CONSTITUTIONAL STUDY GUIDE
Period 1
Dr. Swanson
AP Government
Brad King
Hunter Stapp
Julian Arellano
Justin Causey
FIRST AMENDMENT
Definition and Interpretation
•
The first amendment states that the government cannot establish a religion or interfere
in the practice of one (Establishment Clause)
•
The government cannot impede upon one’s right of free speech or the press (even if the
press publishes executive documents), and people have the right to assembly and to
petition the government without punishment
•
The First Amendment is crucial to one’s liberty to speak their mind and act according to
their own values
FIRST AMENDMENT – FREE SPEECH
Schenck v. United States (1919)
•
Schenck was convicted under the Espionage Act of 1917 for distributing leaflets, and a unanimous decision from
the Supreme Court upheld the ruling
•
The court stated that if one’s actions created a “clear and present danger,” Congress should have the power to
put a stop to them
•
This set the precedent of the limits on free speech for nearly fifty years
Whitney v. California (1927)
•
Anita Whitney, a woman who aided in the formation of the Communist Labor Party, was convicted under the
Criminal Syndicalism Act
•
When it was questioned in the Supreme Court whether or not her conviction was consistent with the “due
process” and “equal protection” clauses, they ruled unanimously that if one’s speech has a “bad tendency” than
a person can be penalized
•
According to Justice Sanford, a “bad tendency” includes “utterances inimical to the public welfare, tending to
incite crime, disturb the public peace, or endanger the foundation of organized government and threaten its
overthrow”
•
This expanded the limits on free speech as previously established in Schenck v. United States
FIRST AMENDMENT – FREE SPEECH
Feiner v. New York (1951)
•
Feiner was arrested after his speech disrupted the crowd and police thought that a riot was impending
•
The Supreme Court upheld the decision in a 6-3 majority, stating that he was stopped from speaking because of
the bad reaction from the crowd and fear that violence would erupt
•
The Supreme Court, however, stated that no matter what a speaker is talking about, he or she cannot be
arrested solely for what he or she is saying
•
This protected the basis of speech but redefined how one can be punished for inflammatory speech
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969)
•
Three children who wore armbands protesting the Vietnam War were suspended from school
•
Eventually, the case made its way to the Supreme Court where it was decided in a 7-2 ruling that suspending the
children for wearing the apparel was a violation of the freedom of speech guaranteed to citizens in the First
Amendment
•
Schools are allowed to ban apparel and behavior that “materially and substantially interfere[s] with the
requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school,” but must give constitutionally -based proof
that it doesn’t do more than cause “discomfort and unpleasantness”
•
This set the guidelines for what actions a school is constitutionally allowed to take in punishing students
FIRST AMENDMENT – FREE SPEECH
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
•
Clarence Brandenburg was a Ku Klux Klan leader who spoke at a rally and encouraged violence against black people and Jews
•
As a result of his actions, he was convicted under Ohio’s criminal syndicalism statute
•
The Supreme Court held that if speech did not create “imminent lawless action” and was not likely to, then it cannot be forbidden ;
Brandenburg’s charges were thus cleared
•
This effectively nullified the decision made in Whitney v. California and created a three pronged test that reviewed the intent of speech
and the imminence and likelihood of its results
•
It also eschewed the ruling of Dennis v. United States by stating that “mere advocacy” was protected speech
•
As a result of this case, one cannot be convicted based on indirect encouragement of breaking the law
Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
•
After many amendments were passed to the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971, Senator Buckley sued Secretary of State
Francis Valeo in an attempt to reverse the new additions to the FECA
•
Though the Supreme Court upheld full disclosure of contributions and limitations on individual contributions, they rejected other
amendments including limitations on personal contributions to a candidate, donations from a person or group, and on the amoun t of
money one can spend on his or her campaign
•
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of these donations because they believed that they were a form of free speech and should no t
be suppressed
•
This allowed for a greater fiscal influence on politics
FIRST AMENDMENT – FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
Gitlow v. New York (1925)
•
Gitlow published the “Left Wing Manifesto” in his paper and was convicted, but Gitlow stated that he was only recording
history in his writings
•
The Supreme Court took on the case, and in a 7-2 ruling upheld his conviction
•
Although Barron v. Baltimore (1833) previously established that Bill of Rights only pertained to the federal government, Gitlow
v. New York established a new precedent that the Bill of Rights applies to both the federal and state governments using the
“due process clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment as justification
•
This case drew upon and expanded the “clear and present danger” test established in Schenck v. United States, and also was
influenced by the “bad tendency” test from Abrams v. United States (1919)
•
Thus, the court established that Gitlow’s conviction was in line with the First Amendment
Near v. Minnesota (1931)
•
Jay M. Near and Howard A. Guildford ran stories in The Saturday Press maligning and slandering many people, including the
Jews and the police force
•
The publication of the paper was halted, and Near was prosecuted, after which he appealed his case
•
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that this censorship was unconstitutional in a 5-4 ruling
•
The U.S. Supreme Court largely invalidated prior restraint in this ruling, stating that it is a violation of the First Amendment in
any case besides national security or wartime
•
This gave a large boost to free press and limited the censorship of papers in advance
FIRST AMENDMENT – FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964)
•
The New York Times ran an advertisement that drew a lawsuit in which the Times lost, leading to an appeal
•
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor the Times and stated that Alabama was violating the guarantees of
freedom of speech and of the press
•
They stated that a public official (such as Sullivan) must have proof of actual malice to gain punitive damages; this means that
there must be proof of intentionally falsified defamation for a public official to be awarded compensation
•
This expanded the rights of freedom of the press, as it is hard to prove that “actual malice” is involved in a publication
•
This was applied to civil rights campaigns and had great significance for the validity of their publications
New York Times Co. v. United States (1971)
•
The New York Times and the Washington Post obtained illegal copies of the Pentagon Papers and published them, after which
the U.S. district court filed a court order mandating that the documents not be published
•
The New York Times appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court and won in a 6-3 ruling
•
In doing so, the court rejected unjustified prior restraint, even when the U.S. government was involved
•
Justification was also drawn from Near v. Minnesota, as the Supreme Court believed that publishing the papers was not
included in the three restrictions placed on freedom of expression by Near v. Minnesota
•
This case made freedom of the press superior to the wishes of the executive branch when the latter did not have a
constitutional backing, setting a precedent that lasts to this day
FIRST AMENDMENT – FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
•
At Hazelwood East High School, two stories covering relatively controversial topics in the school newspaper were
submitted to the principal for approval to run
•
The principal did not approve of either story, and a four-page paper ran instead of a six-page paper, causing the
editor and reporters to sue
•
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-3 majority in favor of the school administration, stating that they do in fact have
the right to moderate the paper
•
This ruling was distinct from Tinker in that the Supreme Court believed that running the stories was deliberate
promotion of student’s free speech while in Tinker the schools were “tolerat[ing]” their speech
•
This set the precedent that the administration is able to regulate publications when it concerns the school’s
reputation or educational integrity
FIRST AMENDMENT – FREEDOM OF RELIGION
Engel v. Vitale (1962)
•
This case began when kids who attended public school told their parents that their classes recited a prayer at the beginning of
school every day
•
The plaintiffs contended that this violated the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment that stated that federal government
“shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion”
•
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 6-1 decision that having a prayer at the beginning of each school day was unconstitutional,
even if it was voluntary
•
In this case, arguments of vague wording and voluntary participation made by the defendants were dismissed, establishing a
precedent of no tolerance for laws violating the Establishment Clause
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)
•
When three Amish kids dropped out of school after the eighth grade due to their religion, the Green County Court used the
Wisconsin Compulsory School Attendance Law to fine them $500
•
The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in Yoder’s favor, after which Wisconsin took the case to the Supreme Court
•
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Yoder’s favor, stating that the state law could not violate the religious beliefs of Amish
people
•
The Court believed that the Amish religion was legitimate and that it gave back to society, and contended that two years of extra
schooling was not proven to have benefits
•
This was significant because it upheld the freedom of religion for citizens, even when it conflicted with state laws
FIRST AMENDMENT – OBSCENITY IN SPEECH
Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964)
•
Jacobellis, the manager of a theatre, played an obscene movie and was fined
•
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jacobellis because they ruled that the film was not obscene and thus could not
be prevented from playing
•
The court expanded what could be banned for obscenity, stating that material would have to verge on “hard -core
pornography” to be banned
Miller v. California (1973)
•
The controversy that led to this case began what Marvin Miller distributed large amounts of pornographic mail
advertising a sexually explicit product
•
The Supreme Court ruled that Marvin’s distribution of pornographic material is not protected under the statues of the
First Amendment, nor is any form of this obscene expression of free speech
•
The three-part “Miller Test” was established so as to give states guidelines as to what is protected by free speech and
what is not
•
This case established the precedent that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment
SECOND AMENDMENT
Definition and Interpretation
•
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 upon.
•
This amendment basically gave Americans the right to own guns and other weapons, though it
does not specify whether it is intended for individual use or solely for a state to be able to
organize and arm a militia.
SECOND AMENDMENT
1939 Miller v. U.S.
•
Miller got caught transporting sawed-off shotguns from Oklahoma to Arkansas
•
The court ruled that the 2nd amendment only protects the ownership of militia-type weapons appropriate for use in an
organized militia
•
Miller’s shotguns were not considered appropriate for militia use
2008 District of Columbia v. Heller
•
D.C. law banned possession of handguns, prohibiting the registration of handguns and making it a crime to carry an
unregistered firearm
•
All lawfully owned firearms had to be kept unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock unless they were being
used for lawful recreational activities or located in a place of business
•
Officer Dick Heller sued when he was denied his application to register a personal handgun
The court held that:
•
1. D.C.’s total ban on handguns in the home was a violation of the 2nd Amendment because it was a prohibition on an
entire class of arms that Americans usually chose for self-defense
•
2. The requirement that handguns be kept in such a manner also violated the 2nd Amendment because it made it
impossible for citizens to use them for the lawful purpose of self-defense
•
This was an important decision because the Supreme Court finally definitively stated that the 2nd Amendment protected
the people’s right to bear arms as individuals, not just the state’s right to organize and arm its militia units
FOURTH AMENDMENT
Definition and Interpretation
•
People are protected against unreasonable searches and seizures of their property and a
warrant can only be granted with probable cause, describing what is being searched and
seized.
FOURTH AMENDMENT
Mapp v. Ohio
•
Police search house of Dollree Mapp without a warrant when one was requested
•
There had been a suspicion of a bombing case in Mapp’s house
•
No bomb was found, but porn materials were found
•
Mapp arrested for the porn material
•
The conviction was overturned because the evidence against Mapp was found illegally
•
This case upholds the people’s right to protection against unreasonable searches, even when a crime is
detected under the illegal search
FIFTH AMENDMENT
Definition and Interpretation
•
Any person who is held under an accusation of a capital or infamous crime must have the right
to a Grand Jury or they must be set free. The only exception to this is if the case arises in the
military or militia at eh time of a war.
•
No person shall be subject to the same offense twice (double jeopardy)
•
No person shall be forced to be a witness against him/herself or deprived of life, liberty, and
property without due Process.
•
The government cannot take private property without providing equal compensation
FIFTH AMENDMENT
•
Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy RR v. Chicago
• In 1880 Chicago wanted to widen Rockwell street and this required land from private
landowners and a Quincy railroad company.
• Court unanimously voted that Chicago must award the land owners with equal
compensation, upholding the 14 th amendment’s Due Process
• This also exercised the right of the people that the government can seize property without
Due Process
• First court case that the Supreme Court applied the Bill Rights to state or local
governments.
•
Mallory v. Hogan
• Malloy was on probation for illegal gambling and was forced to testify in court but refused
to answer questions about his previous conviction
• Malloy was put back in jail, he appealed on the basis of habeas corpus but was denied
• The court ruled that he was immune to any punishment if he testified because any
information given would not be a self-incrimination.
FIFTH AMENDMENT
•
Benton v. Maryland
• Joshua Benton was charged with larceny and burglary but was only convicted of
burglary
• The jury of the original case was proven to be chosen under the unconstitutional
provision, Benton was given the option of a second trial, he took it
• In the second trial he was convicted of both larceny and burglary because Maryland’s
State constitution said nothing about double jeopardy
• The court ruled that the double jeopardy clause applies to all states and Benton was
found not guilty for larceny
SIXTH AMENDMENT
Definition and Interpretation
•
This amendment states that accused persons have the “right to a speedy and public trial”
•
A public trial is guaranteed to all persons except in cases where one’s right to due process can be
impeded upon
•
This amendment also guarantees the impartiality of juries, and there are measures in place to reduce bias
•
The place where the crime was committed determines the location of the trial (vicinage)
•
One that commits a crime is notified of the nature and cause of his violation
•
The Confrontational Clause guarantees that someone who is being convicted of a crime is directly
confronted by their accuser to allow for such things as cross-examination
•
One who is accused has the right to call witnesses in his or her favor
•
One who is accused must be represented by counsel, and if he or she is unable to afford or obtain one,
the court must provide it
SIXTH AMENDMENT
United States v. Carll (1881)
•
In this case, a man was accused of counterfeiting money, but at no time in the case were the nature of the charges or
the charges themselves specified to a proper degree
•
The Supreme Court viewed this as a violation of the Arraignment Clause (which requires that one is informed of the
charges against him), and thus overturned the conviction on the man
•
They ruled that “it is not sufficient to set forth the offense in the words of the statue unless those words of themselves
fully, directly, and expressly, without any uncertainty or ambiguity, set forth all the elements necessary to constitute the
offense intended to be punished”
•
This set an extremely important precedent, as one must be fully aware of the charges against him or her for a case to
be valid; this gives them the ability to best defend themselves
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
•
Gideon was arrested did not have sufficient funds to hire a lawyer, and the court refused to do so for him because he
was being charged with a non-capital offense
•
Gideon attempted to defend himself, but failed and was sentenced to five years in prison
•
The Supreme Court ruled that Gideon was deprived of a fair trial and of due process of law, and overturned his
conviction on the basis that his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated
•
This ruling nullified the decision made in Betts v. Brady in which the Supreme Court stated that one only needs to be
appointed a lawyer in a capital crime
•
The Supreme Court agreed that one has the unconditional right of representation by counsel, setting a precedent for all
future cases
SIXTH AMENDMENT
Sheppard v. Maxwell (1966)
•
Sam Sheppard was convicted for second-degree murder, but he challenged the ruling based on the fact that a large
amount of prejudice was created by the press
•
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, and in an 8-1 ruling voted in favor of Sheppard, stating that the “objective”
setting of the courtroom was compromised
•
This showed that even when the First Amendment right of freedom of press is involved, one must above all receive a fair
trial that is not biased by outside sources to such a degree as during this case
•
This ruling placed a limit on the idea of a fully public trial stipulated in the Sixth Amendment
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
•
Ernesto Miranda was convicted of kidnapping and raping a woman
•
After an interrogation, he signed a paper, and in doing so admitted to the crime but was not informed of his right to
counsel; Miranda appealed his case
•
In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that one must be read their rights before interrogation or a confession is not
valid, thus voting in favor of Miranda; in this case, Miranda was not informed of his protection against self -incrimination
or of his right to counsel, invalidating the case against him
•
- This reaffirmed the validity of the representation by counsel that the Sixth Amendment guarantees and established a
precedent where one must be read their rights upon arrest
SIXTH AMENDMENT
Duncan v. Louisiana (1968)
•
Duncan was arrested on a battery charge, and was fined and received a 60 day prison sentence
•
However, he was not granted a jury trial, causing him to appeal his conviction
•
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Duncan, stating one has the right to a trial by jury in criminal cases
•
They elaborated that states do not need to have a trial by jury for a petty crime (where punishment is a payment of $500
or less and up to six months in prison)
•
The Louisiana law was deemed unconstitutional, and the Sixth Amendment was very significantly applied to the states
Williams v. Florida (1970)
•
Williams was convicted of a robbery, but he argued that both his Fifth and Sixth Amendments were violated in this case
(he believed that since the court requested him to tell the prosecution the names of his alibi witnesses, they requested
that he self-incriminate himself; further, he believed that the jury of six that ruled during his case was not conducive with
the stipulations of the Sixth Amendment)
•
The Supreme Court ruled that Williams’ Fifth Amendment was not violated, and that the Sixth Amendment did not
require a certain number of jurors
•
Thus, Williams’ conviction was upheld and it was decided that a jury need not have twelve members to be valid
SIXTH AMENDMENT
Barker v. Wingo (1972)
This case established a four-step conditional review to assess whether one’s right to a speedy trial was upheld:
•
1) The length of delay (not set limit, but must be reasonable)
•
2) The reason for delay
•
3) Time and manner of delay; defendant cannot claim that he was not granted a speedy trail when he requested a delay
in the first place
•
4) The amount of bias the delay caused
Faretta v. California (1975)
•
Anthony Faretta was committed of grand theft, and was initially given the leeway to defend himself
•
However, this right was later denied, and after being appointed an attorney he was sentenced to life
•
The Supreme Court ruled that one has the right to defend himself or herself and refuse appointed counsel, but cannot
later complain that his or her representation was insufficient
•
This set the precedent that one has the right to represent himself or herself in a case regardless of the circumstances
SIXTH AMENDMENT
Taylor v. Louisiana (1975)
•
Taylor was convicted of kidnapping, but his jury consisted of mostly male people because of a Louisiana law that
“conceded systematic impact” on the male to female ratio
•
The Supreme Court ruled that the registration process for jurors was unconstitutional, as though 53% of eligible jurors
were female, only 10% of actual jurors were female
•
The unfair cross-section of society that was Taylor’s jury was a violation of his right to an impartial jury
•
The basis for the decision was drawn from Duncan v. Louisiana, and the ruling ultimately overturned Hoyt v. Florida and
set the precedent that a jury must be a fair cross-section of society
Ballew v. Georgia (1978)
•
The Supreme Court ruled that a jury of five or fewer people is unconstitutional, effectively setting the minimum at six
jurors
Waller v. Georgia (1984)
This case ruled that the public trial clause of the Sixth Amendment can be ignored, but only under specific circumstances:
•
1) It is clearly proven that having a public hearing will introduce a large amount of bias into the case.
•
2) The “closure” of the case cannot exceed what is necessary to reduce prejudice.
•
3) The court should search for other methods of reducing prejudice other than closure.
•
4) There must be enough evidence to close a case off from the public.
SIXTH AMENDMENT
Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California (1984)
•
This case concerned the rape and murder of a teenage girl
•
The Press Enterprise sought to cover the questioning of the jury, but the court denied this coverage
•
The Supreme Court, however, ruled in favor of the Press Enterprise, setting the precedent that voir dire (questioning the
jury) is open to the public for criminal trials
•
This was important because it reaffirmed the clause in the Sixth Amendment that guarantees a public trial, even in highly
controversial cases
Crawford v. Washington (2004)
•
Mr. Crawford was convicted based largely on the witness statement from his wife that was said outside of court
•
The Supreme Court ruled that this was a violation of the Confrontation Clause in the Sixth Amendment (because Mrs.
Crawford could not be cross-examined), and overturned Mr. Crawford’s conviction
•
This reaffirmed that statements said out of the court by a witness that cannot be cross -examined cannot be used as
evidence in a case
SIXTH AMENDMENT
Davis v. Washington (2006)
•
Michelle McCottry made a 911 call accusing Davis of physically harming her
•
The transcript from the call was used in the case against Davis, and although he objected, the Supreme Court ruled that
the 911 statement was “non-testimonial” and thus could be used in the case without violating the Confrontation Clause
•
This partially redefined the outcome of Crawford v. Washington by making an exception to when statements made
outside of the court can be used in a case
EIGHTH AMENDMENT
Definition and Interpretation
•
Protects the people from excessive bail, excessive fines, and cruel and unusual punishment
EIGHTH AMENDMENT
Furman v. Georgia (1972)
•
Furman killed a man while illegally breaking into a house
•
Sentenced to death because law allows for execution for anyone who kills a person while committing a
felony
•
Death penalty repealed as it did not clearly define the circumstances of the penalty
•
Furman protected against cruel and unusual punishment
Gregg v. Georgia (1976)
•
Gregg received death penalty for armed robbery and murder
•
Death sentence upheld as the requirements for the imposition based on facts and circumstances of the
crime were met
•
Court ruled that the death sentence was not cruel and unusual punishment in the situation
•
Both cases show that punishment cannot be cruel, but has to meet requirements that have to be backed
up by facts and clearly define the circumstances of the crime
NINTH AMENDMENT
Definition and Interpretation
•
Made to protect unenumerated rights (rights not specifically mentioned or contained in the
Constitution)
•
The rights enumerated in the Constitution cannot infringe upon the rights of the people
•
Any right that is not in the Constitution still belongs to the people
•
Contains the enumeration of rights clause and the rights retained by the people clause, as
seen in the text of the amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights,
shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
NINTH AMENDMENT
United Public Workers v. Mitchell (1947)
•
The Hatch Act of 1939 (which stated that a governmental employee cannot support the overthrow of the government)
was passed in response to growing fears
•
In the Supreme Court case, the constitutionality of the Hatch Act and the “doctrine of privilege” (which allowed the
government to impose different restrictions on public workers, as it was a privilege to be employed by the government at
all) were upheld
•
Justice Reed stated that the Ninth Amendment is reserved, not enumerated, and he stated that it was not violated by the
Hatch Act: “…when objection is made that the exercise of a federal power infringes upon rights reserved by the Ninth
and Tenth Amendments, the inquiry must be directed toward the granted power under which the action of the Union was
taken. If granted power is found, necessarily the objection of invasion of those rights, reserved by the Ninth and Tenth
Amendments, must fail.”
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
•
At this time, a law was in place in Connecticut that banned the usage of any contraceptives
•
Griswold and Dr. Buxton opened a clinic for birth control, but they were arrested
•
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Griswold and stated that the Connecticut law was a violation of privacy
•
Justice Arthur Goldberg contended that marital privacy is protected by the Ninth Amendment
•
Justices Madison and Story believed that the Ninth Amendment guaranteed that the first eight amendments wouldn’t be
used to alienate the interests or fundamental rights of the people
•
This had great implications for the future of the interpretation of the Ninth Amendment, such as in Roe v. Wade, and for
later rulings based on due process, as Justice Harlan stated that privacy was protected by this part of the Fourteenth
Amendment
NINTH AMENDMENT
Doe v. Bolton (1973)
•
Georgia had a very strict abortion law that prohibited abortion except in extreme cases, and non-Georgia
residents could not get an abortion under any circumstances
•
With a 7-2 majority, this was overturned, and it was declared by the Supreme Court that abortion is a
constitutional right
•
The freedom of choice in contraception and abortion was expanded and constitutionally guaranteed using
largely the Ninth Amendment as a basis for the rationale; set the stage for the ruling of Planned
Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey
•
This case was a huge victory for pro-choice peoples
Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)
•
Michael Hardwick was found engaging in sodomy (oral or anal sex under the definition in Georgia), and he
was arrested under the state’s statue
•
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution did not grant homosexuals the “fundamental right to
engage in…sodomy”
•
The decision of this case lasted until 2003 when it was overturned in Lawrence v. Texas
NINTH AMENDMENT
Troxel v. Granville (2000)
•
The Supreme Court ruled on this case after parents complained about third-party child visitations
•
They ruled that it is a violation of the parents’ right to raise and care for their children if visitations are held
against the parents’ wills
•
This ruling was party based on the Ninth Amendment, and even in the dissenting opinion, Justice Scalia
argued that this amendment made it so that the “right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children
is…[an]…unalienable right” that cannot be denied
•
This case displayed the importance of the Ninth Amendment in guaranteeing one’s rights that are not
explicitly stated in the Constitution, and made privacy a right “retained by the people”
TENTH AMENDMENT
Definition and Interpretation
•
States that powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to
the states, are reserved to the states and people.
TENTH AMENDMENT
1992 New York v. U.S.
•
This case challenged part of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985. The act
provided three incentives for states to comply with statutory obligations to dispose of low -level radioactive
waste.
•
One incentive obliged states to take title to any waste within their borders that was not disposed of prior to
a certain date, and made each state liable for all damages directly related to the waste.
•
The Court decided that the imposition of that obligation on the states violated the Tenth Amendment.
•
They declared that federal government is allowed to encourage the states to adopt certain regulations
through spending power, or through commerce power, however, Congress cannot directly compel states to
enforce federal regulations.
•
This decision was important because it established a line distinguishing encouragement from coercion that
Congress cannot lawfully cross. This kind of coercion would go against the federalist structure of
government.
THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT
Definition and Interpretation
•
Slavery and involuntary servitude are illegal in the United States, except as punishment for a
crime where the person has been rightly convicted
THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT
United States v. Kozminski (1988)
•
Two mentally retarded men were found laboring on a farm in poor health
•
Worked 17 hours a day, at first for $15 a week and eventually for no pay
•
The two men went to court and filed that the were help under involuntary servitude
•
The employers were found guilty because they used methods of physical and psychological coercion
•
Thirteenth Amendment used to prevent not only slavery of African-Americans but also other forms of labor
similar to slavery
•
Case explored definition of involuntary servitude and concluded that it requires physical or legal coercion
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
Definition and Interpretation
•
The Citizenship Clause gives citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United
States”
•
This amendment also guarantees that one’s rights of life, liberty, and property cannot be
denied without “due process of law”
•
The Equal Protection Clause guarantees that all people within a state are subject to the same
laws; “privileges and immunities” of citizens cannot be denied
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
Plessy v. Fergusson (1896)
•
This case sought to determine the constitutionality of “separate but equal” facilities
•
It was determined in a 7-1 ruling that they were indeed constitutional, and the Supreme Court used the
Equal Protection Clause as justification
•
Although the Court claimed that facilities were equal, they were in fact far from it; this case was contrary to
the stipulations of the Fourteenth Amendment and created a precedent of segregation that lasted into the
mid-20th century
Gitlow v. New York (1925)
•
Gitlow published the “Left Wing Manifesto” in his paper, The Revolutionary Age
•
He was convicted under the Criminal Anarchy Law of 1902, but Gitlow stated that he was only recording
history in his writings
•
The Supreme Court took on the case, and in a 7-2 ruling upheld his conviction
•
Although Barron v. Baltimore (1833) previously established that Bill of Rights only pertained to the federal
government, Gitlow v. New York established a new precedent that the Bill of Rights applies to both the
federal and state governments using the “due process clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment as
justification (freedom of speech and of the press are extended to states and protected as a result)
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
Korematsu v. United States (1944)
•
Japanese peoples were sequestered in internment camps during World War II
•
Although this was a blatant violation of civil rights, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that the
executive order placing them in the camps was constitutional because the nation’s security was more
important than individual rights
•
This set the precedent that, in times of war, one’s rights can be compromised without due process of law if
it benefits the nation as a whole
Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
•
Separate public schools were created for black and white people, and there was large controversy over
the constitutionality of this segregation
•
People held that since schools were “separate by equal,” they should be allowed
•
However, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that separate facilities violate the Equal Protection Clause
and are thus unconstitutional
•
This was a huge step for the civil rights movement, and the integrity of this clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment was restored
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
•
In this case, police conducted an unwarranted search of one’s house under suspicions of a bomb threat
•
The Supreme Court ruled that evidence obtained in a manner that violated the promise of protection from
“unreasonable searches and seizures” was a violation one’s individual rights
•
Since the Fourth Amendment is applied to states by the Fourteenth Amendment
•
This application of the due process clause to proper searching procedure continues to have a profound
impact on police searches; this is just one of many examples of the important application of the due
process clause
Roe v. Wade (1973)
•
In this case, it was determined that a woman’s right to privacy is protected under the 14 th Amendment
because of the due process clause
•
The Supreme Court overturned a Texas law that infringed upon a woman’s privacy by regulating the
process for obtaining an abortion
•
This was a big step for pro-choice peoples, and the application of the right to privacy to such a huge
controversy was monumental
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
Gregg v. Georgia (1976)
•
In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty does not necessarily violate the Fourteenth Amendment
•
The death penalty is constitutional if discretion is displayed in each individual case
•
Personal factors are taken into account, and in this way one’s liberties are maintained
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)
•
Allan Bakke was rejected from the Davis medical school where sixteen spots were designated for people of a certain
race
•
He sued, and the Supreme Court ruled that a quota system for a school was unconstitutional while affirmative action
was not since it did not consider race alone
•
In this case, the Equal Protection Clause was applied to school admissions and invalidated racial quotas
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992)
•
The Supreme Court ruled that a spouse did not need the consent of her husband to get an abortion, invalidating this
provision but upholding ones that included a 24-hour delay in obtaining an abortion, parental approval, and informed
consent
•
The court used the Ninth Amendment as a “charter for action” to maintain people’s “constitutional ideals” in this case
•
This set a precedent that the Ninth Amendment was not a disclaimer, but instead a right to enact laws according to the
ideas of the Constitution
•
The Fourteenth Amendment was also used as basis to prevent extra burden on women from this state act
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)
•
In this case, a student sued because she believed the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment was being violated as a result of admissions being based mostly on race
•
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the university, stating that upholding diversity by admitting minority
groups to school is valuable and is constitutional if it is done through affirmative action
•
This was in agreement with Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, this case upheld that
affirmative action was conducive with the Fourteenth Amendment
Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
•
In this case, two men were arrested on the merit that they were engaging in sodomy
•
The Supreme Court overturned their conviction in a 6-3 ruling, nullifying a Texas statute and overturning
Bowers v. Hardwick
•
All sodomy laws were then eschewed, making same-sex sex legal in all fifty states
•
This was a landmark decision for gay couples across the U.S. and established that such private conduct is
protected under the Fourteenth Amendment
FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT
Definition and Interpretation
•
Broken down into 2 sections
•
Section 1: The right to vote shall not be denied by any State based on race, color or previous
status of citizen or servitude
•
Section 2: Congress has the power to enforce this law on every state by appropriate legislation
•
Although States bypassed this article for a while with the Grandfather Clause and Poll taxes
the Supreme Court soon found those to be unconstitutional and were taken away
FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT
Guinn v. United States
•
Proved that the grandfather clause and literacy tests were unconstitutional because they
exempted white people and disenfranchised blacks
•
Any Oklahoma election officer found practicing these restriction was arrested for violating the
voters rights act
•
This ratification also took place in States such as Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, North
Carolina, and Virginia
•
A state statute drafted in such a way as to serve no rational purpose other than to
disadvantage the right of African-American citizens to vote violated the 15th Amendment
SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT
Definition and Interpretation
•
Congress has the power to levy and collect income taxes without apportionment among the
states.
SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT
Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co.
•
Supreme Court ruled certain taxes on incomes to be unconstitutionally unapportioned direct taxes
•
Taxes on income from property should be required to be apportioned because it should be seen as a tax
on “property by reason of its ownership.”
•
Income taxes on wages were still not required to be apportioned
•
Taxes on income of interest, dividends, and rent required to be apportioned by population
•
Main outcome of the case was that the source of income is relevant in determining whether the tax is
direct or indirect. Direct taxes are required to be apportioned by the states based on population while
indirect taxes aren’t.
SEVENTEENTH AMENDMENT
Definition and Interpretation
•
This amendment established the direct election of senators instead of election by state legislatures
•
Additionally, the governor of a state has the power to appoint a senator under special circumstances if a
senator dies or gets killed until an election is held
NINETEENTH AMENDMENT
Definition and Interpretation
•
This amendment has two sections, the first of which states that one cannot be denied the vote based on
their gender, and the second of which stipulates that Congress has authority to implement this amendment
through proper legislation
NINETEENTH AMENDMENT
Leser v. Garnett (1922)
•
This law was passed based largely on the precedent set by the Fifteenth Amendment (that voting could not
be denied based a particular factor inherent in one’s background – in that case race, in this case gender)
•
Thus, the Supreme Court ruled that the Nineteenth Amendment cannot be rejected based on the reason
that they don’t have the authority to amend the Constitution in such a manner
•
After other slight controversies were resolved, this amendment was passed by a unanimous vote
TWENTIETH AMENDMENT
Definition and Interpretation
•
The terms of the existing President and Vice President are to end on January 20th, and the terms of
Senators and House Representatives are to end on January 3rd. The newly elected candidates will then
take office. Unless appointed to a different day, Congress is to meet once a year on January 3rd. The Vice
President elect shall be named President in the cases of the death of the President elected, or if the a
President has not been elected at the time the term is to begin. If neither a President of Vice President is
able to take office, Congress has the power to choose who should be President, and the Senate is to
choose who should be Vice President.
TWENTY-SECOND AMENDMENT
Definition and Interpretation
•
This amendment set a limit of two terms for a president and stated that if somebody takes over the
presidential post and acts as president for over two years, they can only hold one additional term
TWENTY-FOURTH AMENDMENT
Definition and Interpretation
•
No person shall be turned away at a State or federal election because of the failure to pay a poll tax
•
Voting became free and increased the voter turnout and allowed the lower class to voice their opinion
TWENTY-FOURTH AMENDMENT
Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections
•
Ann E. Harper was unable to register without paying a poll tax which she and other fellow
citizens could not afford.
•
She was previously dismissed by a district court so went straight to the Supreme Court after
that
•
They found that the poll tax was violating the Equal Protection Clause laid out in the 14 th
amendment and added that the no poll tax law applied to state elections as well
•
Overturned Breedlove v. Suttle
TWENTY-FIFTH AMENDMENT
Definition and Interpretation
•
Establishes a set of procedures for filling a vacancy in the office of the Vice President and for responding
to Presidential disabilities
•
If there is a vacancy in the Vice Presidency, the President will nominate a Vice President who will take
office once confirmed by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress
•
If the President becomes disabled and unable to perform his duties the Vice President becomes Acting
President
•
This amendment also provides for a set of procedures to return the President to his duties once he is
capable.
TWENTY-SIXTH AMENDMENT
Definition and Interpretation
•
All 18 year old U.S. citizens have the right to vote in all elections
•
No state can deny a citizen’s right to vote based purely off of age
ELASTIC CLAUSE
Definition and Interpretation
•
States that Congress shall have power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution
the enumerated powers and all other powers given to the U.S. government by the Constitution.
ELASTIC CLAUSE
1819 McCulloch v. Maryland
•
The Supreme Court debated whether Congress had the power to establish a national bank.
•
It decided that it did have this power because of the elastic clause. It considered the establishment of a
national bank to be a necessary power for Congress to make use of its expressed powers under the
Constitution.
•
This decision is important because it allowed for a broad interpretation what is “necessary and proper” for
U.S. government to make use of its enumerated and implied powers. All federal laws may not be
absolutely necessary to be considered necessary and proper.
SUPREMACY CLAUSE
Definition and Interpretation
•
Establishes the U.S. Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. Treaties as “the supreme law of the land”
•
Federal law is superior to state law or constitution when conflicts arise
SUPREMACY CLAUSE
1819 McCulloch v. Maryland
•
When the state of Maryland levied a tax on the federally incorporated Bank of the U.S., the court reviewed
the tax and found it unconstitutional since, if a state could tax a federally incorporated institution, it would
have the power to destroy it. According to the court this made the state law superior to federal law,
violating the supremacy clause.
•
This case established the national bank as constitutional under the Necessary and Proper Clause, and it
expanded federal power by deciding that federal laws are always superior to state laws.
COMMERCE CLAUSE
Definition and Interpretation
•
The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power of the Constitution that allows Congress to regulate
commerce with foreign Nations, among the states, and with Indian Tribes.
COMMERCE CLAUSE
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
•
State of New York gives Fulton and Livingston the right to navigate waters of New York
•
Livingston grants Ogden the right to navigate the waters
•
Gibbons has right to navigate granted by federal government
•
Both want control of waters and believe that the individual source they were granted by overrules the other
•
Court rules in favor of Gibbons as they said Fulton and Livingston had to right to the exclusive navigation of the waters
•
The court defines that interstate commerce in controlled by Congress alone, rather than the individual states, in order to
have uniformity across the nation in interstate commerce. For many years following, the Commerce Clause was loosely
interpreted and acted as a limit on state legislation the discriminated against interstate commerce.
United States v. Lopez (1995)
•
Lopez brings a concealed gun to school
•
Is charged under Texas law but is later the federal government charges Lopez with violating the Gun-Free School Zones
Act of 1990
•
Court ruled that the possession of a gun at school has no ties to the economy or interstate commerce
•
This case, and other cases of the Rehnquist Court, increased the strictness of the interpretation of the Commerce
Clause using the 10th Amendment, which states that powers not specifically granted to the federal government goes to
the states or people, as an argument.
ADVISE AND CONSENT
Definition and Interpretation
•
The president can make treaties with foreign nations with the advice and consent of the senate
•
The Senate must also approve ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme
Court, and all other Officers of the United States
•
This clause checks the president’s power and does not allow him to appoint people of only his party giving
him an advantage over the opposing party
FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE
Definition and Interpretation
•
States that states within the U.S. have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of
every other state."
•
Ensures that the judicial decisions rendered by the courts of one state are recognized and honored in all
other states
•
The U.S. Supreme Court treats judgments and laws differently though.
•
The Court recognizes a “public policy exception” to the Full Faith and Credit Clause when the law of one
state conflicts with the public policy of another, however, the Court maintains that there is no public policy
exception for the Full Faith and Credit Clause for judgments.
ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE
Definition and Interpretation
•
This clause is part of the First Amendment
•
It guarantees that the government will not create (establish) an official religion or impose upon its people
to adopt a certain religion
•
One religion cannot be shown a preference by the federal government, and the establishment of a national
religion is unconstitutional
ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE
Everson v. Board of Education (1947)
•
The plaintiff in this case argued that it was against the Establishment Clause for the school boards to reimburse families
of children who took the bus to private religious schools, as it was indirectly promoting religion
•
After Everson lost the case, he appealed to the Supreme Court where they ruled that it was not a violation of the
Establishment Clause since reimbursement was provided to all children, regardless of religion, and that reimbursement
was not granted specifically to a religious organization
•
This case resulted in the application of the Establishment Clause to the states and not only the federal government
using the due process clause as justification
•
Justice Black stated that the Establishment Clause set up a “wall of separation between Church and State,” and the
language of his opinion influenced many court cases to come (especially those concerning whether religious practices
can be included in public schools)
McCollum v. Board of Education (1948)
•
Vashti McCollum was against religious classes being held during school hours at a public school, and she sued the
school district
•
The case went to the Supreme Court, where in an 8-1 ruling the classes were declared unconstitutional
•
The court justified its decision but stating that using “tax-supported property” and coalescing the secular and religious
spheres of education at a public school was a violation of the Establishment Clause
•
This set a precedent for the separation of church and state in many future cases, and reaffirmed the Establishment
Clause
ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE
Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson (1952)
•
Joseph Burstyn released a film entitled “The Miracle” that grossly depicted people representing Joseph and Mary
conceiving a child
•
The Supreme Court decided that it was a violation of one’s free speech to censor something based on its “sacrilegious
nature”
•
This applies to the Establishment Clause in that even when hotly contested subject matter is at hand, it is not
constitutional to regulated one’s free expression of religion and that censoring religious material is a violation of the
separation between church and state
Torcaso v. Watkins
•
Torcaso was refused appointment as a notary public because he refused to admit his belief in the existence of God,
causing him to file suit
•
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that it was unconstitutional to have religious qualifications for a public office
•
In its decision, the court invoked a violation of the Establishment Clause and wrote that “laws and…requirements which
aid all religions as against non-believers” are not constitutional
•
This ruling ended the practice of religious qualifications for public appointments
ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE
Engel v. Vitale (1962)
•
This case began when kids who attended public school in New Hyde Park, New York told their parents that their classes recited a
prayer at the beginning of school every day
•
The plaintiffs contended that this violated the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment that stated that federal government
“shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion”
•
Though the New York Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of the law, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 6 -1 decision that
having a prayer at the beginning of each school day was unconstitutional, even if it was voluntary
•
In this case, arguments of vague wording and voluntary participation made by the defendants were dismissed, establishing a
precedent of no tolerance for laws violating the Establishment Clause
Abington School District v. Schempp (1963)
•
Edward Schempp sued the Abington School District on the basis that having designated Bible readings at the beginning of each
day is unconstitutional
•
Drawing from Engel v. Vitale and the Establishment Clause, the Supreme Court ruled that it was a violation of the separation
between the church and state to mandate Bible reading
•
This case against applied the Establishment Clause to the states, and the Supreme Court ruled that it was “wholly
applicable…under the Fourteenth Amendment”
•
Again, it was reinforced that any break in neutrality between secularism and religion involving public schools is unacceptable
ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE
Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
This case created a three-stage test for evaluating the constitutionality of legislation (using the Establishment Clause as a
basis):
•
1) The government’s acts must have a “secular legislative purpose.”
•
2) The government’s acts must be neutral.
•
3) The government cannot be overly involved in religion.
Hein v. Freedom of Religion Foundation (2007)
•
This case centered around the constitutionality of the executive Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives
•
This office was created in order to increase charity for religious organizations
•
The Supreme Court decided in a 5-4 ruling that this office is constitutional, and that the Establishment Clause cannot be
applied to arguments concerning executive office expenditures
•
This case set the precedent that spending of the executive branch cannot be questioned, and was a big step against
“secular extremism”
THE END