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
AP GOV
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| marbury v madison (1803) - facts | William Marbury sued Secretary of State James Madison for failing to deliver his judicial commission, seeking a writ of mandamus. |
| marbury v madison (1803) - constitutional issue | Judiciary Act of 1789 |
| marbury v madison (1803) - decision | No. The Supreme Court ruled that part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional because it improperly expanded the Court's original jurisdiction. |
| marbury v madison (1803) - reasoning | Established the principle of judicial review—the power of federal courts to declare legislative and executive acts unconstitutional. |
| MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND (1819) - facts | Congress chartered the Second Bank of the United States (1816). Maryland passed legislation to tax the bank, which James McCulloch, a cashier at the Baltimore branch, refused to pay. |
| MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND (1819) - constitutional issue | Does Congress have the authority to establish a bank? (Yes - Necessary and Proper Clause). Can a state tax a federal institution? (No - Supremacy Clause). |
| MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND (1819) - decision | Unanimous (7-0) decision in favor of McCulloch. |
| MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND (1819) - reasoning | Confirmed that Congress has implied powers not strictly enumerated in the Constitution (Necessary and Proper Clause) & Supremacy Clause (Article VI): Establishes that federal law takes precedence over state law. |
| SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES (1919) - facts | Charles Schenck distributed flyers urging men to resist the draft, violating the Espionage Act of 1917. |
| SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES (1919) - constitutional issue | Did Schenck's conviction violate his First Amendment free speech rights? |
| SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES (1919) - decision | No, did not violate first amendment (9-0). |
| SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES (1919) - reasoning | Established the "clear and present danger" test. Justice Holmes famously argued that free speech does not protect "falsely shouting fire in a theater". Established that the First Amendment does not protect speech creating a "clear and present danger" |
| BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION (1954) - facts | African American students were denied admission to public schools attended by white children under laws requiring or permitting segregation. The case was a consolidation of lawsuits from Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, Delaware, and Washington D.C.. |
| BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION (1954) - constitutional issue | The plaintiffs argued that segregated schools created a feeling of inferiority that violated the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. |
| BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION (1954) - decision | The Supreme Court unanimously ruled (9-0) that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal". The ruling overturned the "separate but equal" doctrine from Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). |
| BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION (1954) - reasoning | Judicial branch promoting social change and protecting individual rights against discriminatory state practices. Segregated public schools violated the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause |
| BAKER V. CARR (1962) - facts | Tennessee had not redrawn legislative district boundaries since 1901, leading to major population disparities between rural and urban districts, diluting urban votes. |
| BAKER V. CARR (1962) - constitutional issue | Do federal courts have jurisdiction over lawsuits challenging legislative apportionment under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause? |
| BAKER V. CARR (1962) - decision | Yes. Legislative redistricting is not solely a "political question" and is justifiable by federal courts. |
| BAKER V. CARR (1962) - reasoning | federal oversight of redistricting, leading to the "one person, one vote" standard, ensuring that districts must be roughly equal in population under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. |
| ENGEL V. VITALE (1962) - facts | The New York State Board of Regents mandated a short, voluntary prayer to start the school day, which families challenged as a violation of the First Amendment. |
| ENGEL V. VITALE (1962) - constitutional issue | The case centers on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from establishing a religion or endorsing religious activity. |
| ENGEL V. VITALE (1962) - decision | The Court ruled that it is unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official prayer and require its recitation in public schools. |
| ENGEL V. VITALE (1962) - reasoning | Reinforced the separation of church and state, prohibiting school-led prayer while still allowing individual students to pray voluntarily on their own time. School-sponsored prayer in public schools violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment |
| GIDEON V. WAINWRIGHT (1963) - facts | Clarence Earl Gideon was denied a court-appointed attorney in Florida for a non-capital felony charge. He defended himself, was found guilty, and filed a handwritten petition to the Supreme Court from prison. |
| GIDEON V. WAINWRIGHT (1963) - constitutional issue | Does the Sixth Amendment right to counsel in criminal cases extend to felony defendants in state courts? |
| GIDEON V. WAINWRIGHT (1963) - decision | Yes. The 9-0 ruling declared that the right to counsel is a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial, and binding upon the states through the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause. |
| GIDEON V. WAINWRIGHT (1963) - reasoning | Any person charged with a crime cannot receive a fair trial without counsel. The state must provide an attorney, as lawyers are "necessities, not luxuries" Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel to the states via the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause. |
| TINKER V. DES MOINES INDEPENDENT COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT (1969) - facts | In 1965, students were suspended from a Des Moines school for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War, violating a school policy enacted just before the protest. |
| TINKER V. DES MOINES INDEPENDENT COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT (1969) - constitutional issue | Does the prohibition of wearing armbands in public schools, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the students' First Amendment freedom of speech? |
| TINKER V. DES MOINES INDEPENDENT COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT (1969) - decision | Students maintain freedom of speech rights in school, and the protest was peaceful and non-disruptive. |
| TINKER V. DES MOINES INDEPENDENT COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT (1969) - reasoning | School officials cannot censor student speech to avoid the "discomfort" of a controversial viewpoint. Symbolic speech is protected under the First Amendment, provided it does not cause a "substantial disruption" to the educational environment |
| NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. UNITED STATES (1971) - facts | The New York Times (and later The Washington Post) published the "Pentagon Papers," a top-secret study detailing the history of U.S. involvement in Vietnam, showing government dishonesty. |
| NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. UNITED STATES (1971) - constitutional issue | violated the First Amendment's freedom of the press? |
| NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. UNITED STATES (1971) - decision | The Supreme Court held that the government failed to prove that publication would cause inevitable, direct, and immediate harm to the nation, affirming that the press serves to expose deception in government. |
| NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. UNITED STATES (1971) - reasoning | the government cannot block publication of classified information without proving immediate, direct harm to national security, reinforcing freedom of the press as a crucial check on executive power. |
| WISCONSIN V. YODER (1972) - facts | Amish parents (Yoder) were fined for not sending children to high school, arguing it violated their religious practices and lifestyles. |
| WISCONSIN V. YODER (1972) - constitutional issue | The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. |
| WISCONSIN V. YODER (1972) - decision | in favor of Yoder. |
| WISCONSIN V. YODER (1972) - reasoning | First Amendment Free Exercise rights outweigh Wisconsin's compulsory school attendance law. The Court decided that requiring high school attendance violated religious beliefs, the state's interest did not outweigh the free exercise of religion. |
| SHAW V. RENO (1993) - facts | North Carolina created two "majority-minority" districts following 1990 census, which were irregularly shaped to increase black representation, leading white voters to claim racial gerrymandering. |
| SHAW V. RENO (1993) - constitutional issue | The 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause |
| SHAW V. RENO (1993) - decision | The Court ruled that while race can be a factor in redistricting (under the Voting Rights Act), it cannot be the predominant factor. |
| SHAW V. RENO (1993) - reasoning | congressional districts cannot be drawn predominantly on the basis of race |
| UNITED STATES V. LOPEZ (1995) - facts | High school student Alfonzo Lopez was charged with bringing a gun to school, violating the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. |
| UNITED STATES V. LOPEZ (1995) - constitutional issue | Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8) and 10th Amendment. |
| UNITED STATES V. LOPEZ (1995) - decision | the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Gun-Free School Zones act was unconstitutional because possessing a gun in a school zone is not an economic activity that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. |
| UNITED STATES V. LOPEZ (1995) - reasoning | limit Congress's power to regulate under the Commerce Clause, establishing a check on federal power and affirming that some powers belong exclusively to the states. carrying a gun in a local school zone does not substantially affect interstate commerce. |
| MCDONALD V. CHICAGO (2010) - facts | Following DC v. Heller (2008), which found an individual right to bear arms in federal enclaves, Otis McDonald sued Chicago over its handgun ban, arguing it violated the 14th Amendment. |
| MCDONALD V. CHICAGO (2010) - constitutional issue | Doctrine of Selective Incorporation - Second Amendment - Due Process Clause |
| MCDONALD V. CHICAGO (2010) - decision | The Supreme Court ruled in favor of McDonald, striking down Chicago's ban. |
| MCDONALD V. CHICAGO (2010) - reasoning | limiting the ability of state and local governments to restrict firearm ownership. Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense is applicable to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. |
| CITIZENS UNITED V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION (2010) - facts | The non-profit corporation Citizens United created "Hillary: The Movie" to criticize Hillary Clinton, violating the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) / McCain-Feingold Act restriction on "electioneering communications". |
| CITIZENS UNITED V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION (2010) - consitutional issue | First Amendment's Free Speech clause |
| CITIZENS UNITED V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION (2010) - decision | The government cannot suppress political speech based on the speaker's corporate identity. |
| CITIZENS UNITED V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION (2010) - reasoning | funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited because it violates the First Amendment's Free Speech clause. spending money is a form of protected speech, leading to the rise of Super PACs |
| THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION - significance & argument | Served as the first U.S. constitution, weak central government. Shays' Rebellion—forced the transition to the current U.S. Constitution. T (no tax levy), E (no enforcement/military), C (no trade or foreign allies) |
| BRUTUS NO.1 - significance & argument | Anti-Federalist paper arguing against ratifying the U.S. Constitution. It contends that a large republic will inevitably lead to a government that crushes state power, destroys individual liberties, and fails to represent the people effectively |
| THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES (INCLUDING THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS) - significance & args | read your constitution. |
| THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE - significance & argument | natural rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness), social contract protection of rights, governments derive authority from the "consent of the governed," and citizens have the right to alter or abolish unjust governments |
| FEDERALIST NO. 10 - significance & argument (madison) | large republic controls the "violence of faction" (interest groups/political parties) and protect minority from majority. defends Constitution, arguing that a representative government, rather than pure democracy, prevents single group from dominating. |
| FEDERALIST NO. 51 - significance & argument (madison) | U.S. Constitution’s structure of separation of powers and checks and balances is essential to prevent tyranny. each branch is empowered to check the others, ensuring no single part of government becomes too powerful |
| FEDERALIST NO. 70 - significance & argument (hamilton) | argues for executive (president) rather than a plural council. Hamilton contends that a unitary executive is essential for decision-making, and the protection of national interests. A single executive is more accountable, more responsive to public opinion |
| FEDERALIST NO. 78 - significance & argument (hamilton) | argues for a strong, independent judiciary with life tenure to ensure check-and-balance through judicial review. necessary guardian of the Constitution against legislative overreach. |
| “LETTER FROM A BIRMINGHAM JAIL” (BY MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.) - significance & argument | defending nonviolent direct action against segregation under due process of 14th amendment. "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere," asserting a moral obligation to break unjust laws through peaceful tension to force negotiation. |
| pluralist democracy | power is distributed among various organized interest groups rather than concentrated in a single elite or solely the government |
| Participatory democracy | model of governance emphasizing direct, active involvement of citizens in political decision-making, rather than relying solely on elected representatives. It aims to give ordinary people power to influence policies. |
| elite democracy | political model where a small, wealthy, or highly educated minority holds the majority of political power and influences decision-making, while the general public's role is limited to voting |
| republicanism | political ideology and theory of government emphasizing a state organized as a commonwealth (republic) rather than a monarchy, where citizens hold popular sovereignty, elect representatives, and prioritize the common good. |
| limited government | political system where legalized, constitutional restrictions limit the authority of governing officials to prevent tyranny and protect individual rights |
| federalism | divides power between a central (national) authority and constituent regional units (states, provinces, or cantons), allowing both to coexist with independent, shared, or overlapping powers |
Created by:
studying11