TEST 4

Stare Decisis - Precedent

"to stand by things decided." The courts depend on past prevents to determine new controversies

Writ of Certiorari / Appeal / Habeas Corpus

A type of writ, meant for rare use, by which an appellate court decides to review a case at its discretion. The word certiorari comes from Law Latin and means "to be more fully informed." A writ of certiorari orders a lower court to deliver its record in a case so that the higher court may review it. The U.S. Supreme Court uses certiorari to select most of the cases it hears. The writ of certiorari is a common law writ, which may be abrogated or controlled entirely by statute or court rules. // apply to a higher court for a reversal of the decision of a lower court. // Defendants who want to challenge the legality of their imprisonment—or the conditions in which they are being imprisoned—may seek help from a court by filing an application or petition for a "writ of habeas corpus."

Writ Habeas Corpus

A writ of habeas corpus (which literally means to "produce the body") is a court order to a person or agency holding someone in custody (such as a warden) to deliver the imprisoned individual to the court issuing the order and to show a valid reason for that person's detention. A habeas petition proceeds as a civil action against the State agent (usually a warden) who holds the defendant in custody. It can also be used to examine any extradition processes used, the amount of bail, and the jurisdiction of the court.

Brown v. Board of Education 1954

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students to be unconstitutional. The decision effectively overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson decision of 1896, which allowed state-sponsored segregation, insofar as it applied to public education. Handed down on May 17, 1954, the Warren Court's unanimous (9-0) decision stated that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." As a result, de jure racial segregation was ruled a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. This ruling paved the way for integration and was a major victory of the Civil Rights Movement,[1] and a model for many future impact litigation cases.[2] However, the decision's fourteen pages did not spell out any sort of method for ending racial segregation in schools, and the Court's second decision in Brown II only ordered states to desegregate "with all deliberate speed".

Constitutional Law

Constitutional law is a body of law which defines the role, powers, and structure of different entities within a state, namely, the executive, the parliament or legislature, and the judiciary; as well as the basic rights of citizens and, in federal countries such as the United States and Canada, the relationship between the central government and state, provincial, or territorial governments.

Criminal / Civil Law

Criminal law deals with offenses against the public, society, or the state—even if the immediate victim is an individual. Examples are murder, assault, theft,and drunken driving. Civil law deals with behavior that constitutes an injury to an individual or other private party, such as a corporation.

Statutory Law

Statutory law or statute law is written law set down by a body of legislature or by a singular legislator (in the case of absolute monarchy).[1] This is as opposed to oral or customary law; or regulatory law promulgated by the executive or common law of the judiciary. Statutes may originate with national, state legislatures or local municipalities.

Taft-Hartley Act 1947 aka Labor Management Relations Act of 1947

Designed to amend much of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (the Wagner Act) and discontinued parts of the Federal Anti-Injunction Act of 1932. Hartley Act provides for the following: It allows the president to appoint a board of inquiry to investigate union disputes when he believes a strike would endanger national health or safety, and obtain an 80-day injunction to stop the continuation of a strike. It declares all closed shops illegal. It permits union shops only after a majority of the employees vote for them. It forbids jurisdictional strikes and secondary boycotts. It ends the check-off system whereby the employer collects union dues. It forbids unions from contributing to political campaigns. act also required union leaders to take an oath stating that they were not communists.

Symbolic Speech

Symbolic speech is a legal term in United States law used to describe actions that purposefully and discernibly convey a particular message or statement to those viewing it. Classic case of burning a flag

527 Organizations

A 527-organization or 527 group is a type of U.S. tax-exempt organization organized under Section 527 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. § 527). A 527 group is created primarily to influence the selection, nomination, election, appointment or defeat of candidates to federal, state or local public office. Technically, almost all political committees, including state, local, and federal candidate committees, traditional political action committees, "Super PACs", and political parties are "527s." However, in common practice the term is usually applied only to such organizations that are not regulated under state or federal campaign finance laws because they do not "expressly advocate" for the election or defeat of a candidate or party.

Suspect Classification - Jim Crow Laws

A class of individuals that have been historically subject to discrimination. Any statute that makes a distinction between individuals based on any of the suspect classifications (ie. alienage, race) will be subject to a strict scrutiny standard of review before the Supreme Court. Jim Crow laws were state and local laws that enforced racial segregation in the Southern United States.

Tort Law

A tort is an act or omission that gives rise to injury or harm to another and amounts to a civil wrong for which courts impose liability. In the context of torts, "injury" describes the invasion of any legal right, whereas "harm" describes a loss or detriment in fact that an individual suffers. hypothetical injury and risk is not strong enough ground to sue f

Liability Revolution / Tort Law Explosion

In recent years Civil cases have become far more common people injured due to the fault of someone else may be able to make a ton money due to liability cases Tort Law: A tort, in common law jurisdictions, is a civil wrong that causes someone else to suffer loss or harm resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act.

Affirmative Action - Gender Equity John Irving & Joanna Grossman

Affirmative action in the United States is a set of laws, policies, guidelines, and administrative practices "intended to end and correct the effects of a specific form of discrimination."[1] These include government-mandated, government-sanctioned, and voluntary private programs that tend to focus on access to education and employment, specifically granting special consideration to historically excluded groups such as racial minorities or women.[1][2] The impetus toward affirmative action is redressing the disadvantages[3][4][5][6][7] associated with past and present discrimination.[8] Further impetus is a desire to ensure public institutions, such as universities, hospitals, and police forces, are more representative of the populations they serve.[9] Gender equality, also known as sexual equality, is the state of equal ease of access to resources and opportunities regardless of gender, including economic participation and decision-making

Solicitor General - Donald Verrilli - *N.F. of Independent Business v. Sebelius 2012

Amid intense public interest, Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), which became effective March 23, 2010. The ACA sought to address the fact that millions of Americans had no health insurance, yet actively participated in the health care market, consuming health care services for which they did not pay. The plaintiffs argued that: (1) the individual mandate exceeded Congress' enumerated powers under the Commerce Clause; (2) the Medicaid expansions were unconstitutionally coercive; and (3) the employer mandate impermissibly interfered with state sovereignty. Question Is the suit brought by respondents to challenge the minimum coverage provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, 2 U.S.C. 7421(a)? Does Congress have power under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, specifically under the Commerce Clause or the Taxing and Spending Clause, to require most Americans to purchase health insurance? Is the individual mandate severable from the ACA? Did Congress exceed its enumerated powers and violate principles of federalism when it pressured States into accepting conditions that Congress could not impose directly by threatening to withhold all federal funding under Medicaid, the single largest grant-in-aid program? No; Yes, under the Taxing and Spending Clause; Unanswered; Yes. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., largely joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, authored the majority opinion. The Court reached the following conclusions: The justices unanimously agreed that the Anti-Injunction Act did not bar the suit. Congress did not intend that the payment for non-compliance with the Individual Mandate be a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, concluded that the Individual Mandate penalty is a tax for the purposes of the Constitution's Taxing and Spending Clause and is a valid exercise of Congressional authority. The payment is not so severe as to be coercive, is not limited to willful violations like fines for unlawful acts, and is collected by the Internal Revenue Service by normal means. As part of a jointly written dissenting opinion, Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito disagreed, arguing that because Congress characterized the payment as a penalty, to instead characterize it as a tax would amount to rewriting the Act. Chief Justice Roberts, with Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, concluded that the Individual Mandate was not a valid exercise of Congress' power to regulate commerce. The Commerce Clause allows Congress to regulate existing commercial activity, but not to compel individuals to participate in commerce. This would open a new realm of Congressional authority. Justice Ginsburg, as part of an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, joined by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan disagreed with this conclusion, arguing that the Chief Justice's distinction between economic "activity" and "Inactivity" is ill-defined and unsupported by either the Court's precedents or the text of the Constitution. Furthermore, even if the distinction were permissible, individuals who fail to purchase insurance nonetheless frequently participate in the healthcare marketplace, substantially impacting healthcare commerce, and may therefore be regulated by Congress. Justice Thomas, in a separate dissent, added that the "substantial effects test" has encouraged Congress to push the limits of its power. The majority did not address the serverability question after concluding that the Individual Mandate was constitutional. Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito argued that the Individual Mandate and Medicaid expansion are inserverable, and that the entirety of the ACA is therefore unconstitutional. The provisions of the Act, they argue, are "closely interrelated," with the two unconstitutional provisions serving as "pillars." Chief Justice Roberts, with Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, and Kagan, concluded that the Medicaid expansion provisions was unconstitutionally coercive as written. Congress does not have authority under the Spending Clause to threaten the states with complete loss of Federal funding of Medicaid, if the states refuse to comply with the expansion. Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor disagreed, arguing, "Congress' authority to condition the use of federal funds is not confined to spending programs as first launched. The legislature may, and often does, amend the law." Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, concluded that the remainder of the Medicaid expansion provision, without the unconstitutional threat to completely withdraw Medicaid funding, could stand as a valid exercise of Congress' power under the Spending Clause. Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito argued that the Court does not have the power to remedy the unconstitutional expansion as written. Such power should be vested exclusively in Congress.

(Independent Expenditures)

An independent expenditure, in elections in the United States, is a political campaign communication that expressly advocates for the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate that is not made in cooperation, consultation or concert with or at the request or suggestion of a candidate, candidate's authorized committee or political party.[1] If a candidate, his/her agent, his/her authorized committee, his/her party, or an "agent" for one of these groups becomes "materially involved", the expenditure is not independent.[2]

Issue Advocacy / Independent Expenditures

An independent expenditure, in elections in the United States, is a political campaign communication that expressly advocates for the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate that is not made in cooperation, consultation or concert with or at the request or suggestion of a candidate, candidate's authorized committee or political party.[1] If a candidate, his/her agent, his/her authorized committee, his/her party, or an "agent" for one of these groups becomes "materially involved", the expenditure is not independent.[2] q

Blue Slip - Judge William Thomas

Approval of presidential nomination Judge Thomas received his very quickly Gay, Black Judge

Hatch Act 1939-40 / 1993 Hatch Act Reforms

Are bureaucrats politically neutral? Hatch Act prohibits bureaucratic workers from running for political office, being actively involved in a campaign or any other political involvement Military, CIA, FBI, IRS all banned from nearly all political involvement minus voting and endorsing Clinton loosen these restraints, can now hold party position Cannot be politics into their agency or run for office while in the agency?

Administrative Discretion

Authority given by Congress to the federal bureaucracy to use reasonable judgement in implementing laws.

Duverger's Law

Book is Call "Political Parties" Two Party System versus Multi Party system Electoral system is the reason some nations develop into a two party system or a multiple party system Single member winning districts, winning take all - most likely to create a two party system US functions under a plurality for a mandate leads to ^ Systems based on proportional electoral system are more likely to have several parties (20% of the vote 20% of the seats) More fair system? Since even the votes that lose are represented

Buckley v. Valeo 1976 (PACs)

Buckley independent - This law violates the 1st Amendment's Congress has the power to limit the amount of money given but not the spending of money. Or one could uFacts of the case In the wake of the Watergate affair, Congress attempted to ferret out corruption in political campaigns by restricting financial contributions to candidates. Among other things, the law set limits on the amount of money an individual could contribute to a single campaign and it required reporting of contributions above a certain threshold amount. The Federal Election Commission was created to enforce the statute. Question Did the limits placed on electoral expenditures by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, and related provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech and association clauses? In this complicated case, the Court arrived at two important conclusions. First, it held that restrictions on individual contributions to political campaigns and candidates did not violate the First Amendment since the limitations of the FECA enhance the "integrity of our system of representative democracy" by guarding against unscrupulous practices. Second, the Court found that governmental restriction of independent expenditures in campaigns, the limitation on expenditures by candidates from their own personal or family resources, and the limitation on total campaign expenditures did violate the First Amendment. Since these practices do not necessarily enhance the potential for corruption that individual contributions to candidates do, the Court found that restricting them did not serve a government interest great enough to warrant a curtailment on free speech and association.se their own money

California Proposition 187

California Proposition 187 (also known as the Save Our State (SOS) initiative) was a 1994 ballot initiative to establish a state-run citizenship screening system and prohibit illegal aliens from using non-emergency health care, public education, and other services in the State of California. Not sure why this is relevant

Clear and Present Danger Test

Clear and present danger was a doctrine adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States to determine under what circumstances limits can be placed on First Amendment freedoms of speech, press, or assembly. Before the 20th century, most free speech issues involved prior restraint. Starting in the early 1900s, the Supreme Court began to consider cases in which persons were punished 'after' speaking or publishing. The primary legal test used in the United States to determine if speech could be criminalized was the bad tendency test.[1] Rooted in English common law, the test permitted speech to be outlawed if it had a tendency to harm public welfare.[ You can't shout fire in a crowded building or incite a riot

Common Law

Common law (also known as judicial precedent or judge-made law, or case law) is that body of law derived from judicial decisions of courts and similar tribunals.[1][2][3][4][5] The defining characteristic of "common law" is that it arises as precedent. In cases where the parties disagree on what the law is, a common law court looks to past precedential decisions of relevant courts, and synthesizes the principles of those past cases as applicable to the current facts. If a similar dispute has been resolved in the past, the court is usually bound to follow the reasoning used in the prior decision (a principle known as stare decisis).

Federalist No. 10

Concerned with how the vast number of factions would affect the democratic government Factions would try to manipulate governmental action and eventually lead to national damage since they represented specific interests 1st Amendment rights protects the right of association (the right to join a political party or other groups) Many people believe that Special Interest Groups are severely detrimental to the society Big Pharma pressure groups want to keep generic drugs expensive so that Big Pharma continues to make money Special Interest Groups for Auto Companies - persuaded the government to not require two airbags in a car (since foreign cars could produce air bags easily) The only way to protect the government from Factions was to prevent liberties and forcing people to have the same opinions Impossible and tyranius Cannot control factions without controlling liberty

Establishment Clause (Lemon Test)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Two clauses of the First Amendment concern the relationship of government to religion: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971),[1] was a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States. The court ruled in an 8-1[2] decision that Pennsylvania's Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act (represented through David Kurtzman) from 1968 was unconstitutional, violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The act allowed the Superintendent of Public Schools to reimburse private schools (mostly Catholic) for the salaries of teachers who taught in these private schools, from public textbooks and with public instructional materials. The decision also upheld a decision of the First Circuit, which had struck down the Rhode Island Salary Supplement Act providing state funds to supplement salaries at private elementary schools by 15%. As in Pennsylvania, most of these funds were spent on Catholic schools. In the textbook *find it

Cheif Justice (Rehnquist / Roberts)

Considered a conservative, Rehnquist favored a conception of federalism that emphasized the Tenth Amendment's reservation of powers to the states. Under this view of federalism, the court, for the first time since the 1930s, struck down an act of Congress as exceeding its power under the Commerce Clause. Though the Eleventh Amendment by its terms applies only to suits against a state by citizens of another state, the Rehnquist Court often extended this principle to suits by citizens against their own states. Rehnquist wrote the Court's opinion striking down the civil damages portion of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 as regulating conduct that does not have a significant direct effect on interstate commerce. Some commentators expected the Rehnquist Court to overrule several controversial decisions broadly interpreting the Bill of Rights Big Civil Rights, Gay Rights and Religious Rights guy

Administrative Procedures Act of 1946 - Federal Register

FEDERAL REGISTER Once a rule is established, ONE HAS A PERIOD OF NOTICE AND COMMENT Federal Register - the publication of the bureaucracies rules and intentions The Courts became involved and set a new precedent Google

Libel - Hustler Magazine Case

Facts of the case A lead story in the November 1983 issue of Hustler Magazine featured a "parody" of an advertisement, modeled after an actual ad campaign, claiming that Falwell, a Fundamentalist minister and political leader, had a drunken incestuous relationship with his mother in an outhouse. Falwell sued to recover damages for libel, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Falwell won a jury verdict on the emotional distress claim and was awarded a total of $150,000 in damages. Hustler Magazine appealed. Question Does the First Amendment's freedom of speech protection extend to the making of patently offensive statements about public figures, resulting perhaps in their suffering emotional distress? Conclusion First Amendment free speech guarantees protect parodies of public figures from being civilly liable for intentionally inflicted emotional distress. Yes. In a unanimous opinion the Court held that public figures, such as Jerry Falwell, may not recover for the intentional infliction of emotional distress without showing that the offending publication contained a false statement of fact which was made with "actual malice." The Court added that the interest of protecting free speech, under the First Amendment, surpassed the state's interest in protecting public figures from patently offensive speech, so long as such speech could not reasonably be construed to state actual facts about its subject.

Plyler v. Doe 1982

Facts of the case A revision to the Texas education laws in 1975 allowed the state to withhold from local school districts state funds for educating children of illegal aliens. This case was decided together with Texas v. Certain Named and Unnamed Alien Child. Question Did the law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Conclusion Sort: by seniority by ideology 5-4 DECISION Yes. The Court reasoned that illegal aliens and their children, though not citizens of the United States or Texas, are people "in any ordinary sense of the term" and, therefore, are afforded Fourteenth Amendment protections. Since the state law severely disadvantaged the children of illegal aliens, by denying them the right to an education, and because Texas could not prove that the regulation was needed to serve a "compelling state interest," the Court struck down the law.

Schenck v. United State 1919

Facts of the case During World War I, Schenck mailed circulars to draftees. The circulars suggested that the draft was a monstrous wrong motivated by the capitalist system. The circulars urged "Do not submit to intimidation" but advised only peaceful action such as petitioning to repeal the Conscription Act. Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act by attempting to cause insubordination in the military and to obstruct recruitment. Question Are Schenck's actions (words, expression) protected by the free speech clause of the First Amendment? Conclusion Sort: by seniority by ideology UNANIMOUS DECISION FOR UNITED STATES MAJORITY OPINION BY OLIVER W. HOLMES, JR. The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment does not shield advocacy urging conduct deemed unlawful under the Espionage Act Holmes, speaking for a unanimous Court, concluded that Schenck is not protected in this situation. The character of every act depends on the circumstances. "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." During wartime, utterances tolerable in peacetime can be punished.

Bush v. Gore 2000 (Justice Breyer)

Facts of the case Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, and concurrent with Vice President Al Gore's contest of the certification of Florida presidential election results, on December 8, 2000 the Florida Supreme Court ordered that the Circuit Court in Leon County tabulate by hand 9000 contested ballots from Miami-Dade County. It also ordered that every county in Florida must immediately begin manually recounting all "under-votes" (ballots which did not indicate a vote for president) because there were enough contested ballots to place the outcome of the election in doubt. Governor George Bush and his running mate, Richard Cheney, filed a request for review in the U.S. Supreme Court and sought an emergency petition for a stay of the Florida Supreme Court's decision. The U.S. Supreme Court granted review and issued the stay on December 9. It heard oral argument two days later. Question Did the Florida Supreme Court violate Article II Section 1 Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution by making new election law? Do standardless manual recounts violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Constitution? Conclusion DECISION FOR GEORGE W. BUSH PER CURIAM OPINION No other recount method could be decided and executed within the election time limit per 3 U.S.C. § 5. DECISION FOR GEORGE W. BUSH PER CURIAM OPINION Standardless manual recounts violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Noting that the Equal Protection clause guarantees individuals that their ballots cannot be devalued by "later arbitrary and disparate treatment," the per curiam opinion held 7-2 that the Florida Supreme Court's scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional. Even if the recount was fair in theory, it was unfair in practice. The record suggested that different standards were applied from ballot to ballot, precinct to precinct, and county to county. Because of those and other procedural difficulties, the court held, 5 to 4, that no constitutional recount could be fashioned in the time remaining (which was short because the Florida legislature wanted to take advantage of the "safe harbor" provided by 3 USC Section 5). Loathe to make broad precedents, the per curiam opinion limited its holding to the present case. Rehnquist (in a concurring opinion joined by Scalia and Thomas) argued that the recount scheme was also unconstitutional because the Florida Supreme Court's decision made new election law, which only the state legislature may do. Breyer and Souter (writing separately) agreed with the per curiam holding that the Florida Court's recount scheme violated the Equal Protection Clause, but they dissented with respect to the remedy, believing that a constitutional recount could be fashioned. Time is insubstantial when constitutional rights are at stake. Ginsburg and Stevens (writing separately) argued that for reasons of federalism, the Florida Supreme Court's decision ought to be respected. Moreover, the Florida decision was fundamentally right; the Constitution requires that every vote be counted.

Gitlow v. New York 1925

Facts of the case Gitlow, a socialist, was arrested for distributing copies of a "left-wing manifesto" that called for the establishment of socialism through strikes and class action of any form. Gitlow was convicted under a state criminal anarchy law, which punished advocating the overthrow of the government by force. At his trial, Gitlow argued that since there was no resulting action flowing from the manifesto's publication, the statute penalized utterences without propensity to incitement of concrete action. The New York courts had decided that anyone who advocated the doctrine of violent revolution violated the law. Question Is the New York law punishing advocacy to overthrow the government by force an unconstitutional violation of the free speech clause of the First Amendment? Conclusion UNANIMOUS DECISION FOR NEW YORK MAJORITY OPINION BY EDWARD T. SANFORD Freedoms of speech and press apply to to the states 7-2 DECISION FOR NEW YORK MAJORITY OPINION BY EDWARD T. SANFORD The Free Speech Clause does not shield Gitlow from the New York statute Threshold issue: Does the First Amendment apply to the states? Yes, by virtue of the liberty protected by due process that no state shall deny (14th Amendment). On the merits, a state may forbid both speech and publication if they have a tendency to result in action dangerous to public security, even though such utterances create no clear and present danger. The rationale of the majority has sometimes been called the "dangerous tendency" test. The legislature may decide that an entire class of speech is so dangerous that it should be prohibited. Those legislative decisions will be upheld if not unreasonable, and the defendant will be punished even if her speech created no danger at all.

McCutcheon v. FEC 2014

Facts of the case In 2002, Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), which established two sets of limits to campaign contributions. The base limit placed restrictions on how much money a contributor—defined broadly as individuals, partnerships, and other organizations—may give to specified categories of recipients. The aggregate limit restricted how much money an individual may donate in a two-year election cycle. The limits were periodically recalibrated to factor in inflation. Shaun McCutcheon is an Alabama resident who is eligible to vote. In the 2011-2012 election cycle, he donated to the Republican National Committee, other Republican committees, as well as individual candidates. He wished to donate more in amounts that would be permissible under the base limit but would violate the aggregate limit. McCutcheon and the other plaintiffs sued the Federal Election Commission, arguing that the aggregate limit violated the First Amendment by failing to serve a "cognizable government interest" and being prohibitively low. The district court held that the aggregate limit served government interests by preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption and was set at a reasonable limit. Question Is the two-year aggregate campaign contribution limit constitutional under the First Amendment? Conclusion No. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. delivered the opinion for the four-justice plurality. The plurality held that the aggregate limit did little to address the concerns that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was meant to address and at the same time limited participation in the democratic process. Because the aggregate limit fails to meet the stated objective of preventing corruption, it does not survive the "rigorous" standard of review laid out by previous precedent dealing with campaign contributions from a First Amendment perspective and is therefore unconstitutional. The aggregate limit also prevents a donor from contributing beyond a specific amount to more than a certain number of candidates, which may force him to choose which interests he can seek to advance in a given election. The plurality held that the collective interest in combating corruption can only be pursued as long as it does not unnecessarily curtail an individual's freedom of speech, and in this case the aggregate limit is not sufficiently closely tailored to accomplish this goal. The plurality also noted that there are many other means by which the government may fight election corruption without setting an aggregate limit on campaign contributions. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment in which he argued that the Court's decision in Buckley v. Valeo, a previous case dealing with limits on campaign contributions, should be overruled because it denigrates the core values of the First Amendment. Because the reasoning in Buckley v. Valeo could not sufficiently justify using a standard lower than strict scrutiny to examine limits on campaign contributions, Justice Thomas wrote that Buckley should be overruled and the BCRA should be subject to strict scrutiny. In his dissent, Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote that the plurality's opinion misconstrues the nature of competing constitutional issues and destroys campaign finance laws, which causes great harm to the democratic process. Justice Breyer argued that the plurality's opinion was based on a definition of corruption that is too narrow to be effective. He went on to state the reasoning that the aggregate limit is faulty is because there is no substantial mismatch between Congress' goal of combating corruption and the means established to achieve it. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and Justice Elena Kagan joined in the dissent.

New York Times v. United States 1971

Facts of the case 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. Question Did the Nixon administration's efforts to prevent the publication of what it termed "classified information" violate the First Amendment? Conclusion DECISION FOR NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY PER CURIAM OPINION 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.

Barron v. Baltimore 1833

Facts of the case John Barron was co-owner of a profitable wharf in the harbor of Baltimore. As the city developed and expanded, large amounts of sand accumulated in the harbor, depriving Barron of the deep waters which had been the key to his successful business. He sued the city to recover a portion of his financial losses. Question Does the Fifth Amendment deny the states as well as the national government the right to take private property for public use without justly compensating the property's owner? The provisions of the first eight amendments applied only to the national government, not to the states No. The Court announced its decision in this case without even hearing the arguments of the City of Baltimore. Writing for the unanimous Court, Chief Justice Marshall found that the limitations on government articulated in the Fifth Amendment were specifically intended to limit the powers of the national government. Citing the intent of the framers and the development of the Bill of Rights as an exclusive check on the government in Washington D.C., Marshall argued that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction in this case since the Fifth Amendment was not applicable to the states.

Obscenity - Miller v. California 1973

Facts of the case Miller, after conducting a mass mailing campaign to advertise the sale of "adult" material, was convicted of violating a California statute prohibiting the distribution of obscene material. Some unwilling recipients of Miller's brochures complained to the police, initiating the legal proceedings. Question Is the sale and distribution of obscene materials by mail protected under the First Amendment's freedom of speech guarantee? Conclusion Sort: by seniority by ideology 5-4 DECISION FOR MARVIN MILLER MAJORITY OPINION BY WARREN E. BURGER Obscene materials are not protected by the First Amendment, but the definition of "obscene material" is lessened. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that obscene materials did not enjoy First Amendment protection. The Court modified the test for obscenity established in Roth v. United States and Memoirs v. Massachusetts, holding that "[t]he basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest. . . (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." The Court rejected the "utterly without redeeming social value" test of the Memoirs decision.

Humphrey's Executor v. United States

Facts of the case President Hoover appointed, and the Senate confirmed, Humphrey as a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). In 1933, President Roosevelt asked for Humphrey's resignation since the latter was a conservative and had jurisdiction over many of Roosevelt's New Deal policies. When Humphrey refused to resign, Roosevelt fired him because of his policy positions. However, the FTC Act only allowed a president to remove a commissioner for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office." Since Humphrey died shortly after being dismissed, his executor sued to recover Humphrey's lost salary. Question Did section 1 of the Federal Trade Commission Act unconstitutionally interfere with the executive power of the President? Conclusion The unanimous Court found that the FTC Act was constitutional and that Humphrey's dismissal on policy grounds was unjustified. The Court reasoned that the Constitution had never given "illimitable power of removal" to the president. Justice Sutherland dismissed the government's main line of defense in this case which relied heavily on the Court's decision in Myers v. United States (1926). In that case the Court upheld the president's right to remove officers who were "units of the executive department." The FTC was different, argued Sutherland, because it was a body created by Congress to perform quasi-legislative and judicial functions. The Myers precedent, therefore, did not apply in this situation.

United States v. Steven 2010 (Justice Alito)

Facts of the case Robert Stevens was convicted under 18 U.S.C. Section 48 in a Pennsylvania federal district court for "knowingly selling depictions of animal cruelty with the intention of placing those depictions in interstate commerce for commercial gain." His conviction stems from an investigation into the selling of videos related to illegal dog fighting. Mr. Stevens appealed his conviction arguing that 18 U.S.C. Section 48, on its face, was unconstitutional because it violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit agreed with Mr. Stevens and reversed his conviction, holding unconstitutional 18 U.S.C. Section 48. The court reasoned that the dog fighting videos he sold were protected speech and that 18 U.S.C. Section 48 did not serve a compelling governmental interest. Question Is 18 U.S.C. Section 48, on its face, unconstitutional under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment? Yes. The Supreme Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 48 is substantially overbroad, and therefore invalid under the First Amendment. With Chief Justice John G. Roberts writing for the majority, the Court reasoned that depictions of animal cruelty are not categorically unprotected by the First Amendment. The Court further reasoned that because a "substantial number" of § 48's applications are unconstitutional, the law is overbroad and, thus, invalid. Justice Samuel A. Alito dissented. He disagreed with the majority opinion arguing that § 48 was not intended to suppress speech, but rather to "prevent horrific acts of animal cruelty." He was concerned that the majority holding will practically legalize the sale of such videos and spur the resumption of their production.

Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act of 1946 / Lobbying Disclosure Act 1995 / Open Government Act 2007

Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act of 1946 / Lobbying Disclosure Act 1995 / Open Government Act 2007 Influence Peddling Congress passed the FRL Act 1946 Have to register your name, employer and who you are lobbying for Need to submit financial records NOT TEETH, LOBBYIST DID NOT HAVE TO REGISTER Powerful lobbyist Jack Abramoff busted Lobbied on behalf of Native American tribes Find out they could put casinos on their land without government interference Congressman ____, was paid offed by Jack Abramoff Took Congressman Bob Ney to go play Golf at St. Andrews Lobbying on the Executive level is extraordinarily difficult. If you worked in the executive government you couldn't lobby for a year Lobbying Disclosure Act 1995 - Clinton Referred Must register with House and Senate Which house you are going to Lobby Must state who / what you represent Defined Lobbyist: if you spend 20% lobbying someone in the House or Senate or Executive Branch you are a lobbyist: One contract in 6 months you're a lobbyist. If you lobby for a foreign interest group : lawyers are no longer exempt Open Government Act 2007 Prohibits the gifting of trips or anything of this nature (food $50 or less) Very easy to get around Increases the civil penalty for corrupt with 5 years in prison Quarterly report on their effects to manipulate Congress Semi annual report on their spending on Political Campaign Lobbyist are heavily blamed for the current state of the government Lobbyist testify for and against certain issues They give capital to campaigns Give their reports / opinion to Congressmen and their aids Judicial Branch is much tougher to touch Justice will have to recuse himself from the case after meeting with a Lobbyist Influence the Courts by: 1. Try to provide legal assistance in a case that involves the interest of the group 2. If the interest of the group can ask permission of the court to add additional evidence. You can ask to participate in the case

Fighting Words / Hate Speech R.A.V. v. St. Paul 1992 / Hate Speech

Fighting words are written or spoken words intended to incite hatred or violence from their target. Specific definitions, freedoms, and limitations of fighting words vary by jurisdiction. No protect by First Amendment Facts of the case Several teenagers allegedly burned a crudely fashioned cross on a black family's lawn. The police charged one of the teens under a local bias-motivated criminal ordinance which prohibits the display of a symbol which "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender." The trial court dismissed this charge. The state supreme court reversed. R.A.V. appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Question Is the ordinance overly broad and impermissibly content-based in violation of the First Amendment free speech clause? Conclusion UNANIMOUS DECISION FOR R.A.V. MAJORITY OPINION BY ANTONIN SCALIA Yes. In a 9-to-0 vote, the justices held the ordinance invalid on its face because "it prohibits otherwise permitted speech solely on the basis of the subjects the speech addresses." The First Amendment prevents government from punishing speech and expressive conduct because it disapproves of the ideas expressed. Under the ordinance, for example, one could hold up a sign declaring all anti-semites are bastards but not that all Jews are bastards. Government has no authority "to license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow the Marquis of Queensbury Rules." Hate speech is speech which attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender. Not Protected if it insinuates violence

Federalist No. 70 - Hamilton plus 78?

Hamilton believed that a strong and high functioning bureaucracy The bureaucracy is involved in the execution of the law, it is the truest test of government's ability to function highly needed to get America to function "The executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and over of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence either the sword or the purse"

Hopwood et. al. v. Texas 1995, Fisher v. University of Texas (Austin) 2003

Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F.3d 932 (5th Cir. 1996), was the first successful legal challenge to a university's affirmative action policy in student admissions since Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978). In Hopwood, four white plaintiffs who had been rejected from University of Texas at Austin's School of Law challenged the institution's admissions policy on equal protection grounds and prevailed. After seven years as a precedent in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the Hopwood decision was abrogated by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003.[1] Facts of the case In 1997, the Texas legislature enacted a law requiring the University of Texas to admit all high school seniors who ranked in the top ten percent of their high school classes. After finding differences between the racial and ethnic makeup of the university's undergraduate population and the state's population, the University of Texas decided to modify its race-neutral admissions policy. The new policy continued to admit all in-state students who graduated in the top ten percent of their high school classes. For the remainder of the in-state freshman class the university would consider race as a factor in admission. Abigail N. Fisher, a Caucasian female, applied for undergraduate admission to the University of Texas in 2008. Fisher was not in the top ten percent of her class, so she competed for admission with other non-top ten percent in-state applicants. The University of Texas denied Fisher's application. Fisher filed suit against the university and other related defendants, claiming that the University of Texas' use of race as a consideration in admission decisions was in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The university argued that its use of race was a narrowly tailored means of pursuing greater diversity. The district court decided in favor of the University of Texas, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. Fisher appealed the appellate court's decision. Question Does the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permit the consideration of race in undergraduate admissions decisions? Conclusion Sort: by seniority by ideology 7-1 DECISION FOR ABIGAIL N. FISHER MAJORITY OPINION BY ANTHONY M. KENNEDY Yes, but only under a standard of strict judicial scrutiny. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy delivered the opinion for the 7-1 majority. The Supreme Court held that, in affirming the lower court's decision, the Court of Appeals did not hold the University's admission policies to a standard of strict scrutiny, so the judgment was incorrect. Based on previous judicial precedent in cases dealing with minority admissions, the Court has held that such cases are reviewable under the Fourteenth Amendment and that they must be reviewed under a standard of strict scrutiny to determine whether the policies are "precisely tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest." If the policy does not meet this standard, race may not be considered in the admissions process. The Court held that it was the duty of the reviewing court to "verify" that the University policy in question was necessary to achieve the benefits of diversity and that no race-neutral alternative would provide the same benefits. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts did not conduct a sufficient strict scrutiny examination in this case. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a concurring opinion in which he argued that the Constitution prohibits governmental discrimination on the basis of race. However, because this case did not ask the Court to overrule precedent that allowed universities to consider diversity a compelling interest that justified race-based admission policies, he joined the majority's opinion in full. In his separate concurrence, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that he joined the majority's opinion that the lower courts did not sufficiently apply strict scrutiny, but he also argued that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a state's use of race as a factor in higher education admissions. He further argued that there is nothing "necessary" about the benefits that flow from racial diversity in higher education, so there in no compelling state interest to promote it. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissenting opinion in which she argued that the University's admission policy treats race as merely one factor in the overall decision to admit a student, which is permissible under previous judicial precedent. She also argued that the Equal Protection Clause does not require that state universities be blind to the history of overt discrimination and that it is preferable that they explicitly include race as a factor in admission decisions rather than attempt to obfuscate its role.

U.S.A. Patriot Act 2001 / 2011 (roving wiretaps)

In United States law, a roving wiretap is a wiretap that follows the surveillance target. For instance, if a target attempts to defeat a regular wiretap by throwing away a phone and acquiring a new one, another surveillance order would usually need to be applied for to tap the new one. A "roving wiretap", once authorised, follows the target rather than a specific phone device, and would give the surveilling body permission to tap second and subsequent phones without applying for new surveillance orders. In the US, it is allowed under amendments made to Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (the "Wiretap Statute") in 1988 by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and was later expanded by section 604 of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999.[1][2] On May 26, 2011, the U.S. Senate voted to extend the provisions of the 2001 USA PATRIOT Act to search business records and allow for roving wiretaps.[3][4] The roving wiretap provision of the Patriot Act briefly expired on Jun 1, 2015, but was restored the next day by enactment of the USA Freedom Act.[5][6]

Federal Corrupt Practices Act 1925 / Teapot Dome

It remained the nation's primary law regulating campaign finance in federal elections until the passage of the Federal Election Campaign Act in 1971. Taft Original The Federal Corrupt Practices Act established campaign spending limits for political parties in House general elections. It was the first federal law to establish public disclosure of financial spending by political parties but not candidates by requiring the national committees of political parties to file post-election reports on their contributions to individual candidates and their own individual expenditures. However, it covered only single-state political parties and election committees, carried few penalties, and was rarely enforced. On February 28, 1925, the Act was revised and strengthened to extend its coverage to multi-state parties and election committees and to require financial disclosure reports to be made quarterly. Any contribution over $100 now had to be reported, and the Senate campaign spending limit was raised to $25,000. However, the stronger version failed to provide for adequate regulation of campaign finance. The law provided for no regulatory authority to establish the manner of reporting or its disclosure to the public, and it set no penalties for failure to comply. The law did not regulate total contributions, which encouraged parties and donors to set up multiple committees and make multiple donations, all under $100, to evade the law's limits. Enforcement was left up to Congress, which rarely acted. Teapot Dome: Oil Company gave leases to politics in a corrupt manner / synonym for political corruption

Judicial Conference / Judicial Council

Judicial Conference The Judicial Conference of the United States is the national policy-making body for the federal courts. The current name took effect when Congress enacted Section 331 of Title 28 of the United States Code. Before that, the body was known as the Conference of Senior Circuit Judges from its creation in 1922. The statute says the Judicial Conference will: Comprehensively survey business conditions in the courts of the United States; Plan assignments of judges to or from courts of appeals or district courts, where necessary; Submit suggestions to the various courts that promote uniform management procedures and the expeditious conduct of court business; Exercise authority provided in chapter 16 of title 28 United States Codes for the review of circuit council conduct and disability orders filed under that chapter; and Continuously study the operation and effect of the general rules of practice and procedure in the federal courts, as prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to law. // Circuit Judicial Councils At the regional level, a circuit judicial council in each geographic circuit oversees the administration of courts located in that circuit. The chief circuit judge serves as chair, while an equal number of other circuit and district judges comprise the judicial council. Judicial councils oversee certain aspects of appeals and district court operations. The council has broad authority with a statutory authorization to issue orders to promote accountability and "the effective and expeditious administration of justice within its circuit."

Judicial Activism / Judicial Self-Restraint - Justice Scalia / Justice Brennan / Irving Kaufman / Edwin Messe III

Judicial activism refers to judicial rulings that are suspected of being based on personal opinion, rather than on existing law. It is sometimes used as an antonym of judicial restraint.[1] The definition of judicial activism and the specific decisions that are activist are controversial political issues, particularly in the United States. The question of judicial activism is closely related to constitutional interpretation, statutory construction, and separation of powers. // Judicial Self-Restraint- jurist (judge or justice) who adheres to a philosophy of restraint can be characterized as one who believes that democracy has intrinsic, not just instrumental, value; that the judiciary is the least powerful of the three branches of government; and reveres the values of stability and predictability in lawmaking //

Lobbying - K Street

Lobbying - K Street Performing two functions One very concerned with Federal Regulations One change in regulation can dismantle a whole group / industry Improve conditions or destroy them Two very concerned when it come to Federal spending Trying to get a piece of the money One governmental contract can make a ton of money 10,000 confirmed lobbyist close to 50,000 lobbyist Spend in excess of billions of dollars persuade Public Policy Spends billions more to persuade the people Methods : they use the media locally, nationally, through the internet They meet with individual members of Congress, Executive Staff, etc Will provide a politician with the funds to run for government They come and testify against national committees Regulations of this process Read below

District Courts, Courts of Appeals

Lower federal courts established by Congress and can be technically removed by Congress U.S. District Courts. District courts resolve disputes by determining the facts and applying legal principles to decide who is right. Courts in which criminal and civil cases are ORIGINALLY tried Trial courts include the district judge who tries the case and a jury that decides the case. Magistrate judges assist district judges in preparing cases for trial. They may also conduct trials in misdemeanor cases. // There are 13 appellate courts that sit below the U.S. Supreme Court, and they are called the U.S. Courts of Appeals. The 94 federal judicial districts are organized into 12 regional circuits, each of which has a court of appeals. The appellate court's task is to determine whether or not the law was applied correctly in the trial court. Appeals courts consist of three judges and do not use a jury. circuit court of appeals - Courts with appellate jurisdiction

Bureaucracy

Never mentioned in the Constitution a quasi fourth branch of the government Techinacally under control of the Executive branch but it is so expansive that the executive has no chance to regulate everything. Who controls the Bureaucracy? No single power source presides over the bureaucracy the President has the most direct control but with over 5 million employees it is impossible to control the Congress has a good degree of power through appropriation power. Congress has the ability to establish new aspects of government but lacks to mandate on dismantling a branch Bureaucracy is the Administration of the Will of the People most involved on an individual level BMV, FDA Spends a large amount of the funds dedicated by Congress *They have a very strict set of rules and codes that often slow down the process to a crawl. Bad in times of crisis. Who are they? they are people who seek out these rare well paying jobs with good benefits in the past they were political appointees (spoils system) cronyism Currently they are hired under the merit system.

Political Parties / Pressure Groups

Only two major political parties BUT there are thousands of groups behind each main party Special Interest Groups Big Pharma pressure groups want to keep generic drugs expensive so that Big Pharma continues to make money Special Interest Groups for Auto Companies - persuaded the government to not require two airbags in a car (since foreign cars could produce air bags easily) PRESSURE GROUPS ARE PEOPLE THAT TRY TO SWAY THE GOVERNMENTAL POLICY AND DECISION MAKING IN EVERY BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT. Courts less affected, Congress receives the most focus Pressure Groups are individuals who represent a certain groups (such as Coal, Oil, Labor Unions, any big resources) that try to influence public policy Petro Interest Group focuses on Energy Reform and how it will affect the oil industry Work outside of the Government An organized attempt to influence governmental policy decisions without entering the official election Joining these groups are protected by 1st Amendment Political Party Versus Pressure Groups Purpose of PP Is to win and exercise political power Work both inside and outside the political structure Represent many goals Take responsibility for the overall out of the policy Purpose is to gain control Failures and Successes are blamed on the parties Proximity to Power : distinguishes a true political party from a minor party to a transidict power Most parties have no chance Political groups must have gained power or have a real chance of gaining power to considered real Political Party Rep. / Dems. are simply umbrella groups that align themselves in a certain way Lobbyist - how they influence political policy

Justice Scalia v. Justice Breyer

Originalist vs. believer in the Living Constitution

Political Question / Federal Question

Overview Federal courts will refuse to hear a case if they find that it presents a political question. This doctrine refers to the idea that an issue is so politically charged that federal courts, which are typically viewed as the apolitical branch of government, should not hear the issue. The doctrine is also referred to as the justiciability doctrine or the nonjusticiability doctrine. Applying the Doctrine The Court broadened this ruling in Baker v Carr (1962), when it held that federal courts should not hear cases which deal directly with issues that the Constitution makes the sole responsibility of the Executive Branch and/or the Legislative Branch. Further, the Supreme Court has chosen to apply the doctrine in more cases related to the Executive Branch than in cases related to the Legislative Branch. // federal question jurisdiction is the subject-matter jurisdiction of United States federal courts to hear a civil case because the plaintiff has alleged a violation of the United States Constitution, federal law, or a treaty to which the United States is a party. justiciable disputes - according to the Constitution they are to decide cases and controversies. and the Case must be litigated before he/she Does not intervene typically in cases of foreign policy, or against powers specifically given to the Executive or Legislative

Plessy v. Ferguson 1896

Plessy v. Ferguson, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court, on May 18, 1896, by a seven-to-one majority (one justice did not participate), advanced the controversial "separate but equal" doctrine for assessing the constitutionality of racial segregation laws. Plessy v. Ferguson was the first major inquiry into the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment's (1868) equal-protection clause, which prohibits the states from denying "equal protection of the laws" to any person within their jurisdictions. Although the majority opinion did not contain the phrase "separate but equal," it gave constitutional sanction to laws designed to achieve racial segregation by means of separate and supposedly equal public facilities and services for African Americans and whites. It served as a controlling judicial precedent until it was overturned by the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954).

Justice O'Connor & Justice Thomas - Affirmative Action

Pretty sure they strongly oppose each other or are supposed to

Pendleton Act 1883

Previously, bureaucratic jobs were given to friends, family members or given out as political favors recruitment / patronage system / spoil system after the height of cronyism Pres. Garfield was assassinated by one of the members of his campaign that was not given a job Changed to a merit system - take a test This effectively removed the spoils system This resulted in a more effective bureaucratic system and more properly represented the population (post affirmative action) Merit system is littered with strict rules and systems, adds a level of complexity

Prior Restraint

Prior restraint (also referred to as prior censorship[1] or pre-publication censorship) is censorship imposed, usually by a government, on expression that prohibits particular instances of expression. It is in contrast to censorship which establishes general subject matter restrictions and reviews a particular instance of expression only after the expression has taken place. In some countries (e.g., United States,[2] Argentina)[3] prior restraint by the government is forbidden, subject to certain exceptions, by a constitution. Prior restraint can be effected in a number of ways. For example, the exhibition of works of art or a movie may require a license from a government authority (sometimes referred to a classification board or censorship board) before it can be published, and the failure or refusal to grant a license is a form of censorship as is the revoking of a license.

Patronage System / Merit System

Prior to the 20th Century, when Politics were filled with corruption, Politicians would gift bureaucratic jobs to their friends, family and people promised political favors This lead to corruption and inefficiency. There were more people working than jobs needed. Garfield was assassinated over this. A man thought he deserved a job and a was denied it. He then shot Garfield

Proportional Representation (P.R.) - Winner Take All - Single Member DIstrict

Proportional representation (PR) characterizes electoral systems by which divisions in an electorate are reflected proportionately in the elected body. If n% of the electorate support a particular political party, then roughly n% of seats will be won by that party. // A single-member district or single-member constituency is an electoral district that returns one officeholder to a body with multiple members such as a legislature. This is also sometimes called single-winner voting or winner takes all.

California Proposition 209

Proposition 209 (also known as the California Civil Rights Initiative or CCRI) is a California ballot proposition which, upon approval in November 1996, amended the state constitution to prohibit state governmental institutions from considering race, sex, or ethnicity, specifically in the areas of public employment, public contracting, and public education. Modeled on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the California Civil Rights Initiative was authored by two California academics, Glynn Custred and Tom Wood. It was the first electoral test of affirmative action policies in America.

Gratz v. Bollinger 2003 / Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action 2014 (Sotomayor Dissents) - (Proposition 2)?? about live stock

Question Did the University of Michigan's use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Conclusion Sort: by seniority by ideology 6-3 DECISION FOR GRATZ MAJORITY OPINION BY WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST Yes. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist delivered the opinion for the 6-3 majority. The Court held that the OUA's policies were not sufficiently narrowly tailored to meet the strict scrutiny standard. Because the policy did not provide individual consideration, but rather resulted in the admission of nearly every applicant of "underrepresented minority" status, it was not narrowly tailored in the manner required by previous jurisprudence on the issue. Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 572 U.S. (2014), was a case before the United States Supreme Court questioning whether a state violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by enshrining a ban on race- and sex-based discrimination on public university admissions in its state constitution The case was argued on October 15, 2013 on appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit which had ruled in 2012 that the Michigan ban, approved by the state's voters in 2006, was unconstitutional.[4][5] The Sixth Circuit was reversed and the state ban upheld. The case did not result in a majority opinion; Justice Kennedy wrote a plurality opinion. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case, presumably because she had worked on the case during her time as United States Solicitor General.[2]

De jure / de facto segregation

Racial segregation, especially in public schools, that happens "by fact" rather than by legal requirement. For example, often the concentration of African-Americans in certain neighborhoods produces neighborhood schools that are predominantly black, or segregated in fact ( de facto ), although not by law ( de jure ). De jure segregation is separation enforced by law De facto segregation occurs when widespread individual preferences, sometimes backed up with private pressure, lead to separation

University of California Regents v. Bakke 1978 / Grutter v. Bollinger 2003

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, (/ˈbɑːkiː/) 438 U.S. 265 (1978) was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States. It upheld affirmative action, allowing race to be one of several factors in college admission policy. However, the court ruled that specific racial quotas, such as the 16 out of 100 seats set aside for minority students by the University of California, Davis School of Medicine, were impermissible. Medical School - 70 separate groups were involved on either side (NAACP or Bakke) Controversial case targeted against affirmative action Did not get into medical school bc 16 seats were reserved for minorities Lower standards with minority groups Attempted to define what is a minority Minority African Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans, Chicanos etc Was this prevention of white students a violation of the 14th amendment equal protection clause Definition of a minority is problematic Why did they create a school with only a 100 seats? US is not producing many medical professionals Lack of discrimination in the history of the school Ruling : Complex - the fixed quota was a violation of the Civil Rights and the 14th Amendment Set Precedent for Public Colleges and other places where government gives money

American Civil Liberties Union / Amicus Curiae

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a nonpartisan nonprofit organization[6][7] whose stated mission is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States."[8] It works through litigation and lobbying. The ACLU has over 1,000,000 members and an annual budget of over $100 million. Local affiliates of the ACLU are active in almost all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The ACLU provides legal assistance in cases when it considers civil liberties to be at risk. Legal support from the ACLU can take the form of direct legal representation or preparation of amicus curiae briefs expressing legal arguments when another law firm is already providing representation. // an impartial adviser, often voluntary, to a court of law in a particular case. "friend of the court"

Federal Elections Campaign Act 1971, 1974, 1979 (Soft Money)

The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA, Pub.L. 92-225, 86 Stat. 3, enacted February 7, 1972, 52 U.S.C. § 30101 et seq.) is the primary United States federal law regulating political campaign spending and fundraising. The law originally focused on increased disclosure of contributions for federal campaigns. The S. 382 legislation was passed by the 92nd U.S. Congressional session and signed by the 37th President of the United States Richard Nixon on February 7, 1972.[1] In 1974, the Act was amended to place legal limits on the campaign contributions and expenditures. The 1974 amendments also created the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The Act was amended again in 1976, in response to the provisions ruled unconstitutional by Buckley v. Valeo, including the structure of the FEC and the limits on campaign expenditures, and again in 1979 to allow parties to spend unlimited amounts of hard money on activities like increasing voter turnout and registration. In 1979, the FEC ruled that political parties could spend unregulated or "soft" money for non-federal administrative and party building activities. Later, this money was used for candidate-related issue ads, which led to a substantial increase in soft money contributions and expenditures in elections. This in turn led to passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 ("BCRA"), effective on January 1, 2003, banning soft money expenditure by parties. Some of the legal limits on giving of "hard money" were also changed by BCRA.

Free Exercise Clause

The Free Exercise Clause reserves the right of American citizens to accept any religious belief and engage in religious rituals. Free-exercise clauses of state constitutions which protected religious "[o]pinion, expression of opinion, and practice were all expressly protected" by the Free Exercise Clause.[1] The Clause protects not just religious beliefs but actions made on behalf of those beliefs. More importantly, the wording of state constitutions suggest that "free exercise envisions religiously compelled exemptions from at least some generally applicable laws."[2] The Free Exercise Clause not only protects religious belief and expression; it also seems to allow for violation of laws, as long as that violation is made for religious reasons. In the terms of economic theory, the Free Exercise Clause promotes a free religious market by precluding taxation of religious activities by minority sects.[3] But you can make a religion that smokes crack

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest federal court of the United States. Established pursuant to Article Three of the United States Constitution in 1789, it has ultimate (and largely discretionary) appellate jurisdiction over all federal courts and state court cases involving issues of federal law plus original jurisdiction over a small range of cases. In the legal system of the United States, the Supreme Court is generally the final interpreter of federal law including the United States Constitution, but it may act only within the context of a case, in which it has jurisdiction. The Court does not have power to decide political questions, and its enforcement arm is in the executive rather than judicial branch of government. According to federal statute, the Court normally consists of the Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Once appointed, justices have lifetime tenure unless they resign, retire, or are removed after impeachment (though no justice has ever been removed).

Department of Homeland Security

The United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is a cabinet department of the United States federal government with responsibilities in public security, roughly comparable to the interior or home ministries of other countries. Its stated missions involve anti-terrorism, border security, immigration and customs, cyber security, and disaster prevention and management.[3] It was created in response to the September 11 attacks, and is currently the youngest U.S. cabinet department. Under the Jurisdiction of the Executive

Department of Justice - Attorney General (Chief of Staff Kevin Ohlson WJ guy)

The United States Department of Justice (DOJ), also known as the Justice Department, is a federal executive department of the U.S. government, responsible for the enforcement of the law and administration of justice in the United States, equivalent to the justice or interior ministries of other countries. The department was formed in 1870 during the Ulysses S. Grant administration. In its early years, the DOJ vigorously prosecuted Ku Klux Klan members. The Department of Justice administers several federal law enforcement agencies including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). The department is responsible for investigating instances of financial fraud, representing the United States government in legal matters (such as in cases before the Supreme Court), and running the federal prison system.[3][4] The department is also responsible for reviewing the conduct of local law enforcement as directed by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.[5] The department is headed by the United States Attorney General, who is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate and is a member of the Cabinet. The current Attorney General is Jeff Sessions.

15 Intelligence Agencies

The United States Intelligence Community (IC)[1] is a federation of 16 separate United States government agencies that work separately and together to conduct intelligence activities to support the foreign relations and national security of the United States. Member organizations of the IC include intelligence agencies, military intelligence, and civilian intelligence and analysis offices within federal executive departments. The IC is headed by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), who reports to the President of the United States.

Senate Judiciary Committee / Bork - Thomas - Ginsburg - Breyer / Roberts / Meyers / Alito / Sotomayor / Kagan / Gorsuch

The United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, informally the Senate Judiciary Committee, is a standing committee of the United States Senate, of the United States Congress. The Judiciary Committee, with 20 members, is in charge of conducting hearings prior to the Senate votes on confirmation of federal judges (including Supreme Court justices) nominated by the President, as well as presidential appointments in the Department of Justice. In recent years, this role has made the committee increasingly a point of contention, with numerous party-line votes and standoffs over which judges should be approved. The committee also has a broad jurisdiction over matters relating to federal criminal law,[1] as well as human rights, immigration law, intellectual property rights, antitrust law, and Internet privacy. It is also Senate procedure that all proposed Constitutional Amendments pass through the Judiciary Committee. Bork got caught smoking dope and was deemed unfit for Supreme Court Need more

Judicial Review U.S. / European Constitutional Courts

The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution itself. The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803). Established by John Marshall - the power to interpret the Constitution

Content or Viewpoint - Neutrality

The central tenet of the First Amendment is that ideas may not be suppressed because they are unpopular, offensive, or even hateful. Government actions restricting or penalizing certain kinds of speech because of hostility to the ideas expressed are considered to constitute viewpoint-discrimination and are generally impermissible. For example, a public museum may not exclude art because of concern that it might offend some viewers' religious beliefs.

Iron Law Oligarchy / Iron Triangles

The iron law of oligarchy is a political theory, first developed by the German sociologist Robert Michels in his 1911 book, Political Parties.[1] It claims that rule by an elite, or oligarchy, is inevitable as an "iron law" within any democratic organization as part of the "tactical and technical necessities" of organization.[1] Michels' theory states that all complex organizations, regardless of how democratic they are when started, eventually develop into oligarchies. Michels observed that since no sufficiently large and complex organization can function purely as a direct democracy, power within an organization will always get delegated to individuals within that group, elected or otherwise. Using anecdotes from political parties and trade unions struggling to operate democratically to build his argument in 1911, Michels addressed the application of this law to representative democracy, and stated: "Who says organization, says oligarchy."[1] He went on to state that "Historical evolution mocks all the prophylactic measures that have been adopted for the prevention of oligarchy."[1] According to Michels all organizations eventually come to be run by a "leadership class", who often function as paid administrators, executives, spokespersons, political strategists, organizers, etc. for the organization. Far from being "servants of the masses" // In United States politics, the iron triangle comprises the policy-making relationship among the congressional committees, the bureaucracy, and interest groups.[1]

Original / Appellate Jurisdiction

The original jurisdiction of a court is the power to hear a case for the first time, as opposed to appellate jurisdiction, when a higher court has the power to review a lower court's decision. Only the Supreme Court has the power of both however Original is rarely used except in terms of State v. State issues and instances with Foreign diplomats These are often passed down to lower courts though

Justice Gorsuch - Blaine Amendment Case

The term Blaine Amendment refers to either a failed amendment to the U.S. Constitution or actual constitutional provisions in 38 of the 50 state constitutions in the United States that forbid direct government aid to educational institutions that have a religious affiliation. They were designed to prohibit aid to parochial schools, especially those operated by the Catholic Church in locations with large immigrant populations. Find out what Gorsuch thinks about this

Special Article III Courts / Military COurts and Terrorism / Boumediene v. Bush 2008

These are federal courts established by, or under Article III of the U.S. Constitution which states: 'The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.' The federal tribunals of the United States include both Article III tribunals (federal courts) as well as adjudicative entities which are classified as Article I or Article IV tribunals. Some of the latter entities are also formally denominated as courts, but they do not enjoy certain protections afforded to Article III courts. These tribunals are described in reference to the article of the federal Constitution from which the tribunal's authority stems. The use of the term "tribunal" in this context as a blanket term to encompass both courts and other adjudicative entities comes from section 8 of Article I of the Constitution, which expressly grants Congress the power to constitute tribunals inferior to the U.S. Supreme Court. set up by Congress to review agency decisions, military courts-martial appeal courts, ancillary courts with judges appointed by Article III appeals court judges, or administrative agencies and administrative law judges (ALJs). Should the Military Commissions Act of 2006 be interpreted to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over habeas petitions filed by foreign citizens detained at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba? If so, is the Military Commissions Act of 2006 a violation of the Suspension Clause of the Constitution? Are the detainees at Guantanamo Bay entitled to the protection of the Fifth Amendment right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law and of the Geneva Conventions? Can the detainees challenge the adequacy of judicial review provisions of the MCA before they have sought to invoke that review? A five-justice majority answered yes to each of these questions.

Civil Rights 1964 Title II, Title VI, Title VII

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination because of race, color, religion, or national origin in certain places of public accommodation, such as hotels, restaurants, and places of entertainment. The Department of Justice can bring a lawsuit under Title II when there is reason to believe that a person has engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination in violation of Title II. The Department can obtain injunctive, but not monetary, relief in such cases. Individuals can also file suit to enforce their rights under Title II and other federal and state statutes may also provide remedies for discrimination in places of public accommodation. // Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in any program or activity that receives Federal funds or other Federal financial assistance. Programs that receive Federal funds cannot distinguish among individuals on the basis of race, color or national origin, either directly or indirectly, in the types, quantity, quality or timeliness of program services, aids or benefits that they provide or the manner in which they provide them. This prohibition applies to intentional discrimination as well as to procedures, criteria or methods of administration that appear neutral but have a discriminatory effect on individuals because of their race, color, or national origin. // Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law that prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, and religion. It generally applies to employers with 15 or more employees, including federal, state, and local governments. Title VII also applies to private and public colleges and universities, employment agencies, and labor organizations.

Electoral College & Trump Election

Trump used the electoral college to win without a majority

McCain- Feingold Campaign Finance Reform - Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act 2002

Upheld in the Supreme Court Defined soft money, money not accounted for Limited policy ads to not showing 60 days become an election Nonprofits were allowed to participate - provide funding, whu Advocating ahs be stuck need more

Grand / Petit Juries/ Peremptory Challenges

When you think about a jury, what you are probably envisioning is also known as a petit jury. A petit jury is the jury of peers that a criminal defendant is guaranteed at trial by the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Felony trials require a jury of 12 people, all of whom must agree to convict. Return a "not guilty" verdict if all jurors agree the prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed the crime Return a verdict of "guilty" if all jurors agree the prosecution did prove that you committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt Result in a "hung jury" if jurors cannot reach a unanimous verdict, which results in a mistrial. The prosecution can recharge and retry you for the same crime if they so wish. // The grand jury, by contrast, is the usually larger charging body that determines whether or not there is probable cause that a suspect committed a crime following a person's arrest. The grand jury decides whether or not to issue a formal charge, or indictment, against a person for felony charges. Prosecutors have immense power in the grand jury setting and are the only side allowed to present evidence. For more facts about the vast powers of grand juries, click here ("Who decides whether or not I will be charged with a crime?") A grand jury will be between 12 and 23 people, 12 of whom must agree to charge the suspect. Unlike in the petit jury where each side gets a certain number of peremptory challenges to exclude jurors without cause, an individual does not have the right to have an attorney present at the grand jury because this right does not attach until you are officially charged.

Ex parte McCardle 1869 / Appellate Jurisdiction

William McCardle was arrested by federal authorities in 1867 for writing and publishing a series of editorials in his Mississippi newspaper. The editorials were sharply critical of Reconstruction. McCardle sought a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that the Reconstruction Acts under which he was arrested were unconstitutional. McCardle appealed to the Supreme Court under an 1867 congressional statute that conferred jurisdiction on appeal to the High Court. After hearing arguments in the case, but prior to announcing a decision, the Congress withdrew its 1867 act conferring jurisdiction. Question May the Congress withdraw jurisdiction from the High Court after that jurisdiction has been given? Conclusion The Court, speaking through Chase, validated congressional withdrawal of the Court's jurisdiction. The basis for this repeal was the exceptions clause of Article III Section 2. But Chase pointedly reminded his readers that the 1868 statute repealing jurisdiction "does not affect the jurisdiction which was previously exercised." Most appellate jurisdiction is legislatively created, and may consist of appeals by leave of the appellate court or by right

FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Live Inc. 2007

Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL), a nonprofit political advocacy corporation, ran three advertisements encouraging viewers to contact two U.S. Senators and tell them to oppose filibusters of judicial nominees Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) prohibits corporate funds from being used for certain political advertisements in the 60-day period prior to an election. They kept running them Is the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act's ban on the use of corporate treasury funds for political advertisements in the 60 days before an election unconstitutional as applied to advertisements that do not explicitly endorse or oppose a candidate? Yes. By a 5-4 vote the Court ruled that BCRA limitations on political advertising were unconstitutional as they applied to issue ads like WRTL's. Chief Justice John Roberts's majority opinion held that the ads were genuine issue ads, not express political advocacy or its functional equivalent (which Congress can concededly regulate). Such a test would be open-ended and burdensome, would lead to bizarre results, and would "unquestionably chill a substantial amount of political speech."

Adversary System

adversary system is a legal system used in the common law countries where two advocates represent their parties' case or position before an impartial person or group of people, usually a jury or judge, who attempt to determine the truth and pass judgment accordingly. based on the theory that arguing law will guarantee fairness - both sides will be heard without emotions being played with. Bc the courts must wait for two parties to come and debate the courts cannot decide to take on a case This system puts a strain on judiciary power

Susan B. Anthony / Justice O'Connor / Justice Ginsburg / Justice Sotomayor / Justice Kagan

believe the Constitution to be a living document (NOT Originalists)

Sedition

conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch

Bipartisan Campaign Reform (BCRA) 2002

he Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA, McCain-Feingold Act, Pub.L. 107-155, 116 Stat. 81, enacted March 27, 2002, H.R. 2356) is a United States federal law that amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974, which regulates the financing of political campaigns. Its chief sponsors were Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI) and John McCain (R-AZ). The law became effective on 6 November 2002, and the new legal limits became effective on January 1, 2003.[1] As noted in McConnell v. FEC, a United States Supreme Court ruling on the BCRA, the Act was designed to address two issues: The increased role of soft money in campaign financing, by prohibiting national political party committees from raising or spending any funds not subject to federal limits, even for state and local races or issue discussion; The proliferation of issue advocacy ads, by defining as "electioneering communications" broadcast ads that name a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general election, and prohibiting any such ad paid for by a corporation (including non-profit issue organizations such as Right to Life or the Environmental Defense Fund) or paid for by an unincorporated entity using any corporate or union general treasury funds. The decision in Citizens United v. FEC overturns this provision, but not the ban on foreign corporations or foreign nationals in decisions regarding political spending.[2] Although the legislation is known as "McCain-Feingold", the Senate version is not the bill that became law. Instead, the companion legislation, H.R. 2356—introduced by Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT), is the version that became law. Shays-Meehan was originally introduced as H.R. 380.[3]

Judicial Federalism - Habeas Corpus Review

judicial federalism is dependent on judicial review as well as other acts defining the judiciary's role in the U.S. government. A writ of habeas corpus is a challenge to the legality of a prisoner's detention and does not directly or necessarily entail an inquiry into the prisoner's guilt or innocence. After examining the reasons for confinement, the court that issued the writ may release the prisoner or remand the prisoner into custody. The "great writ of liberty," as it is often called, is a judicial remedy aimed at preventing the arbitrary use of executive power to imprison individuals without just cause.

Civil Service Reform Act 1978 / OPM / MSPB

reformed the civil service of the United States federal government, partly in response to the Watergate scandal. The Act abolished the U.S. Civil Service Commission and distributed its functions primarily among three new agencies: the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB)

Equity

the quality of being fair and impartial