Civil Liberties,rights

noelclarks's version from 2015-12-16 02:36

Section 1

Question Answer
Civil Liberties legal and constitutional rights that protect people from gov actions
Civil Rights polices designed to protect people against arbitrary or discriminatory treatment by gov and individuals
Barron v Baltimore freedoms guranteed by the bill of rights didnt restrict state gov
14th amendment due process clause/equal protection
Gitlow v New York Freedom of Speech
Incorporation Doctrine 14th amendment incorporates rights in bill of rights/makes them applicable to the states

Section 2

Question Answer
Wholesale Incorporation All Bills of Rights are fundamental/some support but neve become law
Selective Incorporation Courts proceed on a case by case bases to determine which rights are fundamental rights
Freedom of religion fundamental guranteesestablishment(gov can't establish religions) and free exercise(gov can't interfere with practicing of religion)
Engel v Vitalestate sponsored school prayer unconstitutional
Lemon v Kurtzmar state aid to church schools must have secualr purpose/not foster excessive entanglement eith religion

Section 3

Question Answer
Zelman v Simmons-Harrisvouchers ok for private schools
Reynolds v USpolygamy religious duty/religion can't make an act that would be illegal legal/gov can't ban what person believes
Employment Division v Smith as long as a law doesn't single out religion, the law may apply to conduct even if religiously inspired
Religious Freedom Restoration Act law said gov must show a competing interest and narrow tailoring to ban religious practices
Free Speech and press fully incorporated by 14th amendment.

Section 4

Question Answer
Hugo Black believed in abosolute right of free speech/congress can never make a law curtailing it
Oliver Holmes believed in a qualifies right of free speech/speech can be limited if the costs outweight the benefit
Prior Restraint gov can never prevent you from speaking
Near v Minnesota punishment is to be perfreed over restraint
New York Times v USTimes allowed to publish stolen, secret documents regarding the Vietnam war

Section 5

Question Answer
Rationale of speech better to punish unprotected than censor protected speech
Schak v USgov could limit speech that constitutes a clear and present danger to substantive evil, congress can prevent
Brandenburg v Ohio abandoned the balancing tell/said speech must be directed toward inciting or producing imminent lawless action and be likely to produce such action
Watts v USa threat in a hypothtical way is protected speech
NAACP v Clairborne Hardware speech didn't violate Watts or Brandenburg/is protected speech

Section 6

Question Answer
Libel delievering info that attacks a persons rep
Slander spoken attacks on person
New York Times v Sullivanmust be both made with reckless disregard for the truth and with actual malice
Roth v USobscenity not protected speech
Miller v California offensive material defined specifically by law
Symbolic Speechactions intended to communicate ideas that are entitled to first amendment protection
Commercial Speech not protected at all/can be regulated

Section 7

Question Answer
Fighting words must eitherinflict immediate injury or tend to incite an immediate breech of the peace
RAV v City of St Paul can not ban speech directed against certain groups or about certain subjects
Trial Coverage very difficult to ban the coverage of a trial although in some cases broadcasts of it is forbidden
privacy news can report private details if they are newsworthy
Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches/seizures
exclusionary rule evidence obtained which violates the 4th amendment must be excluded at trial

Section 8

Question Answer
Mapp v Ohio incorporated both Fourth Amendmenr/exclusionary rule
5th Amendment no person is forced to be a witness against himself
Miranda v Arizona police must inform criminal suspects of their constitutional rights b/f questioning them after arrest
6th amendment right to have a fair trial
8th amendment cruel and unusual punishment
McCleskey v Kemp no equal protection violated because it can not be shown juries or prosecutors attempt to apply it unequally

Section 9

Question Answer
2nd amendment right to bear arms
DC v HEller it ok to posses a firearm unconnected with service/use for lawful purposes
US v Miller govs can place reasonable restrictiona on weapons as to their typr/use
Webster v Reproductive Health Service states can prevent their employers from performing abortions