AP Gov Required Cases and Foundational Documents

Declaration of Independence Major Ideas

1. People have certain Inalienable Rights including Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. 2. All Men are created equal. 3. Individuals have a civic duty to defend these rights for themselves and others.

Articles of Confederation

A constitution drafted by the newly independent states in 1777 and ratified in 1781. It created a weak national government that could not levy taxes or regulate commerce. In 1789 it was replaced by our current constitution in order to create a stronger national government.

Constitution

A nation's basic law. It creates political institutions, assigns or divides powers in government, and often provides certain guarantees to citizens.

Federalist 51

Addresses means by which appropriate checks and balances can be created in government and also advocates a separation of powers within the national government.

US v Lopez Facts

Alfonzo Lopez, a 12th grade high school student, carried a concealed weapon into his San Antonio, Texas high school. He was charged under Texas law with firearm possession on school premises. The next day, the state charges were dismissed after federal agents charged Lopez with violating a federal criminal statute, the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. The act forbids "any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that [he] knows...is a school zone." Lopez was found guilty following a bench trial and sentenced to six months' imprisonment and two years' supervised release.

Amendments

An addition or alteration made to a constitution, statute, or legislative bill or resolution. Can be made to existing constitutions and statutes and are also commonly made to bills in the course of their passage through a legislature.

Federalist 70

Argues in favor of the unitary executive created by Article II of the United States Constitution. According to Alexander Hamilton, a unitary executive is necessary to: ensure accountability in government. enable the president to defend against legislative encroachments on his power.

Tinker v Des Moines Facts

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.

Baker v Carr Facts

Charles W. Baker and other Tennessee citizens alleged that a 1901 law designed to apportion the seats for the state's General Assembly was virtually ignored. Baker's suit detailed how Tennessee's reapportionment efforts ignored significant economic growth and population shifts within the state.

Citizens United v FEC Facts

Citizens United sought an injunction against the Federal Election Commission in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to prevent the application of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) to its film Hillary: The Movie. The Movie expressed opinions about whether Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton would make a good president. In an attempt to regulate "big money" campaign contributions, the BCRA applies a variety of restrictions to "electioneering communications." Section 203 of the BCRA prevents corporations or labor unions from funding such communication from their general treasuries. Sections 201 and 311 require the disclosure of donors to such communication and a disclaimer when the communication is not authorized by the candidate it intends to support. Citizens United argued that: 1) Section 203 violates the First Amendment on its face and when applied to The Movie and its related advertisements, and that 2) Sections 201 and 203 are also unconstitutional as applied to the circumstances. The United States District Court denied the injunction. Section 203 on its face was not unconstitutional because the Supreme Court in McConnell v. FEC had already reached that determination. The District Court also held that The Movie was the functional equivalent of express advocacy, as it attempted to inform voters that Senator Clinton was unfit for office, and thus Section 203 was not unconstitutionally applied. Lastly, it held that Sections 201 and 203 were not unconstitutional as applied to the The Movie or its advertisements. The court reasoned that the McConnell decision recognized that disclosure of donors "might be unconstitutional if it imposed an unconstitutional burden on the freedom to associate in support of a particular cause," but those circumstances did not exist in Citizen United's claim.

Gideon v Wainwright Facts

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.

Elastic Cause

Congress can exercise powers not specifically stated in the Constitution if those powers are "necessary and proper" for carrying out its expressed powers that are specifically stated.

Schenck v. US Question

Did Schenck's conviction under the Espionage Act for criticizing the draft violate his First Amendment right to freedom of speech?

Wisconsin v Yoder Question

Did Wisconsin's requirement that all parents send their children to school at least until age 16 violate the First Amendment by criminalizing the conduct of parents who refused to send their children to school for religious reasons?

New York Times v US Question

Did the Nixon administration's efforts to prevent the publication of what it termed "classified information" violate the First Amendment?

Shaw v Reno Question

Did the North Carolina residents' claim, that the State created a racially gerrymandered district, raise a valid constitutional issue under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause?

Baker v Carr Question

Did the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over questions of legislative apportionment?

Declaration of Independence

Document that was approved by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, and that announced the separation of 13 North American British colonies from Great Britain.

Roe v Wade Question

Does the Constitution recognize a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion?

McDonald v Chicago Question

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?

Gideon v Wainwright Question

Does the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel in criminal cases extend to felony defendants in state courts?

Engle v Vitale Question

Does the reading of a nondenominational prayer at the start of the school day violate the "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment?

Brown v Board of Education Question

Does the segregation of public education based solely on race violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Schenck v. US Facts

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.

McDonald v Chicago Conclusion

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.

Shaw v Reno Facts

The U.S. Attorney General rejected a North Carolina congressional reapportionment plan because the plan created only one black-majority district. North Carolina submitted a second plan creating two black-majority districts. One of these districts was, in parts, no wider than the interstate road along which it stretched. Five North Carolina residents challenged the constitutionality of this unusually shaped district, alleging that its only purpose was to secure the election of additional black representatives. After a three-judge District Court ruled that they failed to state a constitutional claim, the residents appealed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Federalist 78

Hamilton said that the Judiciary branch of the proposed government would be the weakest of the three branches because it had "no influence over either the sword or the purse, ...It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment." There was little concern that the judiciary might be able to overpower the political branches; since Congress controlled the flow of money and the President the military, courts did not have nearly the same power from a constitutional design standpoint. The Judiciary would depend on the political branches to uphold its judgments. Legal academics often argue over Hamilton's description of the judiciary as the "least dangerous" branch. Hamilton also explains how federal judges should retain life terms as long as those judges exhibit good behavior. Discusses the power of judicial review. It argues that the federal courts have the job of determining whether acts of Congress are constitutional and what must be done if government is faced with the things that are done on the contrary of the Constitution.

McCullough v Maryland Facts

In 1816, Congress chartered The Second Bank of the United States. In 1818, the state of Maryland passed legislation to impose taxes on the bank. James W. McCulloch, the cashier of the Baltimore branch of the bank, refused to pay the tax. The state appeals court held that the Second Bank was unconstitutional because the Constitution did not provide a textual commitment for the federal government to charter a bank.

Roe v Wade Facts

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.

Tinker v Des Moines Conclusion

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.

McCullough v Maryland Conclusion

In a unanimous decision, the Court held that Congress had the power to incorporate the bank and that Maryland could not tax instruments of the national government employed in the execution of constitutional powers. Pursuant to the Necessary and Proper Clause (Art. I, Section 8), Chief Justice Marshall noted that Congress possessed powers not explicitly outlined in the U.S. Constitution. Marshall redefined "necessary" to mean "appropriate and legitimate," covering all methods for furthering objectives covered by the enumerated powers. Marshall also held that while the states retained the power of taxation, the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme and cannot be controlled by the states.

Baker v Carr Conclusion

In an opinion which explored the nature of "political questions" and the appropriateness of Court action in them, the Court held that there were no such questions to be answered in this case and that legislative apportionment was a justiciable issue. In his majority opinion, Justice Brennan provided past examples in which the Court had intervened to correct constitutional violations in matters pertaining to state administration and the officers through whom state affairs are conducted. Brennan concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection issues which Baker and others raised in this case merited judicial evaluation. Justices Douglas, Clark, and Stewart filed separate concurring opinions. Justice Frankfurter, joined by Justice Harlan, dissented.

New York Times v US Facts

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.

Federalist 10

The essay's main argument was that a strong, united republic would be more effective than the individual states at controlling "factions" - groups of citizens united by some cause "adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the... interests of the community." In other words, they were groups of people with radical ideas that weren't good for everyone as a whole. Advocated for a republic where power was broken up between the national and state governments through elected representatives. However, Anti-Federalists argued that Madison's ideas of a nation with multiple factions was incapable of creating a "perfect union". Anti-Federalists believed that the states' differing opinions would tear the nation apart. This idea became true during the Civil War.

Bill of Rights

The first 10 amendments the the U.S. Constitution, which define such basic liberties as freedom of religion, speech, and press and guarantee defendants' rights.

Preamble

The opening statement of the Constitution. The purposes of our government are presented. Purposes: To Establish Justice and Insure Domestic Tranquility—Government manages conflict and maintains order.

Roe v Wade Conclusion

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 nonmootness." 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.

US v Lopez Question

Is the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act, forbidding individuals from knowingly carrying a gun in a school zone, unconstitutional because it exceeds the power of Congress to legislate under the Commerce Clause?

Wisconsin v Yoder Facts

Jonas Yoder and Wallace Miller, both members of the Old Order Amish religion, and Adin Yutzy, a member of the Conservative Amish Mennonite Church, were prosecuted under a Wisconsin law that required all children to attend public schools until age 16. The three parents refused to send their children to such schools after the eighth grade, arguing that high school attendance was contrary to their religious beliefs.

Citizens United v FEC Conclusion

No. No. Yes. Yes. The Supreme Court overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and portions of McConnell v. FEC. (In the prior cases, the Court had held that political speech may be banned based on the speaker's corporate identity.) By a 5-to-4 vote along ideological lines, the majority held that under the First Amendment corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justices Antonin G. Scalia, Samuel A. Alito, and Clarence Thomas. Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor. The majority maintained that political speech is indispensable to a democracy, which is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation. The majority also held that the BCRA's disclosure requirements as applied to The Movie were constitutional, reasoning that disclosure is justified by a "governmental interest" in providing the "electorate with information" about election-related spending resources. The Court also upheld the disclosure requirements for political advertising sponsors and it upheld the ban on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions. In a separate concurring opinion, Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justice Alito, emphasized the care with which the Court handles constitutional issues and its attempts to avoid constitutional issues when at all possible. Here, the Court had no narrower grounds upon which to rule, except to handle the First Amendment issues embodied within the case. Justice Scalia also wrote a separate concurring opinion, joined by Justices Alito and Thomas in part, criticizing Justice Stevens' understanding of the Framer's view towards corporations. Justice Stevens argued that corporations are not members of society and that there are compelling governmental interests to curb corporations' ability to spend money during local and national elections.

1st Amendment

Ratified December 15, 1791 (Bill of Rights) Established freedom of religion, freedom of speech and press as well as the right to assemble and petition.

3rd Amendment

Ratified December 15, 1791 (Bill of Rights) Established that no homeowner was required to house soldiers whether it be in times of war or peace unless it was prescribed by law or had the homeowners consent.

2nd Amendment

Ratified December 15, 1791 (Bill of Rights) Established the right to bear arms. Adopted so congress could no disarm state malitias.

8th Amendment

Ratified December 15, 1791 (Bill of Rights) Government cannot inflict cruel and unusual punishment and is not allowed to post excessive post. Meaning of cruel changes as society evolves and categorical bans on death penalty.

7th Amendment

Ratified December 15, 1791 (Bill of Rights) Guarantees the right to a trial by jury for civil cases in federal court. It will not be tried in court if the dispute involves less than $20.00 (less than $75,000.00 today).

4th Amendment

Ratified December 15, 1791 (Bill of Rights) Established that a person could not be searched or have property seized without a search warrant and/or probable cause.

5th Amendment

Ratified December 15, 1791 (Bill of Rights) Established the rights of Accused Persons (1) No Self-Incrimination (Miranda Rights) (2) No Double Jeopardy (defendant cannot be tried again on the same, or similar charges) (3) No deprivation of life, liberty or property without "due process of law" (fair treatment) (4) Eminent domain

6th Amendment

Ratified December 15, 1791 (Bill of Rights) Establishes the right to a fair trial (1) Fast and and public trial (2)Person must be told charges (3)Right to counsel (4)Right to jury in criminal cases

9th Amendment

Ratified December 15, 1791 (Bill of Rights) People have unenumerated rights(legal rights inferred from other legal rights that are officiated in a retrievable form codified by law institutions) including the ones stated in the constitution that have not been developed by the supreme court.

10th Amendment

Ratified December 15, 1791 (Bill of Rights) Powers that were not outlined in the Constitution are reserved for the people or the states (i.e. marriage).

14th Amendment

Ratified July 9, 1868 (Civil War Amendment) Granted citizenship to all people born or neutralized in the United States. No person can be denied the rights of life and liberty without due process of the law.

Brown v Board of Education Conclusion

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.

McDonald v Chicago Facts

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.

Engle v Vitale Conclusion

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 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.

Brown v Board of Education Facts

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.)

Marbury v Madison Facts

Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams in the 1800 presidential election. Before Jefferson took office on March 4, 1801, Adams and Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801, which created new courts, added judges, and gave the president more control over appointment of judges. The Act was essentially an attempt by Adams and his party to frustrate his successor, as he used the act to appoint 16 new circuit judges and 42 new justices of the peace. The appointees were approved by the Senate, but they would not be valid until their commissions were delivered by the Secretary of State. William Marbury had been appointed Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia, but his commission was not delivered. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to compel the new Secretary of State, James Madison, to deliver the documents. Marbury, joined by three other similarly situated appointees, petitioned for a writ of mandamus compelling the delivery of the commissions.

Letter from a Birmingham Jail

Written by Martin Luther King Jr. for eight clergymen who wanted him to just wait for life to get better. He felt compelled to respond to their criticism of him breaking the law. He wanted to persuade his audience to break unjust laws.

New York Times v US Conclusion

Yes. In its per curiam opinion 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.

Shaw v Reno Conclusion

Yes. The Court held that although North Carolina's reapportionment plan was racially neutral on its face, the resulting district shape was bizarre enough to suggest that it constituted an effort to separate voters into different districts based on race. The unusual district, while perhaps created by noble intentions, seemed to exceed what was reasonably necessary to avoid racial imbalances. After concluding that the residents' claim did give rise to an equal protection challenge, the Court remanded - adding that in the absence of contradictory evidence, the District Court would have to decide whether or not some compelling governmental interest justified North Carolina's plan.

US v Lopez Conclusion

Yes. The possession of a gun in a local school zone is not an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The law is a criminal statute that has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic activity.

Marbury v Madison Conclusion

The Court found that Madison's refusal to deliver the commission was illegal, but did not order Madison to hand over Marbury's commission via writ of mandamus. Instead, the Court held that the provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 enabling Marbury to bring his claim to the Supreme Court was itself unconstitutional, since it purported to extend the Court's original jurisdiction beyond that which Article III, Section 2, established. Marshall expanded that a writ of mandamus was the proper way to seek a remedy, but concluded the Court could not issue it. Marshall reasoned that the Judiciary Act of 1789 conflicted with the Constitution. Congress did not have power to modify the Constitution through regular legislation because Supremacy Clause places the Constitution before the laws. In so holding, Marshall established the principle of judicial review, i.e., the power to declare a law unconstitutional.

Wisconsin v Yoder Conclusion

The Court held that individual's interests in the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment outweighed the State's interests in compelling school attendance beyond the eighth grade. In the majority opinion by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, the Court found that the values and programs of secondary school were "in sharp conflict with the fundamental mode of life mandated by the Amish religion," and that an additional one or two years of high school would not produce the benefits of public education cited by Wisconsin to justify the law. Justice William O. Douglas filed a partial dissent but joined with the majority regarding Yoder. Justices Lewis Powell and William Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Schenck v US Conclusion

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.

Engle v Vitale Facts

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.

Gideon v Wainwright Conclusion

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.

Article 5

"Amendments" Explains that the constitution can be altered if necessary. It is required that for new amendments to be added to the constitution 2/3 of congress needs to approve the amendment and 3/4 of the states need to approve the amendment.

Article 6

"Debts, Supremacy, and Oaths" Article explains that debts/engagements that the USA encountered prior to the creation of the constitution are still valid. Also this article explains that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that all state/federal officers, judges need to uphold all of the Constitutions rules.

Article 7

"Ratification" Addresses how many states need to ratify the Constitution in order for it to be used in the United States and how states should go about ratifying the constitution.

Article 2

"The Executive Branch" This branch of the government manages the day-to-day operations of government through different federal departments and agencies. At the head of this branch is the nationally elected President of the United States (Also includes the Vice President, Cabinet, and departments under Cabinet Secretaries.)

Article 3

"The Judicial Branch" Determines that the court of last resort is the US Supreme Court and that the US Congress has the power to determine the size and scope of those courts below it. Courts below the Supreme Court decide criminal and civil court cases according to the correct federal, state, and local laws.

Article 1

"The Legislative Branch" The U.S. Congress makes the laws for the United States. Congress has two parts called "Houses" the House of Representatives and the Senate. Congress also has the power to borrow money for the nation, declare war and raise a military. It also has the power to check and balance the other two federal branches.

Article 4

"The States" Explains the relationship between the states and the federal government. The federal government guarantees a republican form of government in each state, protects the nation and the people from foreign/domestic violence, and determines how new states can join the Union. Also suggests that all the states are equal to each other and should respect each other's laws and the judicial decisions made by other state court systems.

Brutus 1

(anti-federalist) Laws cannot be properly executed in a large republic, where it's hard for central government to represent people properly. Argued that federal power was bad and that the Constitution gives too much power to the federal government.

Citizens United v. FEC Questions

1) Did the Supreme Court's decision in McConnell resolve all constitutional as-applied challenges to the BCRA when it upheld the disclosure requirements of the statute as constitutional? 2) Do the BCRA's disclosure requirements impose an unconstitutional burden when applied to electioneering requirements because they are protected "political speech" and not subject to regulation as "campaign speech"? 3) If a communication lacks a clear plea to vote for or against a particular candidate, is it subject to regulation under the BCRA? 4) Should a feature length documentary about a candidate for political office be treated like the advertisements at issue in McConnell and therefore be subject to regulation under the BCRA?

Marbury v Madison Questions

1, Do the plaintiffs have a right to receive their commissions? 2. Can they sue for their commissions in court? 3. Does the Supreme Court have the authority to order the delivery of their commissions?

McCullough v Maryland Questions

1. Did Congress have the authority to establish the bank? 2. Did the Maryland law unconstitutionally interfere with congressional powers?