lesson 8 !

c. Muray v. Curlett, 1963

A similar case to Abington School District v. Schempp, 1963 was arisen in Baltimore: Murray v. Curlett. Baltimore school required every day Bible reading. So as a parent of a Baltimore student, Madalyn Murray brought the suit. The decision was a little different because the lower court had found that Bible reading in public schools is constitutional.

b. The Courts of the District of Columbia

Congress has set up a judicial system for the nation's capital: Courts of the District of Columbia. Congress did so because the Constitution said "exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District... as may ... become the Seat of the Government of the United States." Both of the District Court and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia hear many local cases as well as those they try as constitutional courts. Additionally, there are also two local courts established just like the courts in the States, established by Congress: a superior court, which is the general trial court, and a court of appeals.

c. Courts of appeals

Created by Congress in 1971, the courts of appeals were established as "gatekeepers" to relieve the Supreme Court of much of the burden of hearing appeals from the district courts. The amount of appeals was so big that it was leaving the Supreme Court three years behind its docket. Today, there are 12 courts of appeals in the judicial system. The United States is divided into 12 judicial circuits, including the District of Columbia, with one court of appeals for each circuit.

a. Engel v. Vitale, 1962

A group of parents filed suit against The State Board of Regents of New York, arguing that it was violating the 1st Amendment rights. It was a result from it requiring the recitation of a 22-word nonsectarian prayer at the beginning of each school day. The Court found New York's action to be unconstitutional.

e. Lee v. Weismann, 1992

A public school in Rhode Island had a member of the clergy deliver a prayer at graduation ceremonies. The Court ruled that it violated the First Amendment's establishment clause, which generally prohibits the government from establishing, advancing, or giving favor to any religion.

d. Freedom of association

A right of association is included in the guarantees of freedom of assembly and petition. That is, those guarantees include the right to associate with others to promote political, economic, and other social issues. In one of the early right-to-associate case, the Supreme Court said "it is beyond doubt that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect" of the Constitution's guarantees of free expression. In the most recent case bearing on freedom of association, the Court rules that the Constitution's guarantee of freedom of association means that a State cannot force an organization to accept members when that action would contradict what the organization professes to believe.

e. Radio and television

Both radio and television broadcasting are subject to extensive federal regulation. The Supreme Court recognized "Of all forms of communication, it is broadcasting that has received the most limited 1st Amendment protection" as a proper exercise of the commerce power. This is because unlike newspapers and other printed media, radio and television use the public's property, the airwaves, to communicate their materials. They have no right to do so without the public's permission in the form of a proper license said the Court in National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 1943. The Court has regularly rejected the argument that the 1st Amendment prohibits such regulations. Rather it has said that regulation of this industry actually implements the constitutional guarantee.

b. Briefs

Briefs, usually running up to hundreds of pages, are written documents filed with the Court before oral arguments begin. These detailed statements support one side of a case, presenting arguments built largely on relevant facts and the citation of previous cases. Amicus curiae briefs are also received by the Court, which are filed by people that are not actually involved in the case; instead, the people are usually people who are interested in the outcome of the case. These briefs can only be filed with the permission of the Court.

a. Oral arguments

First thing the Supreme Court does when it accepts a case is to set a date on which the case will be heard. The Court operates in two-week cycles where they hear oral arguments of a number of cases for two weeks then take another two week to consider those cases and handle other Court business. The Supreme Court gather at 10am on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and, sometimes, Thursdays to hear the oral arguments. The lawyers are ones that make oral arguments with limitation of 30 minutes.

2. What is the difference between individual naturalization and collective naturalization

Individual naturalization is when an alien, a citizen or national of a foreign state living in the US, becomes an American citizen individually. On the other hand, collective naturalization is when an entire group becomes naturalized en masse. This is not the common type of naturalization but it happens most often when the United States has acquired new territory.

d. Stone v. Graham, 1980

Kentucky statue required school officials to post a copy of the Ten Commandments on a wall in classrooms. The Court ruled that such policy violated the First Amendment's establishment clause, which establishes a separation of church and state.

b. Abington School District v. Schempp, 1963

Reading from the Bible every day at school was required by a Pennsylvania State law. Some parents were opposed of the law and sought legal remedy. Court agreed with the parents saying that the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause both forbade States from engaging in religious activity.

1. Describe the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798

The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 was an act that gave the President the power to deport undesirable aliens and made "any false, scandalous and malicious" criticism of the government a crime. Initially, these laws were meant to stifle the opponents of President John Adams and the Federalists. However, the Acts were unconstitutional but it was never pointed out in the courts.

2. What is taken into consideration when a federal judge is appointed by the president

The Constitution declares that the President "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint... Judges of the supreme court..." When a federal judge is appointed by the president, a President applies the same sorts of political considerations to his judicial selections as he does to his other appointments. Most of federal judges are drawn from the ranks of leading attorneys, legal scholars and law school professors, and state court judges. Presidents usually look into their own party when making judicial appointments. The President also prefers people who agree with his own legal, political, economic, and social views.

2. Describe the importance of the Ninth Amendment

The Constitution establishes several guaranteed of individual rights. The importance of the Ninth Amendment is that it states that there are many more rights beyond those set out in the Constitution. Because the interpretation of the Amendment is open, the Supreme Court has found that there are a number of other rights "retained by the people" over the years. They include the guarantee that an aaccused person will not be tried on the basis of evidence unlawfully gained and the right of a woman to have an abortion without undue interference by government.

1. What is meant by "citizen by birth"

"Citizen by birth" means that a person is a citizen of the United States under either of two conditions: jus soli or jus sanguinis. Jus soil is the law of the soil; supported by the 14th Amendment, all people, who are born in the United States, including the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, are the citizens by birth. Jus sanguinis is the law of the blood. A child born abroad can become an American citizen at birth if the child was born to at least one parent who is a citizen, and who has at some time lived in the United States. This rule is not supported by the 14th Amendment, rather the Congress has included it as a part of American citizenship law since 1970s.

6. What do we mean by the term "undocumented aliens" and what problems are associated with them

"Undocumented aliens" are aliens who entered the United States illegally, as nonimmigrants, but overstayed their legal welcomes. Job availability is one of the problems that are associated with "undocumented aliens." Undocumented aliens are more willing to work for low wages and poor conditions than citizens or residents. Thus, employers preferred the illegal workers. This led to decrease in job availability for people who ARE legal to work.

d. Court of Veterans Appeals

Acting under its power to "constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court," Congress created the Court of Veterans Appeals in 1988 then revised its name to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in 1999. It is the newest court in the federal judiciary and is composed of a chief judge and up to six associate judges - all selected by the President and the consent of the Senate. The court has the power to hear appeals from the decisions of an administrative agency, the Board of Veterans Appeals in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Thus, the responsibility of this court is to hear cases in which individual claim that the VA has denied or otherwise mishandled valid claims for veterans' benefits. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is the court responsible of taking the appeals from the Veterans Claims.

a. Mapp v. Ohio, 1961

Admitting evidence gained by illegal searches was permitted by some States before Mapp trial. Mapp was raided by Cleveland police without warrant and the police found obscene materials. She appealed to the Court that the action violated 4th and 14th Amendment and the Court agreed. This relates to the 14th Amendment for it states "...nor Shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law..." Mapp's right to be at her own property was violated without due process of law (a warrant). Thus, the police had no rights to act on such behavior according to the Amendment.

e. United States Tax Court

As we all know, the power to tax of Congress is an important part of the Constitution. Under this given power, the Congress established the United States Tax Court in 1696. There are 19 judges - one being the chief judge - in the Tax Court. Each of the 19 judges are appointed by the President and the Senate and they are responsible of hearing civil but not criminal cases involving disputed over the application of tax laws. Most of its cases, then, are generated by the Internal Revenue Service and other Treasury Department agencies; their decisions may be appealed to the federal courts of appeals.

1. Explain the differences between civil liberties and civil rights using examples

Civil liberties are protections against the government while civil rights are positive acts of government that seek to make constitutional guarantee a reality for all people. Examples of civil liberties are freedom of religion, freedom of speech and press, and the guarantee of a fair trial. Examples of civil rights include the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religious, belief or national origin, set out in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

g. Commercial speech

Commercial speech, also referred as advertising, is speech for business purposes. It was first thought that the 1st and 14th Amendments did not protect such speech. However, the Supreme Court held unconstitutional a State law that prohibited the newspaper advertising of abortion services, in Bigelow v. Virginia. It is important to know that not all commercial speech is protected. Thus, government can and does prohibit false and misleading advertisements, and the advertising of illegal goods or services. Misleading and false advertisements are illegal. Moreover, the Supreme Court extended the ban to include chewing tobacco and snuff in 1986.

5. Define deportation in some detail

Deportation is a legal process in which aliens are legally required to leave the United States. One of the biggest differences between aliens and citizens is that aliens may be subjected to deportation. The Court ruled that deportation is an inherent power, arising out of the sovereignty of the United States, and deportation is not criminal punishment. Deportation may be resulted if alien entered the United States illegally or convicted any serious crime. Aliens may be deported if they illegally entered the United States illegally - which means they entered with false papers, sneak in by ship or plane, or slip across the border at night. Conviction of any serious crime, federal or State, leads to deportation. Because deportation is a civil, not a criminal, matter, several constitutional safeguards - such as bail and ex post facto laws - do not apply.

5. What is the significance of the Equal Access Act of 1984

Equal Access Act of 1984 declares that any public high school that receives federal funds, which almost all do, must allow student religious groups to meet in the school on the same terms that it sets for other student organizations. The Supreme Court found that the law does not violate the Establishment Clause when hearing the Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, 1990. There, several students had tried to form a Christian club but they had to fight the school board in federal courts to win their point. The significance of the Equal Access Act of 1984 is that while Congress finds school promoting religion unconstitutional, school preventing students' will to form religious group is also unconstitutional because it violates students' freedom of speech. This shows how important the written words are in Amendments. It could allow one thing but not allow another thing, though it may seem like similar incidents.

3. What does expatriation mean

Expatriation is the legal process by which a loss of citizenship occurs. Although it rarely happens, every American has the right to voluntarily abandon his or her citizenship. Furthermore, Congress does not have the power to take away one's citizenship for something one has done. However, naturalized citizens can lose their citizenship involuntarily if the court orders. The denaturalization process can only be applied if it has been shown that the person became a citizen by fraud or deception.

a. Obscenity

First, Congress passed laws to prevent the mailing of obscene matter in 1872. The current law, upheld by the Court in Rosh v. United States, 1957, excludes "every obscene, lewd, lascivious or filthy" piece of material from the mails. The Court rules that the law was a proper exercise of the postal power and so not prohibited by the 1st amendment. There is now a three-part test to determine if a material is obscene or not. A book, film, record or other piece of material is illegal if (1) "the average person applying contemporary community standards" finds that the work appeals to the prurient interest (2) "the work depicts or describes in a patently offensive way," and (3) "the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value." Thus, materials with adult-content cannot be mailed legally. Furthermore, the 1st and 14th amendments do not prevent a city from regulating the location of "adult entertainment establishments," said the Court. A city can decide to bar the location of adult book stores and such within 1,000 feat of a residential zone, church, park or school, and public libraries that are funded by the federal government must use filters to block their computer's access to pornographic sites on the Internet.

5. What is the exclusionary rule

How has the Supreme Court recently narrowed the rule? The exclusionary rule is a rule that forbids police using evidence gained as the result of an illegal act at the trial of the person from whom it was seized. This was a result from a confliction that if an evidence that was collected through unlawful search can be used in court, the 4th Amendment did not mean anything. The Court has narrowed the scope of the rule over the years majorly through four cases. In Nix v. Williams, the Court found an "inevitable discovery" exception to the rule, which means that the evidence can be used in court if that evidence would have turned up no matter what. In United States v. Leon, the Court found a "good faith" exception to the rule. Thus, if a police officer finds something because they thought they had a proper warrant but finds the warrant faulty later, the evidence can be used. In Arizona v. Evans, the Court held that the good faith exception applied in a case where evidence of a crime was seized by police who acted on the basis of a computer printout that later proved to be erroneous. In Maryland v. Garrison, the Court gave police room for "honest mistakes." There, it allowed the use of evidence seized in the mistaken search of an apartment in Baltimore.

e. Opinions (majority, concurring, dissenting)

If the Chief Justice is in the majority on a case, he assigns the writing of the Court's opinion. On the other hand, when he is in the minority, the assignment is handled by the senior associate justice on the majority rule. The Court's opinion is often called the majority opinion - it announces the final decision made by the Court of a case and its reasoning. One or more of the justices who agree with the decision may write a concurring opinion - to add or emphasize a point that was not made in the majority opinion; this could help the Supreme Court to modify its present stand in future cases. Dissenting opinions are often written by those justices who do not agree with the majority opinion. Though rarely, the Court does reverse itself.

6. What is the significance of Epperson v. Arkansas, 1968 and Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987

In Epperson v. Arkansas, 1968, the Court struck down a State law forbidding the teaching of the scientific theory of evolution. Similar law was also found unconstitutional in 1987 with the Edwards v. Aguillard case: Louisiana law provided that whenever teachers taught the theory of evolution, they also had to offer instruction in "creation science." This is significant because it shows that the Constitution "forbids alike the preference of a religious doctrine or the prohibition of theory which is deemed antagonistic to a particular dogma."

c. Confidentiality

Many reporters and news organizations strongly insist that they have the right to refuse to testify, the right to protect their sources. They argue that without this right they would not be able to assure confidentiality, which will limit their availability of information that is needed to keep the public informed. Both States and federal courts refused to agree with the news media argument. Thus, many reporters have gone to jail for disobeying the orders. For example in the case Branzburg v. Hayes, 1972, the Court held that reporters "like other citizens, [must] respond to relevant questions put to them in the course of a valid grand jury investigation or criminal trial." The Court also argued that if the media are to receive any special exemptions, they must come from Congress and State legislatures. Aa a result, some 30 States have passed the shield laws, which give reporters some protection against having to disclose their sources or reveal other confidential information in legal proceedings in those States.

3. How do cases reach the Supreme Court

Most of cases reach the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari, meaning "to be made more certain." It is an order to the lower court by the Court directing the lower court to send up the record in a given case for its review. Both of the parties can petition the Court to issue a writ. However, it is only granted on certain occasions - typically, when a petition raises some important constitutional question or a serious problem in the interpretation of a statute. When certiorari is denied, the decision made by the lower court stands for the case. It is important to remember that denial of cert is not a decision on the merits of a case. It simply means that four or more justices could not agree that the Supreme Court should review the case. Another way that a case can reach the Supreme Court is through certificate. This process is used when the lower court does not have an absolute answer about the procedure or the rule of law that should apply in a case. Most cases that reach the Court are from the highest State courts and the federal courts of appeal. Sometimes but rarely, cases from federal district courts and Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces reach the Supreme Court

b. Demonstrations on public property

Most of the Court's freedom of assembly cases involve organized demonstrations. Demonstrations are often held in public because it is the public the demonstrators want to reach; they are mostly held to protest something, which makes it inevitable to create some sort of conflict. Many times there is also a conflict with the normal use of streets or other public facilities and that the tension can sometimes rise to a serious level. As a result, the Supreme Court has often upheld laws that require advance notice and permits for demonstrations in public places. For example, in Cox v. New Hampshire, the Court unanimously approved a State law that required a license to hold a parade or other procession on a public street. Despite all this, there are still many questions that concern about right-to-demonstrate cases.

f. Symbolic speech (picketing)

People also communicate opinions by conduct, by the way they do a particular thing. Thus, a person can "say" something with a facial expression or a shrug of shoulder, or by carrying a sign or wearing an armband - this is known as symbolic speech. Picketing involves patrolling of a business site by workers who are on strike. Picketers attempt to inform the public of the controversy, and to persuade others not to deal with the firm involved. If this actions are peaceful, it is protected by the 1st and the 14th Amendments. The only ways that picketing can be restricted is if causes violence or if it is conducted for an illegal purpose, such as forcing someone to do something that is itself illegal.

8. According to your textbook, "The Supreme Court laid down the basic shape of the Free Exercise Clause in the first case it heard on the point, Reynolds v. United States, 1879" (p. 543). Explain this case and the impact of the Supreme Court's decision

Reynolds was a Mormon with two wives, which means he practiced polygamy. This practice was allowed by the teachings of his church but was prohibited by the federal law. Reynolds was convicted under the law so he appealed that the law violated his right to the free exercise of his religion. Despite his appeal, the Court disagreed saying that the 1st Amendment does not forbid Congress the power to punish those actions that are "violations of social duties or subversive of good order." This impact of the Supreme Court's decision is unbelievable because this decision has made the people to practice their religion within a limit. It shows that despite the freedom of religious practice, the Court and the US will stop someone if they think it is violating social duties.

e. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was created in 1982 by Congress. It was established to centralize and to speed up the handling of appeals in certain kinds of civil cases. What makes this appellate court different from 12 other federal courts of appeals is that it has a nationwide jurisdiction - it hears cases from all across the nation. The appeals from several different courts are heard by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has 12 judges; it sits in panels of three or more judges on each case and also may hear or rehear a case en banc. Appeals from the court may be taken to the Supreme Court if needed, but this rarely happens.

3. What is the Establishment Clause

The Establishment Clause is one of the two guarantees of religious freedom that was set out from the 1st and 14th Amendments. These guarantees prohibit an "establishment religion" by the Establishment Clause, which is a Clause that separates church and state.

4. What is the purpose of the Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment grew out of colonial practice. The purpose of the Fourth Amendment was to prevent the use of writs of assistance, which was the blanket search warrants with which British customs officials had invaded private homes to search for smuggled goods. While the 3rd Amendment's guarantee may vary, the 4th Amendment is different - it gives a highly important guarantee. The Constitution states that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effect, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

a. Time-place-manner regulations

The Government can make and enforce reasonable rules covering the time, place, and manner of assemblies. Thus, the Court upheld a city ordinance that prohibits making a noise or causing any other diversion near a school if that action disrupts school activities. However, this means that the rules for keeping the public peace must be more than reasonable. The Court cannot allow rules that are too vague and unreasonable. The Government rules must be content neutral. That is, while government can regulate assemblies on the basis of time, place and manner, it cannot regulate assemblies on the basis of what might be said there.

4. Describe the Immigration Acts of 1965 and 1990

The Immigration Acts of 1965 abolished an earlier quota system based on national origin and established a new immigration policy based on reuniting immigrant families and attracting skilled labor to the United States. The law allowed immigrants to enter the US each year, without regard to race, nationality or country of origin. Today, the Immigration Act of 1990 governs the admission of alien to the United States. The law provided for a substantial increase in the number of immigrants who may enter the United States each year. At least one third of those numbers must be the close relatives of American citizens or resident aliens.

d. Motion pictures

The Supreme Court took its first look at motion pictures early in the history of the movie industry. In 1915, in the case Mutual Film Corporation v. Ohio, the Court upheld a State law that barred the showing of any film that was not of a "moral, educational or harmless and amusing character." The Court, however, reversed itself in 1952 from the Burstyn v. Wilson case. It argued that the 1st and 14th amendments guarantees the liberty of expression by means of motion pictures.

d. Court of International Trade

The Trade Court was created in 1890 as the Board of United States General Appraisers. That body became the Court of Customs in 1926 then Congress restructured and renamed the court in 1980. There are 9 judges in the Court of International Trade, with one being its chief judge. Its job is to hear civil cases arising out of tariff and other trade-related laws. The judges of the Trade Court sit in panels of three and often hold trials at major ports. Appeals from decisions of the Trade Court are taken to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

a. District courts

The United States district courts are the federal trial courts. Today, there are 94 of district courts. The fifty States of the United States are divided into 89 federal judicial districts with each state forming at least one judicial district. To each district, at least two, often several, judges are assigned. There are also federal district courts for Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands.

a. United States Federal Claims Court:

The United States government cannot be sued by anyone, in any court, for any reason, without its consent. The only way that the government can be taken to court in when Congress declares that the US is open to suit. Before, a person with a claim against the United State could secure redress only by an act of Congress. Things changed in 1855, when Congress set up the Court of Claims, known as the United States Court of Federal Claims today, to hear such pleas. This court contains 16 judges that are selected by the President and the Senate. Their job is to hold trials for claims for damages against the Federal Government throughout the country. Claims they uphold cannot in fact be paid until Congress appropriates the money and appeals from the decisions can be carried to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In rare cases, people who lost in the Claims Court do win some compensation. However, again, it does not happen too often.

a. Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963

The background of the case started when a Florida court sentenced Clarence Earl Gideon five years in prison for he was guilty of breaking and entering. Gideon appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that he had been unconstitutionally denied counsel during his trial. The Court granted a new trial to Gideon and he was found not guilty. The "Gideon Rule" upheld the 6th Amendment's guarantee of counsel of all poor persons facing a felony, a further incorporation of Bill of Rights guaranteed into State constitution. Fourteenth Amendment is related because it states that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..." It relates to this case because Florida did not provide counsel because of its policy of only providing appointed counsel in capital cases; according to the 14th Amendment, the state Florida had no right to enforce such law.

2. Explain the significance of the case Schmerber v. California, 1966

The case Schmerber v. California, 1966 sets out a perfect example for due process. Rochin was a suspected narcotics dealer. When three Los Angeles County heard a tip, they went to his house and forced their way into his room. They found two capsules on a nightstand in his room. As soon as one of the deputies asked him whose stuff it was, Rochin swallowed the capsules. Then they took him to the hospital, pumped his stomach and found that the capsuled contained morphine. The State then prosecuted and convicted Rochin for violating the State's narcotics laws. However, the Supreme Court held that the deputies had violated the 14th Amendment's guarantee of procedural due process: their action of forcing into Rochin's house, jumping on Rochin and pumping Rochin's stomach. The significance of the case is that it provides a perfect example of one of the two types of due process: the procedural type. It also shows that the meaning of due process can really only be defined case-by-case.

1. The ultimate exercise of judicial review rests with the U.S. Supreme Court. This came about as a result of Marbury v. Madison, 1803. Describe the background behind this case

The case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803 resulted from the stormy election of 1800. Thomas Jefferson and his Democratic-Republicans had won the presidency and control of both houses of Congress. Angered by this result, the Federalists tried to pack the judiciary with loyal party members. Congress created several new federal judgeships in the early weeks of 1801; President John Adams quickly filled those posts with Federalists. William Marbury had been appointed a justice of the peace for the District of Columbia. On March 3, 1801, President Adams signed the commissions of office for Marbury and other new judges. When Jefferson became the President, he discovered that Marbury's commission and several others had not yet been delivered. Angered by the actions of Federalists, Jefferson told James Madison, the new secretary of state, not to deliver those commissions to the "midnight justices." William Marbury then went to the Supreme Court, seeking a writ of mandamus to force delivery. Marbury based his suit on a provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 - giving the Supreme Court the right to hear such suits in its original jurisdiction. The Court refused Marbury's request because it found the section of the judiciary act on which Marbury had based his case to be in conflict with the Constitution and, therefore, void.

b. Jurisdiction

The district courts have original jurisdiction over most cases that are heard in the federal courts, making the district courts the principle trial courts in the federal court system. The district courts hear a wide range of both criminal cases and civil cases. The district courts are the only federal courts that regularly use grand juries to indict defendants and petit juries to try defendants. Often, the decisions made in the district courts are final. However, some cases are appealed to the court of appeals in that judicial circuit or, in a few instances, directly to the Supreme Court.

1. What is meant by the term dual court system

The dual court system means that there two separate court systems in the United States. The national judiciary spans the country with its more than 120 courts. On the other hand, each of the 50 States has its own system of courts. The State courts are the ones that hear most of the cases in the United States.

b. Prior restraint

The government cannot place any prior restraint on spoken or written words. Except in the most extreme situations, the government cannot prevent ideas before they are expressed. In Near v. Minnesota, 1931 case, the Supreme Court struck down a State law that prohibited the publication of any "malicious, scandalous and defamatory" periodical. The Court ruled that the guarantee of a free press does not allow a prior restraint on publication, except in such extreme cases as wartime, or when a publication is obscene or incites violence. Also, in Pentagon Papers Case, New York Times v. United States, 1971, the government was trying to apply censorship to the Pentagon Papers because it was discussing about the "Viet Nam Policy." The documents were leaked to press; whatsoever, the court held that the government had not shown that printing the Pentagon Papers would endanger the nation's security. The Court has also said that public school officials have a broad power to censor school newspapers and plays.

4. Describe the functions of the officers who perform the administrative operations of the federal courts

The judges of each of the 94 district courts appoint one or more United States magistrates. The magistrates handle a number of legal matters once dealt with by the judges. They issue warrants of arrest and often hear evidence to decide whether or not a person who has been arrested on a federal charge should be held for action by grand jury. Additionally, they are also responsible of setting bail in federal criminal cases, and even have the power to try those who are charged with certain minor offenses. Each federal judicial district also has at least one bankruptcy judge. Their responsibility is to handle bankruptcy cases under the direction of the district court to which they are assigned. The President and the Senate appoint a United States attorney for each federal judicial district. The US attorneys and their deputies are the government's prosecutors; they also work closely with FBI and bring to trial those persons charged with federal crimes. Not only that, they represent the US in all civil actions brought by or against the government in their districts. A United States marshal is also chosen by the President and the Senate for each of the district courts. They perform duties like those of a county sheriff. They make arrests in federal criminal cases, hold accused persons in custody, secure jurors, serve legal papers and execute court orders and decisions. When emergency situation, such as riots or mob violence, arises, the US marshals respond.

d. Conference

The justices meet in conference on most Wednesdays and Fridays to consider the cases that they heard the oral arguments on. The Chief Justice speaks first on how he plans to vote then each associate justice follows with his or her views. The order are made in order of seniority, with the justice most recently named to the Court speaking last. After that, they debate on the case.

c. Right of assembly and private property

The rights of assembly and petition do not give people a right to trespass on private property, even if they wish to express political views. No one has a constitutional right to hold such assembly in privately owned shopping centers because they are not "places of public assembly." The Court, however, later held that a State supreme court may interpret the provisions of that State's constitution in such a way as to require the owners of shopping centers to allow the reasonable exercise of the right of petition on their private property.

7. What is the significance of the Free Exercise Clause

The second part of the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom is set out in the Constitution's Free Exercise Clause. Its significance lies in its guarantees to each person the right to believe whatever he or she chooses to believe in matters of religion. No law and no other action by any government can violate that absolute right of an individual; it is protected by the 1st and 14th Amendments. No person has an absolute right to act as he or she chooses, however. The Free Exercise Clause does not give anyone the right to violate criminal laws, offend public morals, or otherwise threaten the safety of the community.

c. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 1992

The significance of the Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 1992 is that the Court brought the most important decision on the issue of abortion since the Roe v. Wade , 1973 case. In the Planned Parenthood of Southern Pennsylvania v. Casey case, the Court announced that a State may place reasonable limits on a woman's right to have an abortion, but these restrictions cannot impose an "undue burden" on her choice of that procedure.

3. Please summarize the significance of the Thirteenth Amendment

The significance of the Thirteenth Amendment is that it ended over 200 years of slavery in this country. Laws concerning about slavery existed but each State could decide for itself until the Thirteenth Amendment - the Thirteenth Amendment denied that power to the States and the National Government. The 13th Amendment, however, it does not forbid all forms of involuntary servitude. Thus, in 1918, the Court drew a distinction between "involuntary servitude" and "duty" in upholding the constitutionality of the selective service system. Nor does imprisonment for crime violate the amendment. In the beginning, the Court held that racial discrimination against African Americans by private individuals did not place the "bad of slavery" on them. However, today, the 13th Amendment also gives the Congress significant power to attack "the badges and incidents of slavery," from whatever source they may come.

b. Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 1990

The significance of this court case is that it addressed the issue of minors and abortion. The Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 1990, brought the Court's judgement that a State may require a minor to inform at least one parent before she can obtain an abortion.

a. Roe v. Wade, 1973

The significance of this court case is that it gave a "guideline" that concerns about the extent that a State can limit a woman's right to an abortion. The Court ruled that: (1) in the first trimester of pregnancy, a State must recognize woman's right to an abortion and cannot interfere with medical judgments (2) in the second trimester, a State, acting in the interest of women who undergo abortions, can make reasonable regulations about how, when and where abortions can be performed, but cannot prohibit the procedure (3) In the final trimester, a State, acting to protect the unborn child, can choose to prohibit all abortions except those necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

c. Solicitor general

The solicitor general, a principal officer in the Department of Justice, is often called the Federal Government's chief lawyer. The solicitor general represents the United States in all cases to which it is party in the Supreme Court and may appear for the government for any federal State Court. Another responsibility given to the solicitor general is to decide which cases the government should ask the Supreme Court to review and what Position the United States should take.

3. Describe the terms and pay of judges. Be specific

There is no set term for judges because the Constitution says so: "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior..." This means that the judges of the constitutional courts are appointed for life unless they resign, retired or die while in office. However, they can be removed through the impeachment process. Unlike the judges of the constitutional courts, judges who sit in the special courts are not appointed for life. Those in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the U.S. Tax Court, and the U.S. Court Appeals for Veterans Claims serve 15-year terms. In the District of Columbia, Superior Court judges are appointed for four-year terms. Congress is responsible for setting the salaries of all federal judges; federal judges are also provided with a generous retirement arrangement. Once they reach the age of 70, they can retire any time after; if they have served for at least 10 years, they receive full salary for the rest of their lives. Alternatively, they may retire at full salary at age 65, after at least 15 years of service.

c. Court of Military Appeals

To exercise its power to "make Rule for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces", the Congress has created a system of military courts for each branch of the nation's armed force; these courts are called courts martial. They serve the special disciplinary needs of the armed for and are not a part of the federal court system. Their judges, prosecutors, defense attorney, and court reporters are all members of the military. They are responsible of having trials for those members of the military who are accused of violating military law - the processes of these courts are very similar to those of the civilian courts in the US. Finally, the Court of Military Appeals, known as the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces today, was created to review the more serious court-martial convictions of military personnel. This court is a civilian tribunal, which is a court operating as part of the judicial branch; thus, it is separated from the military establishment. This court includes five judges, of course, selected by the President and the Senate. Appeals from the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces can be taken to the Supreme Court as the court's last resort, but it rarely happens.

1. Fundamentally, the Constitution guarantees due process. What does this mean

Two clauses about due process is mentioned in the Constitution: the 5th Amendment and the 14th amendment. The 5th Amendment declares that the Federal Government cannot deprive any person of "life, liberty, or property without due process of law." The 14th Amendment places that same restriction on the States, and, very importantly on their local governments, as well. It is difficult to give a firm definition of due process because the Supreme Court refuses to give the exact definition of the phrase. Instead, it has relied on finding the meaning of due process on a case-by-case basis. There is a one guaranteed definition of the due process, however, the Court says this: In whatever it does, government must act fairly and in accord with established rules. It may not act unfairly, arbitrarily, capriciously or unreasonably.