stud
bud
Sign up
Log in
Home
Library
Explore
SAT
More
APGOV Court Cases 2017/2018 Flashcards | StudBud
Explore
/
APGOV Court Cases 2017/2018
APGOV Court Cases 2017/2018
41 terms
·
StudBud Administration
·
40 plays
APGOV Court Cases #APGOV #COURTCASES
Flashcards
41 cards
F
Practice quiz
P
Host live
L
Questions
41
Answers
1
Japanese internment was consitutional
Korematsu v. United States (1944)
Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)
Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
Citizens United v. FEC (2010)
2
Loving v. Virginia (1967)
Allowed for Gay couples to get married
Allowed for straight couples to get married
Allowed for Inter-racial couples to get married
Allowed for curvy couples to get married
3
Gitlow v. US (1925)
Est. Lemon Test
Est. the Separate but Equal Doctrine
Applied Freedom of Speech to the states
Est. Clear and Present Danger test
4
Giswold v. Connecticut (1965)
Allows Japanese to be interned
Allows for the cutting down of Christmas trees in Nat'l frst
Allows inter-racial marriage
Stuck down laws preventing the use of contraceptives
5
Establishes the Federal Courts ability to review the constitutionality of electoral districts
Near v. Minnesota (1931)
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Baker v. Carr (1962)
NY Times v. Sulliavan (1964)
6
Extends the Exclusionary Rule to the states
Baker v. Carr (1962)
NY Times v. Sulliavan (1964)
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Near v. Minnesota (1931)
7
For Libel to be proven for a public official, Actual Malice must be proven to exist
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
NY Times v. Sullivan (1964)
Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
NY Times v. US (1971)
8
Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
McCulloch v Maryland (1819)
Schenck v. United States (1919)
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
9
Amish kids don't have to go to school past the 8th grade
Schenck v. United States (1919)
Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
Loving v. Virginia (1967)
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)
10
Which of the following IS NOT part of the 3-part Lemon Test
Goal of law must not be to help or hinder religion
Law must not result in "excessive government entanglement"
Law must not help or hinder religion
Law must have a secular purpose
11
Quotas cannot be used for college admissions, but race can be considered
Miller v. California (1973)
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989)
Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
Regents UC v. Bakke (1978)
12
Narrowing of Roe v. Wade; states can place reasonable limits on abortions...
Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
Miller v. California (1973)
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989)
Roe v. Wade (1973)
13
Florida SC recount scheme was unconstitutional since votes would be treated differently
Miller v. California (1973)
Regents UC v. Bakke (1978)
Bush v. Gore (2000)
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989)
14
Just compensation under Eminent Domain is applied to the states
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
Chicago, B&O v. Chicago (1897)
DeJong v. Oregon (1937)
15
Bigamy is a Bigadon't - Supreme Court upholds Anti-bigamy law since it doesn't outlaw belief
Loving v. Virginia (1967)
Wolf v. Colorado (1949)
Reyolds v. US (1879)
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
16
Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)
Est that the "s" in Des & Moines would be silent
????
Est. Technical ed. at public schools so kids could "tinker"
Est. that stdnts didn't shed constitutional rights at school
17
Law outlawing homosexuality is illegal
Bush v. Gore (2000)
Obergefell v Hodges (2015)
Miller v. California (1973)
Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
18
Est. National Supremacy
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940)
Barron v. Baltimore ((1833)
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
19
US v. Lopez (1995)
Law barring George Lopez from late night TV upheld
Federal law limiting guns near schools exceeded commerce cl.
Allows Japanese to be interned
Allows inter-racial marriage
20
Schools need not tolerate student speech that's inconsistent with its basic educational mission
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1987)
US v. Nixon (1974)
Miller v. California (1973)
Bush v. Gore (2000)
21
Roe v. Wade (1973)
Est. the establishment clause
Est. right to an abortion
Est. Executive Privileage
Est. right to privacy
22
Eminent Domain - Bill of Rights only applies to Federal Law
Barron v. Baltimore (1833)
Barron v. Baltimore ((1833)
DeJong v. Oregon (1937)
Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940)
23
Applies the 6th Amendment to the states (right to counsel if you can't afford it)
Near v. Minnesota (1931)
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
NY Times v. Sulliavan (1964)
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
24
Est. that everyone's vote should roughly be equal
Near v. Minnesota (1931)
Baker v. Carr (1962)
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
NY Times v. Sulliavan (1964)
25
Established the 3 part Lemon test
Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940)
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
Near v. Minnesota (1931)
26
Suspect must be made aware of rights before questioning
Near v. Minnesota (1931)
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US (1964)
Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940)
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
27
School sponsored prayer, even if voluntary, is unconstitutional
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Baker v. Carr (1962)
Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
Engel v. Vitale (1962)
28
Limits Prior Restraints put on the press; Gov't must prove Actual Harm
Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
NY Times v. Sullivan (1964)
NY Times v. US (1971)
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
29
Which IS NOT part of the 3-part Obscenity test...
Is defined as obscene by Federal law
Seen as appealing to the Prurient interests of the Community
contains patently sexual conduct as described by state law
lacks literary, scientific, political, scientific value
30
Plessy v. Ferguson established.
the separate but equal doctrine
integrated schools
japanese internment
outlawed bigamy
31
Establishes Judicial Review
Schenck v. United States (1919)
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
McCulloch v Maryland (1819)
32
Koremantsu v. US (1944)
outlawed bigamy
japanese internment
integrated schools
the separate but equal doctrine
33
Texas v. Johnson (1989)
Allows Japanese to be interned
"Everything is Bigger in Texas" upheld as constitutional
Flag burning in Constitutional
Allows inter-racial marriage
34
Est. 3-part test for Obscenity
Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
NY Times v. Sullivan (1964)
Miller v. California (1973)
35
Corporations can now spend unlimited funds on Independent Expenditures
Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)
Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
Citizens United v. FEC (2010)
Bush v. Gore (2000)
36
Establishes Clear and Present Danger test for Freedom of Speech
Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
Loving v. Virginia (1967)
Bush v. Gore (2000)
Schenck v. United States (1919)
37
Unlimited Independent Expenditures in elections are tantamount to Freedom of Speech
Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
Schenck v. United States (1919)
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)
Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
38
Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)
Allowed for curvy couples to get married
Allowed for Gay couples to get married
Allowed for straight couples to get married
Allowed for Inter-racial couples to get married
39
Cannot segregate in places of Public Accomodation
Motel 6 v. Johnson (1962)
NY Times v. Sulliavan (1964)
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US (1964)
Near v. Minnesota (1931)
40
Justices state that the Power to Tax was the Power to Destroy
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Barron v. Baltimore ((1833)
Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940)
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
41
Near v. Minnesota (1931)...
Prior Restraint is unconstitutional under the 1st amendment
Est. Rational Basis test
Est. Separate but Equal
Est. that Minn. is actually far from Miss. Not near as adv..
