Ap Government Chapter 15 Study Guide

1. Why was the account of chastises added to the constitution? a. The framers thought a bill of goods was non necessary because the constitution spelled out the extent of the feds power. harangue claptrap blah (now at the top of page 487) In 1791 the severalizes ratified 10 amendments and the nation had a bill of rights. The BOR imposed limits on the national gov provided non on res publica gov. b. So each(prenominal) in all Im really not sure what the exact help is. Sorry bro 2. Difference betwixt civil liberties and civil rights c. Civil liberties (sometimes referred to as negative rights) are freedoms that are guaranteed to an individual.These are simmplenesss on the gov. Civil liberties confine what the administration cannot do. d. Civil rights (positive rights) are powers and privileges that are guaranteed to the individual and protect against arbitrary removal at the hands of the gov or individuals. Like the right to vote or free expression and stuff. 3. The Fi rst Amendment guarantees freedom of organized religion in two clauses e. The mental hospital clause- this prohibits laws establishing religion. f. Free function clause- which pr until nowts the giving medication from impede with the exercise of religion. g.To labourher, these ensure that the government can neither promote nor oppress religious beliefs or go fors. 4. Know where phrase Wall of separation between church and extract appears and comes from h. In 1879, the Supreme Court contended, quoting Thomas Jefferson, that the establishment clause erected a wall of separation between church and State. 5. rotter v. Kurtzman bottom of 490-491 in 1971, the salute struck mint a state chopine that would eat helped pay the salaries of teachers hired by parochial (parochial path of or relating to a church or parish) nurtures to give instruction in secular subjects. . The justices proposed a 3 prong test for determining the constitutionality of gov. programs and laws under th e establishment clause i. The must guide a secular purpose ii. Their primary election effect must not be to advance or capture religion iii. They must not entangle the government luxuriantly with religion. j. The program in Lemon v Kurtzman did not satisfy the last prong of the test. The government would have had to constantly monitory the program which would have cause and excessive entanglement with religion. 6.Engel v Vitale (bottom on 493) in 1962 the mash struck down the daily reading of a 22 word nondenominational petition in bran-new Yorks public schools. Justices stated that official state approval of prayer was an unconstitutional attempt on the part of the state to establish a religion. This stopping point drew a storm of fend that has yet to subside. k. In class I wrote down that he told us we needed to know the difference between freedom of beliefs and freedom of practice but I really dont see how that has anything to do with this court contingency.. like whate verrrr coach sybert. l.He also utter to note the true things you cant do and hide behind religion. The one we talked intimately in class was the guy with the snakes So Im clueless yet again. 7. Strict scrutiny- A neutral law that burdens the free exercise of religion is subject to strict scrutiny. This means that the law may be upheld only if the government can demonstrate that m. The law is justified by a compelling governmental interest n. The law is narrowly bespoke to achieve a legitimate goal o. The law in uncertainty is the least restrictive means for achieving that interest p.That was on page 496 and you may need to read the paragraph to understand the definition in mise en scene 8. Scheneck v U. S. (pg 498)- Charles Scheneck and his fellow defendents were convicted for attempting to disrupt WWI military recruitment by distributing leaflets claiming that drawing (conscription is enlistment for state service, typically the military) was unconstitutional. The gov turn overd that this behavior threatened public order. q. thithers supposed to be a famous quote we get out of this case but the quote is a whole colossal paragraph. Here is an excerpt from the quote iv. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such mint and are of such nature to create a clear and fork out danger that will bring slightly the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent v. Thats known as the clear and endow danger test. Duh. r. Because the actions of the defendants were deemed to create a clear and present danger to the US at that time, the Supreme court upheld their convictions. 9. Tinker v Des Moine freelance County School District (pg 500)- involved 3 public school students who wore a black armbands to protest the Vietnam War.Principles in their school district had prohibited the have on of armbands on the ground that such conduct would provoke a ruckus the district suspended the students but the Supreme Court overturned the s uspensions. s. Justices declare for the majority that the principals had failed to show that the forbidden conduct would substansially interfere with get school discipline. t. fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to control the right to freedom of expression. 10.Chaplinsky v New Hampshire (500)- In 1942 Walter Chaplinksy, a manufacturing businesss Witness, convicted under a state statute for calling a city marshal a God-damned racketeer and a damned fascistic in a public place, appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld Chaplinksys conviction on the theory that fighting words do not convey ideas and thus are not subject to first amendment protection. u. bit words- words that inflict in instrument panel or tend to incite an agile breach of the peace. v. To dumb it down- he was found shamed because the things he said were not protected by the first amendment. 1. Reno v ACLU (501)- the compulsory court upheld the lower courts ruling in June 1997 by unami mously decision making a broad affirmation of free reference rights in cyberspace, joust that the Internet was more analogous (analogous means comparable) to print media than to television, and thus even indecent material on the internet was entitled to First Amendment protection. 12. New York Times v Sullivan (502)- First off you need to know that smirch is the written defamation of character. A person who believes their name and character have been harmed can sue.In this case, the supreme court declared that freedom of the press takes antecedenceat least when the defamed individual is a public official. w. The court concur that the first amendment protects the publication of all statements about the conduct of public officials, debar statements made with actual malice. x. Actual malice- with knowledge that they are false or in reckless disregard for their truth or falsity. y. 3 days later, the court extended this protection to apply to all public figures, not just governme nt officials. 13. New York Times v United States pg 504- z.Prior restraint case dealing with the pentagon papers . Supreme court doesnt believe in prior restraint although you can be punished by and by the fact. And in order for the supreme court to prevent publication they have to have a really good reason- have to prove immediate, inevitable, and irreparable harm following the publication of the documents. . First amendment offers protection against government censorship 14. Case in Louisville, Kentucky- a reporter who had researched and written an article about drug related activities was called on by a grand jury to identify masses he had seen in will power of the drugs.The reporter refused to testify, formulation that freedom of the press shielded him from this inquiry. . In a closely separate decision, the supreme court rejected his position stating that no exception is permissible to the eclipse that all citizens have a duty to give their government whatever testimony t hey are capable of giving. . He had to give up the information and some of his freedom to maintain order 15. Bong hits for Jesus. Pg 505- supreme court upheld the suspension of the boy who held up the sign at an alfresco school event. School officials may prohibit legal transfer if it could be construe as promoting an illegal drug use. 6. The 2nd amendment states A well correct militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. . If you are a shoot control advocate- you focus on the first part and your argument is that habitual citizens are not part of a militia. . If you are NOT a gun control advocate- you focus on the second part that your right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. 17. D. C. vs Heller- (federal level)- was a scrap to the strictest gun control statute in the country. It barred private possession of pistols and required trigger locks and stuff.The court formulad in a 5-4 decision that it is a constitutional right to keep a loaded handgun at home for ego defense. 18. McDonald v Chicago (state level)- this case had the aforementioned(prenominal) ruling as the first one except this one was on a state level. 19. Bill of attainder- a law that pronounces an individual guilty of a crime without a tally. 20. Most freedoms protected in the BOR directly function as limitations on the states. The changes have been achieved through the supreme courts interpretation of the delinquent physical process clause of the 14th amendment .Due process clause-nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without the delinquent(p) process of law. This clause has 2 central meanings vi. It requires the government to adhere to appropriate procedures. vii. It forbids unreasonable government action. . Under this clause you have a trial by jury available to you, if you cant afford a lawyer theyll provide you with one, etc. Not all states have the analogous number of jurors. Supreme court says minimum of 6. 21. Gideon vs Wainwright- pg 511 case made due process applicable to the states. The state must provide you with a lawyer if you cannot afford one. 2. Miranda Warnings-protects against self incrimination. comes from Miranda v Arizona 23. Exclusionary rule- Something discovered as the subject of an illegal search cannot be used in trial. Mapp vs us on 512 24. The exception is the good faith clause- U. S. vs Leon. Pg 513? 25. Griswald v Conneticut- 517 personal autonomy. Could the state twist birth control. Zone of privacy that exists because of the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th amendment. . Birth control is a personal choice. 26. Rowe vs. Wade- extension of Gridwald. You should have choice on child bearing. Blah blah blah. Struck down abortion laws.Due process clause 2 FREE RESPONSE. ANSWER BOTH 1. First amendment and the freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is not absolute. Explain (or give 2 examples of) 2 limits on speech an d the related cases a. Fighting words- Chaplinsky b. Idk 2. Similar concept. Rules against illegal search and seizure and self incrimination protect your right to a due process. c. One rule regarding illegal search and seizure, and the case. Explain how that protects your due process d. One rule regarding self incrimination and the related case and explain how that protects your right to due process of law.