Busy. Please wait.
or

show password
Forgot Password?

Don't have an account?  Sign up 
or

Username is available taken
show password

why


Make sure to remember your password. If you forget it there is no way for StudyStack to send you a reset link. You would need to create a new account.
We do not share your email address with others. It is only used to allow you to reset your password. For details read our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.


Already a StudyStack user? Log In

Reset Password
Enter the associated with your account, and we'll email you a link to reset your password.

Remove ads
Don't know
Know
remaining cards
Save
0:01
To flip the current card, click it or press the Spacebar key.  To move the current card to one of the three colored boxes, click on the box.  You may also press the UP ARROW key to move the card to the "Know" box, the DOWN ARROW key to move the card to the "Don't know" box, or the RIGHT ARROW key to move the card to the Remaining box.  You may also click on the card displayed in any of the three boxes to bring that card back to the center.

Pass complete!

"Know" box contains:
Time elapsed:
Retries:
restart all cards




share
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

Con Law Midterm II

law cases

QuestionAnswer
Sherbert v. Verner (1963) claim that denial of unemployment benefits to an individual who refused to work on the Sabbath violated the free exercise clause of 1st Amendment difference between right and privilege ruled that there is no distinction between from a right and a privil
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) exemption from general laws should Amish be allowed to be exempted from compulsory education? is it a parent's traditional right to decide a child's education (a privilege of citizenship due to natural law) uses the Sherbert test: parent's right vs. co
Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (1990) right to smoke peyote as free exercise of religion? law which make smoking peyote illegal Scalia said there was no compelling state interest--not a hybrid case because it does not involve another right (i.e. right of a parent or free speech) it is a ge
City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) church was not allowed to expand the building due to a city ordinance about the buildings of the historic district it was in the law is general but exemption from this law would not be bad Scalia concurring: just because an exemption is good does not ma
Locke v. Davey (2004) exemption from law and establishment of religion can state give scholarships to students pursuing religious studies? Ruling: state constitution says exempt from giving money for religious education, no violation of free exercise or establishment of reli
Everson v. Board (1947) school busing for private (Catholic) school holding: it is consitutional because it is neutral--neither advances nor inhibits religion accidentally advancing religion is OK dissent: it is an establishment of religion with de facto benefits neutrality
Albington v. Schempp (1963) prayer and Bible reading in school these are not neutral and not constitutional Brennan concurring: our country is more diverse now so the establishment clause means neutrality now public education must be secular and democratic; devoid of those privat
Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) state aid given to church-related educational institutions ruled unconstitutional provided the lemon test: 1) must have a secular purpose 2) neutrality--principle or primary effect must not advance or inhibit religion 3) must not foster"an excessive gov
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002) are school vouchers a violation of the 1st Amendment separation of government from religion? tried to help parents who are paying for schooling without actually giving money to a religious group the children who could not afford to leave the failing pub
Elk Grove v. Newdow (2004) saying pledge of allegiance in school ruled: a non supreme court issue because the father suing on behalf of his daughter does not have custody of her dissent: the pledge is constitutional. renquist-historical recognition of our religious past. oconnor-
Buckley v. Valeo (1976) campaign finance reform limiting individual contributions to a campaign is OK, but personal and family expenditures should be left alone dissent: believed all contributions should not be allowed both conservatives and liberals did not think that press
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) restriction on corporation campaign contributions corporations have an unfair advantage and their views are not popular, they only represent the very wealthy Scalia asks how there is an exception on media corporations liberals say it is freedom of the
Federal Election Committee (FEC) v. Wisconsin Right to Life (2007) MCain-Feingold act bans candidate ads near the election what is the distinction between a candidate ad and an issue ad? ruled: unconstitutional to ban issue advocacy ads free speech over censorship
Citizens United v. FEC (2010) corporations can now donate to campaigns-overturns the Austin case Thomas-corporations who publish shouldnt have to reveal who they are; they should be able to remain anonymous-important for freedom of speech
Red Lion v. FCC (1969) fairness doctrine-diversity of views and representative views; media obligation to community like FDR New Deal- a scarcity of means (frequencies) so the govt must allocate them
NLRB v. Gissel (1969) employer speech-ruled: coercive, a threat of force and retaliatory action-defining coercion more broadly protecting individual rights by providing equal outcome in speech-meaning stopping corporate speech and allowing more freedom for union speech
West Virginia v. Barnette (1943) flag salute case-Jehovah's witnesses said it was free exercise of religion to not worship images, but court ruled that it was freedom of speech-or not to speak dissent:national unity is national security but they are not harming anyone else's rights
Tinker v. DesMoines (1969) black armband case: a distraction and was banned ruled: a student right to free speech
Lamb's Chapel, Rosenberger, and Good News v. Milford religious groups must not be excluded from public forums, activity funds, and after-hours access to the facilities in public school
Morse v. Frederick (2007) "Bong hits for Jesus" case teacher took down the sign but accused of refusing free speech court permit taking it down because it promotes illegal drug use liberal: kids aren't actually saying anything and it isn't a real school event; has to be a threa
Respublica v. Oswald (1788) libel is harmful in the same way that attacks on property and rights are harmful; damaged reputation harms your ability to move in society
US v. Cooper (1800) spoke against President Adams judge said that Cooper couldnt prove the charges he made against the President
NY Times v. Sullivan (1964) civil rights movement ad in the paper local police office claims it is about him and is libelous but he cannot prove it is about him because it is not personal; have to prove the speech malicious to prove it libel-meaning a knowledge that the speech was
Schneck v. US (1919) socialist charged with violating the Espionage Act of 1917 because he printed leaflets in opposition to US involvement in WWI not about sedition but a law against criminal advocacy. citizens who have agreed to obey the laws must share in the common defens
Gitlow v. New York (1925) broke law against overthrowing government (criminal anarchy) anything tending to corrupt public morals, incite crime, or disturb the peace may be prohibitted. ruled: affirmed previous decision that his action was wrong founders would say that the law we
Dennis v. US (1951) unlawful to advocate criminal violence to overthrow the govt. smith act 1940. "clear and present danger" test from Gitlow. law is too broad because it prohibits legitimate revolts against those who violate rights
Bradenburg v. Ohio (1969) right to revolt? advocacy of violence for reform? hypothetically advocating violence not actually training up in violence court rule the law unconstitutional
People v. Ruggles (1811) blasphemy in obscenity blasphemy offends public peace and safety: blasphemy reviles maliciously the common religion. religion necessary for morality-> morality necessary for freedom. free and decent discussion is distinguished from blasphemy
Updegraph v. Commonwealth (1824) blasphemy: debating society-is scripture full of contradictions? ruled criminal: not allowed to truly discuss within freedom of religion government should attempt to support religion in general (quotes pagan, Plutarch, to prove not about Christianity)
US v. Harmon, US District Court, District of Kansas (1891) obscenity: law prohibited mailings obscene, lewd, or lascivious. test:probable recent effect it will have on the family?-does it destroy the principles of marriage and therefore family: it is impure and libidinization, and minds open to influences
Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966) fanny hill book case: not obscenity but self expression, actually harmful not to explore this
Roth v. US (1957) Obscenity: not constitutionally protected, convicted for advertising and selling publication with erotic literature and nude pictures. old test till now Harmon-new test: "prurient interest"? (lustful or sexual);slight redeeming social importance?
Miller v. California (1973) Miller-CA obscenity law-mailed unsolicited ads showing nude people engaging in sex, unsatisfied with ROTH, new test: promoting "prurient interest" in work as a whole? patently offensive sexual conduct? lacks literary or other value, is not serious?
New York v. Ferber (1982) child porn: harmful to real children, connected with sexual abuse, commerce has less protection than speech and press, minimal social value, evil overwhelms "expressive interest"
Texas v. Johnson (1989) flag burning:arrested for breach of peace and flag burning not speech ruled: expression is protected under speech and press (communication of ideas like speech) founders would say there is a distinction between actions and words
Carroll v. US (1925) 4th amend search and seizure: places distinguished from moving or movable items-warrants required for real estate, movable items don't require a warrant, govt has general search power at international boundaries for national safety.
US v. Chadwick and Ark v. Sanders locked footlocker in a car-expectation of privacy ruled: need a warrant to search because there was a presumption of privacy on his part (locked luggage)
Mapp v. Ohio (1961) warrant-less search: exclusionary rule broke into Mapp's house and seized evidence without a warrant, right to have excluded from trial? applies 4th amend to states through 14th due process apply exclusionary rule to enforce warrants and probable cause.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) asked for a lawyer and was not allowed one: 5th amend self incrimination and 6th right to attorney ruled:effectively makes law. Miranda rights: right to remain silent, can be used against, to counsel, one provided if cant afford, coercion otherwise
People v. Croswell (1804) Croswell accused of libel against Jefferson malice and intent of the speech must be proved
Commonwealth v. Blanding (1825) charged with libel against an innkeeper must be proved to be malicious or untrue
Van Orden v. Perry (2005) ten commandments monument in park around Texas state capitol in Austin, simply promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine or having some religious content doesnt violate the establishment clause of the 1st amend
McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky (2005) another ten commandments posting in court house ruled: govt should be neutral-neutrality principle
US v. Burger junk yard search: closely regulated industry has reduced expectation of privacy ruled: dont need a warrant for stolen body parts because its a closely regulated industry, BUT must have substantial govt interest and must be necessary to regulatory scheme
Created by: mshowalter