AP Review #3

Identify the protections guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights guarantees the protection of individual rights and these first ten amendments became a symbol and foundation of American ideals of individual liberty, limited government, and the rule of law. Specifically, the Bill of Rights protects individual freedoms, many rights of the accused, and that the states and people of states are also granted rights not mentioned in the Constitution.

Identify who the Bill of Rights originally protected people from.

The Bill of Rights originally protected people from the new centralized government, that people feared would be too powerful and not protect the people.

Define the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

The Due Process Clause is part of the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteeing that persons cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property by the United States or state governments without due process of law.

Title IX of the Education Act 1972

-Before Title IX, few opportunities existed for female athletes. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), which was created in 1906 to format and enforce rules in men's football but had become the ruling body of college athletics, offered no athletic scholarships for women and held no championships for women's teams. Furthermore, facilities, supplies and funding were lacking. As a result, in 1972 there were just 30,000 women participating in NCAA sports, as opposed to 170,000 men. Title IX was designed to correct those imbalances. Although it did not require that women's athletics receive the same amount of money as men's athletics, it was designed to enforce equal access and quality. Women's and men's programs were required to devote the same resources to locker rooms, medical treatment, training, coaching, practice times, travel and per diem allowances, equipment, practice facilities, tutoring and recruitment. Scholarship money was to be budgeted on a commensurate basis, so that if 40 percent of a school's athletic scholarships were awarded to men, 40 percent of the scholarship budget was also earmarked for women. -Title IX prohibits federally funded educational institutions from discriminating against students or employees based on sex. It begins: "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." As a result of Title IX, any school that receives any federal money from the elementary to university level-in short, nearly all schools-must provide fair and equal treatment of the sexes in all areas, including athletics. -Since the enactment of Title IX, women's participation in sports has grown exponentially. In high school, the number of girl athletes has increased from just 295,000 in 1972 to more than 2.6 million. In college, the number has grown from 30,000 to more than 150,000. In addition, Title IX is credited with decreasing the dropout rate of girls from high school and increasing the number of women who pursue higher education and complete college degrees. Despite these advancements, Title IX has not been without controversy. Critics point out that while it may be helping female athletes, it can hurt male athletes when schools are forced to cancel smaller men's programs to meet the strictures of the law.

Voting Rights Act of 1965

-On March 30, 1870 the 15th amendment to the U.S. Constitution was passed. It stated that a citizen's right to vote could not be taken away based on their race. Following the Compromise of 1877, the infamous Jim Crow Laws were introduced. These laws were barriers at the state and local level that prevented African Americans from voting. White supremacists used intimidation, literacy tests, and poll taxes to scare away African American voters. In 1964, the Civil Rights Act was signed into law on July 2. This law focused on segregation and employment discrimination. It failed to fully address voting issues faced by African Americans. On June 23, 1964, the 24th amendment to the constitution was passed. This amendment addressed fair voting and barred poll taxes. It was now illegal to make anyone pay to have the right to vote. Despite these new laws, only 2 percent of African Americans were registered to vote. In March 1965, Martin Luther King Jr. led marches in Selma, Alabama to dramatize the voting issue. Selma had a record of using violence to prevent African Americans from voting. Shortly after the marches, President Johnson sent a voting rights bill to Congress to remove race-based restrictions. This bill was quickly adopted by Congress and signed into law. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 made discriminatory voting practices illegal. It is considered to be one of the most far-reaching pieces of Civil Rights legislation. -It was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson and it aimed to overcome legal barriers at the state and local levels that prevented African Americans from exercising their right to vote as guaranteed under the 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is considered one of the most far-reaching pieces of civil rights legislation in U.S. history. -The legislation outlawed literacy tests and provided for the appointment of Federal examiners (with the power to register qualified citizens to vote) in certain jurisdictions with a history of voting discrimination. In addition, these jurisdictions could not change voting practices or procedures without "preclearance" from either the U.S. Attorney General or the District Court for Washington, DC. This act shifted the power to register voters from state and local officials to the federal government.

Civil Rights Act of 1964

-When John F. Kennedy entered the White House in 1961, he initially delayed supporting new anti-discrimination measures. But with protests springing up throughout the South—including one in Birmingham, Alabama, where police brutally suppressed nonviolent demonstrators with dogs, clubs and high-pressure fire hoses—Kennedy decided to act. In June 1963 he proposed by far the most comprehensive civil rights legislation to date, saying the United States "will not be fully free until all of its citizens are free." It was first proposed by President John F. Kennedy and survived strong opposition from southern members of Congress. It was then signed into law by Kennedy's successor, Lyndon B. Johnson. In subsequent years, Congress expanded the act and passed additional civil rights legislation such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965. -This act ended segregation in public places and banned employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin and is considered one of the crowning legislative achievements of the civil rights movement. -Civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. said that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was nothing less than a "second emancipation." The Civil Rights Act was later expanded to bring disabled Americans, the elderly and women in collegiate athletics under its umbrella. It also paved the way for two major follow-up laws: the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which prohibited literacy tests and other discriminatory voting practices, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which banned discrimination in the sale, rental and financing of property. Though the struggle against racism would continue, legal segregation had been brought to its knees in the United States.

Describe exceptions to the 4th Amendment.

1.) Search incident to a lawful arrest: Most common exception. Police may search a lawfully arrested person and the area immediately around that person (for hidden weapons or for evidence that might be destroyed). 2.) Stop and frisk: Police who reasonably think that a person is behaving suspiciously and is likely to be armed may stop and frisk the suspect for weapons. Search may only be for weapons. 3.) Consent: When a person voluntarily agrees, the police may conduct a search without a warrant and without probable cause. 4.) Plain view: If an object connected with a crime is in plain view and can be seen from a place where an officer has a right to be, it can be seized without a warrant. 5.) Hot pursuit: Police in hot pursuit of a suspect are not required to get a search warrant before entering a building that they have seen the suspect enter. It is also lawful to seize evidence found during hot pursuit of a suspected felon. 6.) Vehicle searches: A police officer who has probable cause to believe that a vehicle contains contraband, or illegal items, may conduct a search of the vehicle without a warrant. 7.) Emergency situations: In certain emergencies, the police are not required to get a search warrant. These situations include searching a building after a telephoned bomb threat, entering a house after smelling smoke or hearing screams, and other situations where the police don't have time to get a warrant. 8.) Border and airport searches: Customs agents are authorized to search without probable cause and warrants.

New York Times Co. v. United States (1971)

Bolstered the freedom of the press, establishing a "heavy presumption against prior restraint" even in cases involving national security

Define the Free Exercise Clause.

A First Amendment provision that prohibits government from interfering with the practice of religion.

Define selective incorporation.

A judicial doctrine whereby most but not all of the protections found in the Bill of Rights are made applicable to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment.

Describe how social movements are used to achieve change in government policy.

A social movement has a formal and enduring organizational structure as well as recognized leaders. Movements begin with people who share concerns about long-standing societal problems and believe that their rights and interests are not being adequately represented. They can evolve from grassroots groups into national organizations and even become interest groups that lobby government officials. Social movements can last for months, years, or even decades. The farmworkers' movement was founded in the 1960s by César E. Chávez and still exists today. Its national organization, the United Farm Workers, seeks congressional legislation to guarantee fair wages and treatment of undocumented workers (United Farm Workers of America, 2001). Movement participants assume that collective action, cooperative activities by groups in pursuit of a common goal, will be more effective in gaining the attention of media and government officials to instigate change than individuals acting on their own. Establishing a communications network to energize participants and mobilize them for action is a key component of a social movement. The digital media have become important organizing tools for social movements. They can use websites, Twitter feed, social media, text messages, and other platforms to publicize their cause, recruit members, fundraise, and organize events.

Describe a time in American history that the government has restricted minority rights.

A time in American history when the government restricted minority rights was in the ruling of the Supreme Court case Plessy v. Fergurson, in which the Court upheld "separate but equal" racial segregation, which restricted the rights of African Americans in daily activities because they were required to use different, much lower quality facilities than white people.

Define affirmative action.

Affirmative action is a policy designed to give special attention to or compensatory treatment for members of some previously disadvantaged group.

What type of speech is protected?

All speech is protected except obscenity and child pornography, fighting words, threats, incitement to immediate unlawful action, and some types of symbolic speech.

Describe the facts, constitutional provision, and precedent set by Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969).

At a public school in Des Moines, Iowa, students planned to wear black armbands at school as a silent protest against the Vietnam War. When the principal became aware of the plan, he warned the students that they would be suspended if they wore the armbands to school because the protest might cause a disruption in the learning environment. Despite the warning, some students wore the armbands and were suspended. During their suspension, the students' parents sued the school for violating their children's right to free speech. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa sided with the school's position, ruling that wearing the armbands could disrupt learning. The students appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit but lost and took the case to the Supreme Court of the United States. In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court's majority ruled that neither students nor teachers "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." The Court took the position that school officials could not prohibit only on the suspicion that the speech might disrupt the learning environment. The dissent argued that the First Amendment does not grant the right to express any opinion at any time. Students attend school to learn, not teach. The armbands were a distraction. School officials, acting on a legitimate interest in school order, should have broad authority to maintain a productive learning environment.

Describe what role the National Organization of Women (NOW) had in the Women's Rights Movement.

At the first NOW convention after the founding conference, 1967, members chose to focus on the Equal Rights Amendment, repeal of abortion laws, and public funding of child care. The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) remained a major focus until the final deadline for ratification passed in 1982. Marches, beginning in 1977, tried to mobilize support; NOW also organized boycotts by organizations and individuals of events in states which had not ratified the ERA; NOW lobbied for a 7-year extension in 1979 but the House and Senate only approved half of that time. NOW also focused on legal enforcement of provisions of the Civil Rights Act that applied to women, helped conceive and pass legislation inluding the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (1978), worked for repeal of abortion laws and, after Roe v. Wade, against laws that would restrict abortion's availability or a pregnant woman's role in choosing abortion. In the 1980s, NOW endorsed presidential candidate Walter Mondale who nominated the first woman candidate for VP of a major party, Geraldine Ferraro. NOW added activism against policies of President Ronald Reagan, and began to be more active on issues of lesbian rights. NOW also filed a federal civil suit against groups attacking abortion clinics and their leaders, resulting in a 1994 Supreme Court decision in NOW v. Scheidler. In the 1990s, NOW remained active on issues including economic and reproductive rights, and also became more visibly active on issues of domestic violence. NOW also created a Women of Color and Allies Summit, and took aim at the "father's rights" movement as part of NOW's activism on issues of family law. After 2000, NOW worked to oppose the Bush administration's strategies on issues of women's economic rights, reproductive rights, and marriage equality. In 2006, the Supreme Court removed the NOW v. Scheidler protections that kept abortion clinic protesters from interfering with patient's access to the clinics. NOW also took on issues of Mothers and Caregivers Economic Rights and the interface between disability issues and women's rights, and between immigration and women's rights. In 2008, NOW's Political Action Committee (PAC) endorsed Barack Obama for president. The PAC had endorsed Hillary Clinton in March, 2007, during the primary. The organization had not endorsed a candidate in the general election since the 1984 nomination of Walter Mondale for President and Geraldine Ferraro for Vice President. NOW also endorsed President Obama for a second term in 2012. NOW continued to put pressure on President Obama on women's issues, including for more appointments of women and especially women of color. In 2009, NOW was a key supporter of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, signed by President Obama as his first official act. NOW was also active in the struggle to keep contraception coverage in the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Issues of economic security, right to marry for same-sex couples, immigrant rights, violence against women, and laws limiting abortions and requiring ultrasounds or extraordinary health clinic regulations continued to be on NOW's agenda. NOW also became active on new activity to pass the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA).

Define civil rights.

Civil rights are policies designed to protect people against arbitrary or discriminatory treatment by government officials or individuals.

Describe the facts, constitutional provision, and precedent set by Gideon v. Wainwright (1963).

Clarence Earl Gideon was charged in Florida state court with felony breaking and entering. When he appeared in court without a lawyer, Gideon requested that the court appoint one for him. According to Florida state law, however, an attorney may only be appointed to an indigent defendant in capital cases, so the trial court did not appoint one. Gideon represented himself in trial. He was found guilty and sentenced to five years in prison. Gideon filed a habeas corpus petition in the Florida Supreme Court, arguing that the trial court's decision violated his constitutional right to be represented by counsel. The Florida Supreme Court denied habeas corpus relief. The constitutional question at hand was: Does the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel in criminal cases extend to felony defendants in state courts? In a unanimous decision for Gideon, the Supreme Court ruled that The Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a right to assistance of counsel applies to criminal defendants in state court by way of the Fourteenth Amendment. In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Hugo L. Black, the Court held that it was consistent with the Constitution to require state courts to appoint attorneys for defendants who could not afford to retain counsel on their own. The Court reasoned that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel is a fundamental and essential right made obligatory upon the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the accused the right to the assistance of counsel in all criminal prosecutions and requires courts to provide counsel for defendants unable to hire counsel unless the right was competently and intelligently waived. Justice Douglas, while joining the Court's opinion, elaborated, in a separate opinion, the relation between the Bill of Rights and the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justices Clark and Harlan concurred in separate decisions.

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

Compelling Amish students to attend school past the eighth grade violates the free exercise clause

Describe the facts, constitutional provision, and precedent set by Schenck v. United States (1919).

During World War I, socialists Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer distributed leaflets declaring that the draft violated the Thirteenth Amendment prohibition against involuntary servitude. The leaflets urged the public to disobey the draft, but advised only peaceful action. Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act of 1917 by attempting to cause insubordination in the military and to obstruct recruitment. Schenck and Baer were convicted of violating this law and appealed on the grounds that the statute violated the First Amendment. The constitutional question at hand was: Did Schenck's conviction under the Espionage Act for criticizing the draft violate his First Amendment right to freedom of speech? In a unanimous decision for the United States, The Court held that the Espionage Act did not violate the First Amendment and was an appropriate exercise of Congress' wartime authority. Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes concluded that courts owed greater deference to the government during wartime, even when constitutional rights were at stake. Articulating for the first time the "clear and present danger test," Holmes concluded that the First Amendment does not protect speech that approaches creating a clear and present danger of a significant evil that Congress has power to prevent. Holmes reasoned that the widespread dissemination of the leaflets was sufficiently likely to disrupt the conscription process. Famously, he compared the leaflets to falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, which is not permitted under the First Amendment.

Roe v. Wade (1973)

Extended the right of privacy to a woman's decision to have an abortion

Describe what SCOTUS has said about affirmative action.

In the Supreme Court Case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), the Supreme Court upheld the practice of affirmative action as constitutional, but declared racial quotas as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court, in a highly fractured ruling (six separate opinions were issued), agreed that the university's use of strict racial quotas was unconstitutional and ordered that the medical school admit Bakke, but it also contended that race could be used as one criterion in the admissions decisions of institutions of higher education. Although the ruling legalized the use of affirmative action, in subsequent decisions during the next several decades the court limited the scope of such programs, and several U.S. states prohibited affirmative action programs based on race.

Why wasn't a Bill of Rights included in the original constitution?

Hamilton argued to not include the Bill of Rights in the original constitution because he said if the government was only granted specific, certain powers, all other rights were by extension automatically protected because the government wasn't specifically empowered to infringe upon those rights. Along with the Anti-Federalists, the Federalists were also worried about states' rights to govern themselves and individual freedoms, but they worried about spelling out certain rights to be protected out of fear that they would miss one. This is because they had purposefully made it very difficult to amend the Constitution so if they forgot one during the convention, it would be tough to protect that right. On top of that, if a right was drafted in the Constitution and worded in a weird way, it may get misinterpreted into meaning something else.

Describe how the Supreme Court's rulings have been in favor of individual liberty, with regard to the 2nd Amendment.

From United States v. Cruikshank in 1875 to District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008, the Supreme Court held that states can impose broad restrictions on firearm possession without violating the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Thanks to the decisions handed down in Columbia v. Heller in 2008 and McDonald v. Chicago in 2010, states are now bound to respect the Second Amendment. Even today, however, firearm possession is not an unlimited right. State and local governments are allowed to restrict and regulate firearms in a "reasonable" manner.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Guaranteed the right to an attorney for the poor or indigent in a state felony case

Describe the facts, constitutional provision, and precedent set by Roe v. Wade (1973).

In 1970, Jane Roe (a fictional name used in court documents to protect the plaintiff's identity) filed a lawsuit against Henry Wade, the district attorney of Dallas County, Texas, where she resided, challenging a Texas law making abortion illegal except by a doctor's orders to save a woman's life. In her lawsuit, Roe alleged that the state laws were unconstitutionally vague and abridged her right of personal privacy, protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The constitutional question at hand was: Does the Constitution recognize a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion? The Court ruled in a 7-2 decision for Jane Roe. Inherent in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is a fundamental "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's choice whether to have an abortion. However, this right is balanced against the government's interests in protecting women's health and protecting "the potentiality of human life." The Texas law challenged in this case violated this right. Justice Harry Blackmun delivered the opinion for the 7-2 majority of the Court. First, the Court considered whether the case was moot, concluding that it was not. When the subject of litigation is "capable of repetition yet evading review," a case need not be dismissed as moot. Pregnancy is a "classic justification for a conclusion of non mootness." The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects against state action the right to privacy, and a woman's right to choose to have an abortion falls within that right to privacy. A state law that broadly prohibits abortion without respect to the stage of pregnancy or other interests violates that right. Although the state has legitimate interests in protecting the health of pregnant women and the "potentiality of human life," the relative weight of each of these interests varies over the course of pregnancy, and the law must account for this variability. In the first trimester of pregnancy, the state may not regulate the abortion decision; only the pregnant woman and her attending physician can make that decision. In the second trimester, the state may impose regulations on abortion that are reasonably related to maternal health. In the third trimester, once the fetus reaches the point of "viability," a state may regulate abortions or prohibit them entirely, so long as the laws contain exceptions for cases when abortion is necessary to save the life or health of the mother.

Describe the facts, constitutional clause, and precedent set by Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972).

In 1971, the state of Wisconsin fined three Amish families for refusing to send their children to school beyond the eighth grade. Wisconsin law stipulated that all children had to attend school until age 16, but the Yoder, Miller, and Yutzy families believed that further education for their children would damage their religious beliefs. The Amish believe in simplicity, and the families considered worldly education harmful to maintaining their way of life. Although the Amish do not believe in undertaking legal action, a foundation set up on their behalf brought suit. They argued that the Wisconsin law violated the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, which states that "Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]." The Constitutional question at hand was: Did Wisconsin's law requiring that all students attend school until the age of 16 violate the free exercise clause by criminalizing the actions of parents who refused to send children to school for religious reasons? The Court decided that yes, the Wisconsin law violated the Amish families' right to free exercise of religion. The Court agreed that mandatory high school education was likely to damage the religious upbringing of the Amish students. Since the Amish community is well-established, the Court believed its children were unlikely to become a burden on society. In Wisconsin v. Yoder, the Court prioritized free exercise of religion over the state interest in an educated populace. The Court ruled that the individual liberty to worship freely outweighed the state's interest in forcing students to attend school.

Describe what Martin Luther King Jr. argued for in Letter From a Birmingham Jail. List at least 5 big takeaways.

In the letter, Dr. King defended the legitimacy of using protests and demonstrations and even breaking the law in nonviolent demonstrations against segregation and racism. His organization had attempted to negotiate with white business owners with little result. He insisted that the tensions created by the demonstrations were necessary to force progressive action. King also insisted that African-Americans had waited long enough for civil rights that were too slow in coming. He lamented the feelings of white moderates and the white church establishment itself who valued order rather than justice for his people. Dr. King stated his belief that history will see the protesters as the real heroes and signed the letter "Yours for the cause of peace and brotherhood."

Describe the facts, constitutional provision, and precedent set by New York Times v. United States (1971).

In what became known as the "Pentagon Papers Case," the Nixon Administration attempted to prevent the New York Times and Washington Post from publishing materials belonging to a classified Defense Department study regarding the history of United States activities in Vietnam. The President argued that prior restraint was necessary to protect national security. This case was decided together with United States v. Washington Post Co. The constitutional question at hand was: Did the Nixon administration's efforts to prevent the publication of what it termed "classified information" violate the First Amendment? In a per curiam opinion for the New York Times, the Court held that the government did not overcome the "heavy presumption against" prior restraint of the press in this case. Justices Black and Douglas argued that the vague word "security" should not be used "to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment." Justice Brennan reasoned that since publication would not cause an inevitable, direct, and immediate event imperiling the safety of American forces, prior restraint was unjustified.

McDonald v. Chicago (2010) incorporated the 2nd Amendment. What does that mean?

It means that this case ruling guaranteed "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," to be applicable to state and local governments as well as the federal government.

Define prior restraint.

Prior restraint are government actions preventing material from being published. It is usually prohibited by the First Amendment, as confirmed in Near v. Minnesota.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969)

Public school students have the right to wear black armbands in school to protest the Vietnam War

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

Race-based school segregation violates the equal protection clause

Can the government search your cell phone data without a warrant?

No, in the Supreme Court case Carpenter v. the United States, the Court ruled that the government needs a warrant to access a person's cell phone location history.

Define the Establishment Clause.

Part of the First Amendment stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

School sponsorship of religious activities violates the establishment clause

Describe the facts, constitutional provision, and precedent set by McDonald v. Chicago (2010).

Several suits were filed against Chicago and Oak Park in Illinois challenging their gun bans after the Supreme Court issued its opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller. In that case, the Supreme Court held that a District of Columbia handgun ban violated the Second Amendment. There, the Court reasoned that the law in question was enacted under the authority of the federal government and, thus, the Second Amendment was applicable. Here, plaintiffs argued that the Second Amendment should also apply to the states. The district court dismissed the suits. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The constitutional question at hand was: Does the Second Amendment apply to the states because it is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges and Immunities or Due Process clauses and thereby made applicable to the states? In a 5-4 decision for McDonald, the Supreme Court reversed the Seventh Circuit, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense applicable to the states. With Justice Samuel A. Alito writing for the majority, the Court reasoned that rights that are "fundamental to the Nation's scheme of ordered liberty" or that are "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" are appropriately applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court recognized in Heller that the right to self-defense was one such "fundamental" and "deeply rooted" right. The Court reasoned that because of its holding in Heller, the Second Amendment applied to the states. Here, the Court remanded the case to the Seventh Circuit to determine whether Chicago's handgun ban violated an individual's right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. Justice Alito, writing in the plurality, specified that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller. He rejected Justice Clarence Thomas's separate claim that the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment more appropriately incorporates the Second Amendment against the states. Alito stated that the Court's decision in the Slaughterhouse Cases -- rejecting the use of the Privileges or Immunities Clause for the purpose of incorporation -- was long since decided and the appropriate avenue for incorporating rights was through the Due Process Clause. Justice Antonin Scalia concurred. He agreed with the Court's opinion, but wrote separately to disagree with Justice John Paul Stevens' dissent. Justice Clarence Thomas concurred and concurred in the judgment. He agreed that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment against the states, but disagreed that the Due Process Clause was the appropriate mechanism. Instead, Justice Thomas advocated that the Privileges or Immunities Clause was the more appropriate avenue for rights incorporation. Justice John Paul Stevens dissented. He disagreed that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment against the states. He argued that owning a personal firearm was not a "liberty" interest protected by the Due Process Clause. Justice Stephen G. Breyer, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, also dissented. He argued that there is nothing in the Second Amendment's "text, history, or underlying rationale" that characterizes it as a "fundamental right" warranting incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Describe how the Supreme Court has bolstered freedom of the press.

Since the 1970s, the Supreme Court has bolstered the freedom of the press by establishing a "heavy presumption against prior restraint." But freedom of the press is not absolute; citizens can seek redress if false statements printed about them damage their reputation, and leaking government documents that pose an immediate threat to American military forces is a crime.

Define symbolic speech.

Symbolic speech is nonverbal communication, such as burning a flag or wearing an armband. The Supreme Court has accorded some symbolic speech protection under the First Amendment.

Who wanted a Bill of Rights added to the Constitution?

The Anti-Federalists wanted a Bill of Rights added to the Constitution because they feared that the centralized government would infringe upon the rights of individual states and individual freedoms.

Schenck v. United States (1919)

Speech creating a "clear and present danger" is not protected by the First Amendment

Describe how states are limited by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

States are limited by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment because the Court used the Due Process Clause to extend the Bill of Rights to the states over time through a practice known as "incorporation." This means that the states are required to guarantee many liberties protected under the Bill of Rights in more local matters.

Define the Equal Protection Clause.

The Equal Protection Clause is the clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that prohibits any state from denying to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Does the Free Exercise Clause or the Establishment Clause protect majoritarian religions? Explain.

The Establishment Clause provides for the fact that no national religion can be established, therefore everyone can practice their own religion, but the Free Exercise Clause protects that one can practice their own religion without government interference unless that practice violates the Constitution in some way.

Describe the protections for the accused in the Fifth Amendment.

The Fifth Amendment guarantees no double jeopardy, no being required to bear witnesses against oneself, no taking of private property without just compensation, the requirement of indictments, and due process in federal courts.

Identify the constitutional amendment that includes the Equal Protection Clause.

The Fourteenth Amendment includes the Equal Protection Clause.

Describe which part of the Constitution provides for selective incorporation.

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution provides for selective incorporation.

What protections are in the 4th Amendment that help maintain individual freedom?

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects personal privacy, and every citizen's right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion into their persons, homes, businesses, and property -- whether through police stops of citizens on the street, arrests, or searches of homes and businesses. Lawmakers and the courts have put in place legal safeguards to ensure that law enforcement officers interfere with individuals' Fourth Amendment rights only under limited circumstances, and through specific methods. The Fourth Amendment protects the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." It states that warrants, supported by probable cause, must be issued before such searches and seizures can take place.

Define the Miranda warnings.

The Miranda warning is the statement telling an arrested person about his or her Miranda rights (the legal rights to have an attorney and to refuse to answer questions)

Describe the facts, constitutional clause, and precedent set by Engel v. Vitale (1962).

The New York State Board of Regents authorized a short, voluntary prayer for recitation at the start of each school day. A group of organizations joined forces in challenging the prayer, claiming that it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The New York Court of Appeals rejected their arguments. The constitutional question at hand was: Does the reading of a nondenominational prayer at the start of the school day violate the "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment? In a 6-1 decision for Engel, the Court concluded that the state cannot hold prayers in public schools, even if participation is not required and the prayer is not tied to a particular religion. In an opinion authored by Hugo L. Black, the Court held that respondent's decision to use its school system to facilitate recitation of the official prayer violated the Establishment Clause. Specifically, the policy breached the constitutional wall of separation between church and state. The Court ruled that the constitutional prohibition of laws establishing religion meant that the government had no business drafting formal prayers for any segment of its population to repeat in a government-sponsored religious program. The Court held that respondent's provision of the contested daily prayer was inconsistent with the Establishment Clause. Justice Douglas concurred in the judgment on the ground that the state's financing a religious exercise violated the First Amendment. Justice Stewart dissented, arguing that no "official religion" was established by permitting those who want to say a prayer to say it.

McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense is applicable to the states

Describe the protections for the accused in the Sixth Amendment.

The Sixth Amendment provides for speedy and public trials, the right to confront witnesses, the right to have assistance of counsel, to be given an impartial jury in trial, be informed of accusations, and the right to obtain witnesses for the defense.

Identify the required SCOTUS cases that involve incorporation of a specific right.

The Supreme Court case McDonald v. Chicago ruled that The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense is applicable to the states, thus incorporating it.

Describe where the constitutional right to privacy comes from.

The United States Constitution does not contain any explicit right to privacy. However, The Bill of Rights, expresses the concerns of James Madison along with other framers of the Constitution for protecting certain aspects of privacy. For example, the first amendment allows the privacy of beliefs, the third amendment protects privacy of the home against any demands to be used to house soldiers, the fourth amendment protects the privacy of a person and possessions from unreasonable searches, and the 5th Amendment gives privacy of personal information through preventing self-incrimination. Furthermore, the 9th Amendment says that the enumeration of certain rights as found in the Bill of Rights cannot deny other rights of the people. While this is a vague statement, court precedent has said that the 9th amendment is a way to justify looking at the Bill of Rights as a way to protect the right to privacy in a specific way not given in the first 8 amendments. The issue of whether the Constitution actually protects the right to privacy in ways not described in the Bill of Rights is a controversial subject. Originalists often argue that there is no general right to privacy within the constitution. However, as early as 1923 the Supreme Court, recognized through decisions, that the liberty given in the 14th amendment guarantees a relatively broad right of privacy in regards to procreation, child rearing, marriage, and medical treatment termination. Two decisions by the Supreme Court during the 1920s solidified this view of the 14th amendment. They found the liberty clause of the 14th amendment to prohibit the states from trying to interfere with private decisions of parents and educators when shaping the children's education. During the case Meyer v Nebraska in 1923, the Supreme Court said that a state law that did not allow the teaching of German or other foreign languages to students before the ninth grade was unconstitutional.

Define the exclusionary rule.

The exclusionary rule is the rule that evidence cannot be introduced into a trial if it was not constitutionally obtained. The rule prohibits use of evidence obtained through unreasonable search and seizure.

Describe the ways the government has responded to social movements.

The government mostly responds to social movements, especially during the Civil War, through Court rulings and enacting policies/legislation. Some examples of these responses include the Brown v. Board of Education (1954) ruling that declared that race-based school segregation violates the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause; the Civil Rights Act of 1964; Title IX of Education Amendments Act of 1972; and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

How does SCOTUS' interpretation of the First Amendment and Second Amendment reflect a commitment to individual liberty?

The interpretation and application of the First Amendment's establishment and free exercise clauses reflect an ongoing debate over balancing majoritarian religious practice and free exercise, as represented by such cases as Engel v. Vitale and Wisconsin v. Yoder.

Describe what limits have been put on speech to maintain public order (exceptions to freedom of speech).

The limits that have been put on speech to main public order are obscenity and child pornography, fighting words, threats, incitement to immediate unlawful action, and some types of symbolic speech.

Describe which part of the Constitution most directly correlates with affirmative action.

The part of the Constitution that most directly correlates with affirmative action is the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the "reverse discrimination" that is a result of affirmative action is contrary to the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Describe the purpose of the Bill of Rights.

The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to establish personal liberties and put limits on government power. Specifically, the Anti-Federalists wanted specific rights outlined in this proposed Constitution that would be protected, and specific provisions in the Constitution prohibiting the proposed centralized government from infringing on those rights.

Describe the exceptions to prior restraint.

U.S. courts view prior restraint as unconstitutional until proven otherwise. The government entity or organization looking to review and restrict speech must offer an extremely compelling reason for the restriction to even be considered. Courts have recognized some of these reasons as exceptions to the general illegality of prior restraint. -Obscenity: U.S. Courts have decided that the distribution of certain "obscene" material can be limited in order to preserve public decency. "Obscene" material is a limited category. Pornographic material on its own might not be considered obscene. However, obscenity applies to pornographic material that features unwilling or underage participants. -Court documents: Most court documents like land deeds, complaints, and marriage licenses are publicly available. A court may place an injunction (a restriction) on court records during an ongoing criminal case to prevent public disclosure. Outside of an injunction, publishing information that may damage a case can be penalized but cannot be used as an exception to allow prior restraint. -National Security: Some of the most powerful and significant arguments in favor of prior restraint came from the publication of government documents. The government has a compelling interest in keeping defense documents classified if they might jeopardize ongoing military action, particularly during wartime. However, courts have determined that the government must prove an inevitable, direct, and immediate danger, in order to justify reviewing and restricting publication in the name of national security.

Describe the exception to the Miranda warnings.

There's three primary exceptions that we sort of talk about in law school. One of them is the routine booking question exception. And that's basically a situation where the police question someone, but it's not really interrogation. They're asking questions about where do you live? What is your address? What is your profession? What is your date of birth? Your name? Things like that. Even if somebody has invoked their right to remain silent, invoked their Miranda rights, the police are still allowed to ask questions like that because they are thought not to be designed to elicit an incriminating response. Secondly, there is the jailhouse informant exception. And that's a situation where the police sort of use a jailhouse snitch or somebody is acting on behalf of the police but is not technically a police officer; they're acting as a state agent and they're essentially trying to trick the suspect into making an admission that could be used against them in court. That jailhouse informant is an exception to the Miranda rule. And the third very common one is what we call the public safety exception. And that is a situation where there is an imminent danger to the public. For example, a suspected terrorist is arrested, and the police think that this person knows the whereabouts of a bomb or a terrorist attack is going to take place soon and so they interrogate the person to try to get the critical emergency information. Even if that person has invoked their right to remain silent, the police have some leeway in those situations to continue to question them. And many times their responses will still be admissible in court in spite of them having invoked the Miranda rights. Those are really the three primary exceptions to the rule.

Describe the facts, constitutional provision, and precedent set by Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka Kansas (1954).

This case was the consolidation of cases arising in Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, Delaware, and Washington D.C. relating to the segregation of public schools on the basis of race. In each of the cases, African American students had been denied admittance to certain public schools based on laws allowing public education to be segregated by race. They argued that such segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiffs were denied relief in the lower courts based on Plessy v. Ferguson, which held that racially segregated public facilities were legal so long as the facilities for blacks and whites were equal. (This was known as the "separate but equal" doctrine.) The constitutional question at hand was: Does the segregation of public education based solely on race violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? The Court ruled in unanimous decision for Brown and ruled that separate but equal educational facilities for racial minorities is inherently unequal, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered the opinion of the unanimous Court. The Supreme Court held that "separate but equal" facilities are inherently unequal and violate the protections of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reasoned that the segregation of public education based on race instilled a sense of inferiority that had a hugely detrimental effect on the education and personal growth of African American children. Warren based much of his opinion on information from social science studies rather than court precedent. The decision also used language that was relatively accessible to non-lawyers because Warren felt it was necessary for all Americans to understand its logic.

Describe a limitation on the freedom of religion.

While Reynolds and Smith can be used to argue that the free-exercise clause has a rather narrow application, a concurring opinion in Smith by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor applied the test of "compelling government interest." She argued that the government can only infringe on religious liberty when a compelling interest exists to do so. This test, established by Justice William Brennan, has been used in defense of religious liberty. In Sherbert v. Verner (1963), Adell Sherbert sued her employer when he extended her hours to include Saturdays—a day on which Sherbert, a Seventh-day Adventist, was religiously obliged not to work. The court ruled that the employer had placed a "substantial burden" on her and that the government lacked a compelling interest to deny benefits. The hence-named "Sherbert Test" requires that an individual must prove sincere religious beliefs and substantial burden through government action. If these are established, the law is unconstitutional unless the government proves a "compelling state interest" and that the interest was pursued in the least intrusive way possible. The Sherbert Test had lasted fewer than 30 years when Smith changed the precedent; since then, the legal community has grown to scorn such tests. Nonetheless, Congress became concerned that religious exercise was at risk and passed the bipartisan Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) to legislatively establish the Sherbert Test. Though President Clinton strengthened the laws through executive orders, Boerne v. Flores (1997) established that Congress can only strengthen federal religious freedoms. Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal (2006) thus became the first use of RFRA and the Sherbert Test. Coincidentally, the Court ruled in Gonzales that the government had not established a compelling interest to limit the use of peyote tea in a New Mexico Native American ceremony.