CH 2 test id study

Flashcards:

Front: Judicial Restraint

Back: Judges avoid changing the law too much; stick to Constitution and lawmakers’ decisions.

Ex: Teachers follow grading policy even if they disagree.

Front: Judicial Activism

Back: Judges make big rulings to protect rights.

Ex: Referee steps in to call out unfair plays.

Front: Judicial Review

Back: Courts can cancel laws that violate the Constitution.

Ex: Boss removes unfair rules.

Front: Precedent

Back: Using a past decision to guide a new one.

Ex: Older sibling gets phone at 15, so you do too.

Front: Statute

Back: A written law passed by lawmakers.

Ex: School rule banning phones in class.

Front: Free Exercise Clause

Back: You can practice any religion freely (as long as you don’t harm others).

Ex: Students pray during break without forcing others.

Front: Establishment Clause

Back: Government can’t promote any religion.

Ex: Public schools can’t lead prayers.

Front: Due Process Clause

Back: Government must follow fair steps before taking life, liberty, or property.

Ex: A student must be told why they are expelled.

Front: Equal Protection Clause

Back: Everyone is treated equally under the law.

Ex: District can’t fund one school more just based on race.

Front: Engel v. Vitale

Back: No school-led prayers (violates Establishment Clause).

Impact: Public schools must stay neutral on religion.

Front: Oregon v. Smith

Back: Religion doesn’t excuse breaking the law.

Impact: Harder to use religion as a legal defense.

Front: Schenck v. US

Back: Free speech is limited if it causes “clear and present danger.”

Impact: Speech has limits during wartime.

Front: Near v. Minnesota

Back: Government can’t censor newspapers before publishing.

Impact: Protected freedom of the press.

Front: Roth v. US

Back: Obscene material isn’t protected by free speech.

Impact: Political speech is protected, not obscene content.

Front: Miller v. California

Back: Created “Miller Test” to define obscenity.

Impact: Gave clearer rules about obscene materials.

Front: New York Times v. US

Back: Government can’t block press unless a real danger.

Impact: Strengthened freedom of the press.

Front: Nazi Party v. Skokie

Back: Even hateful groups have free speech rights (no violence).

Impact: Free speech applies to everyone.

Front: Mapp v. Ohio

Back: Evidence from illegal searches can’t be used.

Impact: Protected 4th Amendment rights.

Front: Miranda v. Arizona

Back: Arrested people must be told their rights (“Miranda Rights”).

Impact: Police must read rights before questioning.

Front: Gideon v. Wainwright

Back: Right to a lawyer even if you can’t afford one.

Impact: Fair trials for everyone.

Front: Gregg v. Georgia

Back: Death penalty is allowed if used fairly.

Impact: Careful use of death penalties.

Front: Griswold v. Connecticut

Back: Right to privacy in personal decisions (like birth control).

Impact: Protected privacy rights.

Front: Dred Scott v. Sandford

Back: Enslaved people couldn’t sue (weren’t citizens).

Impact: Increased tensions over slavery.

Front: Plessy v. Ferguson

Back: Segregation was legal (“separate but equal”).

Impact: Legalized segregation.

Front: Brown v. Board of Education

Back: Segregation in schools is unconstitutional.

Impact: Ended “separate but equal” in education.

Front: Civil Rights Act of 1964

Back: Banned discrimination in public places.

Impact: Big win for Civil Rights Movement.

Front: Voting Rights Act of 1965

Back: Banned literacy tests and poll taxes for voting.

Impact: Made voting easier for Black Americans.

Front: Affirmative Action

Back: Programs to boost opportunities for historically discriminated groups.

Ex: College admits more diverse students.

Front: UC Regents v. Bakke

Back: Schools can’t use strict quotas but can consider race.

Impact: Limits on affirmative action.

Front: Harvard v. Students for Fair Admissions

Back: Race-based admissions violated Equal Protection Clause.

Impact: Ended affirmative action at many schools.

Front: Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

Back: Would guarantee equal rights regardless of sex (not fully ratified).

Impact: Would make gender discrimination easier to fight.