Q: What is "Original Intent" in constitutional interpretation?
A: Interpreting cases based on what the founders intended when they wrote the constitution.
Q: What does "Textualism" refer to in constitutional interpretation?
A: Deciding cases based on the literal meaning of the Constitution.
Q: What is "Structuralism" in legal theory?
A: Deciding cases with the intent to protect the structures of society, specifically the separation of powers doctrine.
Q: What does "Stare Decisis" mean?
A: Make decisions based on past precedent; “Let the decision stand.”
Q: What is the "Polling Jurisdictions" approach?
A: Deciding cases based on how other state Supreme Courts, courts of appeals, and other countries have decided similar cases.
Q: What is "Legal Pragmatism"?
A: Looking at all different potential outcomes and how each will impact individuals and society.
Q: What is "Judicial Review"?
A: The primary weapon federal courts have to keep other government branches in check, allowing them to review and strike down government actions incompatible with the Constitution.
Q: What are the two types of Jurisdiction under Article III, Section 2?
A: Original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction.
Original jurisdiction: Cases taken directly to the Supreme Court, like those involving ambassadors or federal law.
Appellate jurisdiction: Cases heard first in lower courts.
Q: What does "Justiciability" mean?
A: Courts are restricted to hearing "cases" and "controversies." Non-justiciable cases include advisory opinions, collusion, mootness, ripeness, and political questions.
Q: What is "Standing" in a court case?
A: The appropriate party must bring the case, showing they have suffered a concrete injury or are in imminent danger of suffering harm that can be redressed by the court.
Q: What is the "Fundamental Right"?
A: Rights implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, essential for liberty and justice to exist.
Q: What is the "Separationist" view on religion and government?
A: Separationist advocates for a practically complete separation between church and state, prohibiting most forms of public aid to religion.
Q: What is the "Accommodationist" view on religion and government?
A: Accommodationists believe that the state should not favor one religion over another, but can provide nondiscriminatory support for all religions.
Q: What is the "Preferred Freedoms Doctrine"?
A: When government actions conflict with the Bill of Rights, special scrutiny is applied, especially concerning the protection of minority or unpopular groups' rights.
Q: What is the "Valid Secular Policy" in constitutional law?
A: A legitimate reason for government action, like preventing fraud, ensuring public safety, or regulating time and manner of solicitation.
Q: When can the government restrict speech under the First Amendment?
A: The government can restrict speech related to obscenity, libel, violence, property damage, criminal speech, encroaching on the rights of others, burdens on government functions, and trespass.
Q: What is "Prior Restraint" in government censorship?
A: Government actions that intervene before the expression occurs, only allowed in extraordinary circumstances.
Q: What is the "Lemon Test"?
A: A test for determining whether a government action violates the Establishment Clause:
Secular purpose.
Neither advances nor inhibits religion.
No excessive government entanglement with religion.
Q: What is the "Sherbert-Yoder Compelling Interest Test"?
A: If a government law burdens free exercise of religion, it must demonstrate a compelling government interest and use the least restrictive means possible.
Q: What is the "Smith Test"?
A: The free exercise clause does not relieve an individual from complying with a neutral, valid law of general applicability even if it conflicts with religious beliefs.
Q: What is the "Clear and Present Danger" test?
A: A test to suppress speech if it creates a clear and present danger of bringing about substantive evils.
Q: What is the "Bad Tendency Test"?
A: Government can restrict speech that has the tendency to incite or cause illegal activity, even if it doesn’t immediately result in such action.
Q: What is the "Imminent Lawless Action" test?
A: The government can only restrict speech if it incites imminent lawless action and is likely to incite such action.
Q: What does the "Miller Test" determine?
A: Whether speech or material is obscene, considering contemporary community standards, state law, and lack of serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Q: What is the "Lochner Approach"?
A: A regulation is constitutional if the government can show a direct relation between the law and the regulation’s goal.
Q: What is the "Strict Scrutiny Approach"?
A: Laws infringing on liberty or privacy are unconstitutional unless the state can show the policies are the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling interest.
Q: What is the "Undue Burden Standard"?
A: States may regulate abortion as long as the law does not place an undue burden (substantial obstacle) on a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy.
Q: What does the "Hicklin Test" concern?
A: Whether material is obscene, based on whether its parts would be inappropriate for a child to see.
Q: What is the "Roth Standard" for obscenity?
A: A work is obscene if it appeals to prurient interest and lacks redeeming social importance.
Q: What is the "Ginsberg v. New York" case about?
A: The Court ruled that a law restricting the sale of obscene material to minors was constitutional because it protected the well-being of minors.
Q: What does the case Marbury v. Madison (1803) establish?
A: It established the principle of judicial review, affirming the Supreme Court's authority to review laws and government actions for constitutionality.
Q: What does "Ex Parte McCardle" (1869) show about Congress' power?
A: It shows that Congress can withdraw the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Q: What was the significance of Barron v. Baltimore (1833)?
A: It ruled that the Bill of Rights only applies to the federal government, not the states.
Q: What was the ruling in Gitlow v. New York (1925)?
A: It was the first case to incorporate the Bill of Rights to apply to the states, specifically the First Amendment.
Q: What was the decision in Palko v. Connecticut (1937)?
A: The Court ruled that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment did not apply to the states.
Q: What was the impact of Duncan v. Louisiana (1968)?
A: The Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Q: What is the "Valid Secular Policy" test used for?
A: It is used to determine if government actions violate the Establishment Clause. A law must have a secular legislative purpose and its effects must not promote or inhibit religion.
Q: What is the "Smith Test" in relation to religious exercise?
A: It states that the Free Exercise Clause does not excuse individuals from complying with valid, neutral laws that apply to everyone, even if those laws conflict with religious beliefs.
Q: What was the ruling in Sherbert v. Verner (1963)?
A: The Court ruled that denying unemployment benefits to someone who refuses to work on their Sabbath due to religious beliefs violates the Free Exercise Clause.
Q: What does "Compelling Government Interest" mean in religious cases?
A: The government must demonstrate that its actions are necessary to achieve an important goal that cannot be achieved in a less restrictive way, especially when a person’s religious rights are in conflict with government laws.
Q: What is the Lemon Test and its significance?
A: It tests whether a law violates the Establishment Clause. The law must:
Have a secular purpose.
Not promote or inhibit religion.
Not create excessive government entanglement with religion.
Q: What is the "Clear and Present Danger" test in relation to speech?
A: It is used to determine if speech can be limited when it presents an immediate threat of harm or illegal action.
Q: What was the ruling in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)?
A: It established the "Imminent Lawless Action" test, which restricts speech if it incites imminent illegal activity.
Q: What was the result of Texas v. Johnson (1989)?
A: The Court ruled that burning the American flag is a form of symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment.
Q: What did the Court rule in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942)?
A: The Court held that "fighting words," or speech that incites immediate violence, is not protected by the First Amendment.
Q: What was the ruling in Cohen v. California (1971)?
A: The Court ruled that wearing a jacket with offensive language ("F--- the Draft") in a public space is protected by the First Amendment as symbolic speech.
Q: What does the "Clear and Present Danger" test require?
A: It requires that the speech must be of such a nature and in such circumstances that it presents a clear and present danger of bringing about substantive evils that the government can lawfully prevent.
Q: What was the Court's stance on school prayer in Engel v. Vitale (1962)?
A: The Court ruled that it is unconstitutional for public schools to require students to recite prayers, as it violates the Establishment Clause.
Q: In Ex Parte McCardle (1869), what did the Court validate regarding Congress's power?
A: The Court validated Congress’s power to repeal its appellate jurisdiction, as Congress had repealed the Habeas Corpus Act before the Court could issue its ruling.
Q: In Barron v. Baltimore (1833), how did the Court rule about the applicability of the Bill of Rights?
A: The Court ruled that the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government, not to state governments.
Q: What was the significance of the Gitlow v. New York (1925) case?
A: It marked the first time the Supreme Court applied the Bill of Rights to the states, specifically incorporating the First Amendment’s free speech protections through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Q: What did Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) rule regarding compulsory education and religion?
A: The Court ruled that Amish parents could withdraw their children from school after 8th grade due to religious objections, as the state's interest in universal education was outweighed by the parents' fundamental right to religious freedom.
Q: What did the Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) case establish regarding government funding for religious institutions?
A: It established the Lemon Test, ruling that government aid to religious schools must have a secular purpose, its primary effect must not advance or inhibit religion, and it must not foster excessive government entanglement with religion.
Q: In Schenck v. United States (1919), what was the ruling related to the "Clear and Present Danger" test?
A: The Court ruled that speech presenting a clear and present danger of causing substantive evils (such as interfering with the draft during wartime) could be restricted by the government.
Q: What did Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) establish regarding student speech?
A: The Court ruled that students do not lose their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech at school unless their actions disrupt the educational process.
Q: In Employment Division v. Smith (1990), what did the Court decide about religious freedom and drug laws?
A: The Court ruled that the Free Exercise Clause does not exempt individuals from complying with neutral laws of general applicability, such as drug laws, even if they conflict with religious practices