POLS 2302 EXAM 2 WITH COMPLETE SOLUTION
Near v. Minneosta Answer - 1931 case in which Court disagreed with state
courts regarding censorship and ruled it unconstitutional except in rare cases.
Surpreme Court ruled that the government generally could not engage in prior
restraint (could not in advance prohibit someone from publishing something
wihtout a very compelling reason).
Mapp v. Ohio Answer - 1961 Supreme Court case in which the court decided
that evidence obtained without a warrant didn't fall under one of the
exceptions (e.g. the person consents to a search, there is reasonable
expectation that the evidence may be destroyed/tampered with before a
warrant can be issued, items in question are in plain view of government
officials, etc.) could not be used as eidence in a state criminal trial.
Gideon v. Wainwright Answer - 1963 case in which Supreme Court
unanimously ruled that anyone accused of a serious crime is entitled to the
assistance of a lawyer, even if they cannot afford one, as part of the general
due process right to a fair trial
NYT v. Sullivan Answer - 1964 case in which the Supreme Court decided that
public figures needed to demonstrate not only that a negative press statement
about them was untrue but also that the statement was published or made
with either malicious intent or "reckless disregard" for the truth.
,Griswold v. Connecticut Answer - 1965 case in which the court spelled out the
right to privacy by striking down a state law forbidding even married individuals
to use any form of contraception.
Miranda v. Arizona Answer - 1966 case in which Supreme Court ruled that
suspects were required to be informed of their most important rights, including
the right against self-incrimination, before being interrogated in police custody
Lemon v. Kurtzman Answer - 1971 case in which the Supreme court
established the Lemon test for deciding whether a law or other government
action that might promote a particular religious practice should be allowed to
stand.
Roe v. Wade Answer - 1973 case in which Supreme Court decided the right to
privacy encompassed a right for women to terminate a pregnancy, at least
under certain scenarios.
Miller test Answer - 1973 Supreme Court method for deciding whether
something is obscene.
Texas v. Johnson Answer - 1989 case in which the Supreme Court decided that
burning the flag was a form of symbolic speech protected by the First
Amendment and found the law, as applied to flag desecration, to be
unconstitutional.
Employment Division v. Smith Answer - 1990 case in which Supreme Court
made a controversial decision to narrow the Sherbert test. Also known as "the
peyote case," the Court ruled that the "compelling government interest"
standard should not apply; instead, so long as the law was not designed to
target a person's religious beliefs in particular, it was not up to the courts to
decide that those beliefs were more important than the law in question.
, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of
the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances." Answer - 1st Amendment
Kelo v. City of New London Answer - 2005 case in which Supreme Court sided
with municipal officials taking homes in a middle-class neighborhood to obtain
land for a large pharmaceutical company's corporate campus
District of Columbia v. Heller Answer - 2008 narrow (5-4) ase in which Supreme
Court found that at least some gun control laws did violate the Second
Amendment and that this amendment does protect and individual's right to
keep and bear arms, at least in some circumstances, such as self-defense within
the home.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Answer -
2nd Amendment
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, 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." Answer - 4th Amendment
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising
in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of
War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to
be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal
case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,
without just compensation." Answer - 5th Amendment
Near v. Minneosta Answer - 1931 case in which Court disagreed with state
courts regarding censorship and ruled it unconstitutional except in rare cases.
Surpreme Court ruled that the government generally could not engage in prior
restraint (could not in advance prohibit someone from publishing something
wihtout a very compelling reason).
Mapp v. Ohio Answer - 1961 Supreme Court case in which the court decided
that evidence obtained without a warrant didn't fall under one of the
exceptions (e.g. the person consents to a search, there is reasonable
expectation that the evidence may be destroyed/tampered with before a
warrant can be issued, items in question are in plain view of government
officials, etc.) could not be used as eidence in a state criminal trial.
Gideon v. Wainwright Answer - 1963 case in which Supreme Court
unanimously ruled that anyone accused of a serious crime is entitled to the
assistance of a lawyer, even if they cannot afford one, as part of the general
due process right to a fair trial
NYT v. Sullivan Answer - 1964 case in which the Supreme Court decided that
public figures needed to demonstrate not only that a negative press statement
about them was untrue but also that the statement was published or made
with either malicious intent or "reckless disregard" for the truth.
,Griswold v. Connecticut Answer - 1965 case in which the court spelled out the
right to privacy by striking down a state law forbidding even married individuals
to use any form of contraception.
Miranda v. Arizona Answer - 1966 case in which Supreme Court ruled that
suspects were required to be informed of their most important rights, including
the right against self-incrimination, before being interrogated in police custody
Lemon v. Kurtzman Answer - 1971 case in which the Supreme court
established the Lemon test for deciding whether a law or other government
action that might promote a particular religious practice should be allowed to
stand.
Roe v. Wade Answer - 1973 case in which Supreme Court decided the right to
privacy encompassed a right for women to terminate a pregnancy, at least
under certain scenarios.
Miller test Answer - 1973 Supreme Court method for deciding whether
something is obscene.
Texas v. Johnson Answer - 1989 case in which the Supreme Court decided that
burning the flag was a form of symbolic speech protected by the First
Amendment and found the law, as applied to flag desecration, to be
unconstitutional.
Employment Division v. Smith Answer - 1990 case in which Supreme Court
made a controversial decision to narrow the Sherbert test. Also known as "the
peyote case," the Court ruled that the "compelling government interest"
standard should not apply; instead, so long as the law was not designed to
target a person's religious beliefs in particular, it was not up to the courts to
decide that those beliefs were more important than the law in question.
, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of
the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances." Answer - 1st Amendment
Kelo v. City of New London Answer - 2005 case in which Supreme Court sided
with municipal officials taking homes in a middle-class neighborhood to obtain
land for a large pharmaceutical company's corporate campus
District of Columbia v. Heller Answer - 2008 narrow (5-4) ase in which Supreme
Court found that at least some gun control laws did violate the Second
Amendment and that this amendment does protect and individual's right to
keep and bear arms, at least in some circumstances, such as self-defense within
the home.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Answer -
2nd Amendment
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, 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." Answer - 4th Amendment
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising
in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of
War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to
be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal
case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,
without just compensation." Answer - 5th Amendment
