amendment)	No one shall be deprived of life,liberty or property without due process of law
Double Jeopardy Clause	The double jeopardy clause in the fifth amendment to the us constitution prohibits anyone from being prosecuted twice for substantially the same crime
Takings Clause	Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
Grand Jury Clause	N person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces or in military when in actual services in time of war or public danger nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be
6th Amendment	In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed which district shall have been previously ascertained by law and ti be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation to be confronted with the witnesses against him to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence
public trial	Public trial or open trial is a trial that is open to the public instead of a secret trial.
impartial jury	A legal proceeding in which all parties involved are given equal treatment and consideration
Gideon v. Wainwright	Clarence Earl Gideon was charged in Florida state court with felony breaking and entering. When he appeared in court without a lawyer, Gideon requested that the court appoint one for him. According to Florida state law, however, an attorney may only be appointed to an indigent defendant in capital cases, so the trial court did not appoint one. Gideon represented himself in trial. He was found guilty and sentenced to five years in prison. Gideon filed a habeas corpus petition in the Florida Supreme Court, arguing that the trial court's decision violated his constitutional right to be represented by counsel. The Florida Supreme Court denied habeas corpus relief. The Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a right to assistance of counsel applies to criminal defendants in state court by way of the Fourteenth Amendment.
counsel	To provide legal advice or guidance to someone on specific subject matter
Assistance of Counsel Clause	The right to counsel of choice, the right to appointed counsel, the rights to appointed counsel, the right to conflict free counsel, the effective assistance of counsel and the right to represent oneself.
indigent	A person is referred to as indigent when they are impoverished or unable to afford the basic necessities of life.
Strickland v. Washington	David Washington pleaded guilty to murder in a Florida state court. At sentencing, his attorney did not seek out character witnesses or request a psychiatric evaluation. Subsequently, the trial court sentenced Mr. Washington to death finding no mitigating circumstances to rule otherwise. After exhausting his state court remedies, Mr. Washington sought habeas corpus relief in a Florida federal district court. He argued that his Sixth Amendment right was violated because he had ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing. The district court denied the petition. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed. The court held that the Sixth Amendment afforded criminal defendants a right to counsel rendering "reasonably effective assistance given the totality of the circumstances." It then remanded the case to the district court to apply this standard and determine whether Mr. Washington's counsel was sufficiently prejudicial to justify the reversal of his sentence.
Miranda v. Arizona (Miranda rule)	You have the right to remain silent
8th Amendment	Excessive bail shall not be required nor excessive fines imposed nor cruel and unfinished punishments inflicted
cruel and unusual punishment	Punishment that is considered inhumane or way to severe for the crime committed
DC v. Heller	Provisions of the District of Columbia Code made it illegal to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibited the registration of handguns, though the chief of police could issue one-year licenses for handguns. The Code also contained provisions that required owners of lawfully registered firearms to keep them unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or other similar device unless the firearms were located in a place of business or being used for legal recreational activities. Dick Anthony Heller was a D.C. special police officer who was authorized to carry a handgun while on duty. He applied for a one-year license for a handgun he wished to keep at home, but his application was denied. Heller sued the District of Columbia. He sought an injunction against the enforcement of the relevant parts of the Code and argued that they violated his Second Amendment right to keep a functional firearm in his home without a license. The district court dismissed the complaint. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed and held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep firearms in the home for the purpose of self-defense, and the District of Columbia’s requirement that firearms kept in the home be nonfunctional violated that right.

Untitled Flashcards Set