Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Cons.LawExam 1 Cases
Cons. Law Exam 1
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Gitlow v. New York | Fundamental freedoms; due processes clause. Bro was convicted for distributing a socialist manifesto. Does the 1st amendment only apply to the fed. Gov.? Incorporation of the bill of rights. |
| Near v. Minnesota | Bro wanted to public a newspaper article exposing local officials for corruption. Can a state gov. Shut down a publication b4 it’s printed? Incorporation of the bill of rights. Freedom of the Press. |
| Tinker v. Des Moines | People wore arm bands to protest the Vietnam war. Do students have freedom of speech protection at school? Non-disruptive speech. Student Speech. |
| Morse v. Frederick | Bro hung up a, “BONG HiTS 4 Jesus” Sign in school. Can students use freedom of speech o printout illegal drug use in school? Substantial disruption? Student Speech |
| Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier | Bro wanted to write about teen pregnancy and divorce in the school paper. Can schools censor speech if it is related to educational concerns? Student Speech, Freedom of the Press. |
| New York Pistol & Rifle Association v. Bruen | Decided how firearm regulation would be placed my the gov. Rooted in history & tradition. |
| Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Care | Ruled that abortion is not rooted in history & tradition therefore, it is unconstitutional for the fed. Gov. To regulate it. |
| Kennedy v. Bremerton School District | Set up a test for registered expression based in history & tradition. Rejected Lemon. |
| Brandenburg v. Ohio | Klu-Klux-Klan gave a speech defeating ‘revenge’ against the gov. Can dangerous speech be punished if it is likely to incite Imminent Lawless action. |
| Imminant Lawless Action | Speech can only be punished if it, 1. Is intended to produce lawless action & 2. It is likely to produce Imminent lawless action. |
| Roth v. United States | Defined Obscene Material. Ruled that obscene cartoonish is not protected speech |
| Miller v. California | Produced the Miller test for obscene material. Added “serious value” to Roth. |
| Roth Test | 1. The average person would find 2. The material to have prurient interest, and 3. The material is utterally without reducing social importance. |
| Miller test | 1. It has Prurient Interest, 2. Patently offensive: the work depicts sexual conduct in a clearly offensive way. 3. Serious Value: The Work taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. |
| Prurient | An unhealthy, excessive or abnormal interest in a sexual matter or indecent details. |
| Walker v. Texas Division | They wanted to have confirm license plates through the state featuring the confederate flag. Is it a violation of the person freedom for the government to reject these plates? Ruled this as a form of Government Speech; they can be rejected. |
| Employement Division v. Smith | Does the free exercise clause prevent states from enforcing neutral, generally applicable laws that burden religious practices? Limits the Sherbert test |
| Sherbert v. Verner | Ruled that governments cannot burden religious practices w/o a substantially compelling interest. Free exercise |
| The Sherbert Test | 1. Does the government action burden religious exercise? 2. Then the gov. Must show: 1. Or serves a compelling state interest and, 2. Or is the least restrictive means of achieving such interest. |
| Texas v. Johnson | Does burning count as protected speech under the 1st amendment? |
| Barron v. Baltimore | Does the protection under the Bill of rights apply to state & local governments? Establishes dual sovereignty. |
Created by:
user-1895504