1 / 38

Study Book

Study Book. Sarah Weiss Chris Herold AP Government 3 rd Block. Marbury v. Madison. Marbury. Madison. Marbury v. Madison. Context: Marbury was on of John Adam’s “midnight appointments” that were never fully finalized.

azra
Télécharger la présentation

Study Book

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Study Book Sarah Weiss Chris Herold AP Government 3rd Block

  2. Marbury v. Madison Marbury Madison

  3. Marbury v. Madison • Context: Marbury was on of John Adam’s “midnight appointments” that were never fully finalized. • Question: Is Marbury entitled to his appointment? Is his lawsuit the correct way to get it? Is the Supreme Court the place for Marbury o get the relief he requests? • Court Ruling:6-0 in favor of Madison • Implications: Judicial review is the exercise of judicial authority that is necessary for a written Constitution to have any binding force. • Amendments/Clauses: Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789

  4. Majority/Dissent • Chief Justice Marshall decided that “a law repugnant to the Constitution is void” • No dissenting opinion Majority Dissent

  5. Barron v. Baltimore John Barron Baltimore

  6. Barron v. Baltimore • Context : Barron’s business, in the harbor, was damaged after water flow was cut off. • Question: Does the Fifth Amendment deny the states as well as the national government the right to take private property for public use without justly compensation the property’s owner? • Court Ruling: 7-0 in favor of Baltimore • Implications: Individual citizen’s property was not susceptible to the regulation of the 5th Amendment.  • Amendments/ Clauses: Fifth Amendment

  7. Majority/Dissent • Marshall: The Supreme Court had no jurisdiction in this case since the Fifth Amendment was not applicable to the states. • No Dissenting Opinion Majority Dissent

  8. Miami Herald v. Tornillo Miami Herald Publishing Co. Tornillo

  9. Miami Herald v. Tornillo • Context: Pat Tornillo sued the Miami Herald after they refused to publish his response to two previous articles written criticizing his candidacy for Florida House of Rep. • Question: Did Florida Statute Section 104.38, the "right to reply" statute, violate the free press clause of the First Amendment applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment? • Court Ruling: 9-0 in favor of Miami Herald Publishing Co. • Implications: The “right to reply” statute violated the freedom of press in Amendment 1. • Amendments/Clauses: First Amendment; speech, press, & assembly

  10. Majority/Dissent • Warren E. Burger relied on New York Times v. Sullivan in that the "right to reply" statute "limits the variety of public debate," and was therefore unconstitutional • No Dissenting Opinion Majority Dissenting

  11. Dred Scott v. Sanford Dred Scott John Emerson

  12. Dred Scott v. Sandford • Context: Dred Scott sued Emerson’s estate for unlawfully detaining Scott, who believed he had become a free man after Emerson moved his estate to Illinois. • Question: Was Dred Scott a free man or a slave? • Ruling: 7-2 in favor of Sandford • Implications: No one but a citizen of the United States could be a citizen of a state. • Amendments/Clauses: Fifth Amendment, Missouri Compromise

  13. Majority/Dissent •  Taney reached the conclusion that no person descended from an American slave had ever been a citizen for Article III purposes • Justice McLean: concluded that the argument that Scott was not a citizen was "more a matter of taste than of law." Majority Dissent

  14. New York Times v. Sullivan New York Times L. B. Sullivan

  15. New York Times v. Sullivan • Context: Sullivan felt that his personal rights were violated when an article claiming MLK’s arrest was solely based on halting King’s efforts to integrate public facilities and give blacks voting rights. • Question: Did Alabama's libel law unconstitutionally infringe on the First Amendment's freedom of speech and freedom of press protections? • Ruling:9-0 in favor of New York Times • Implications: The First Amendment protects the publications of all statements, even false ones. • Amendments/Clauses: First Amendment – freedom of speech, press, and assembly

  16. Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission Red Lion Broadcasting Co. Fed. Communications Commission

  17. Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission • Context: Red Lion Broadcasting challenged the application of the fairness doctrine(required radio and television broadcasters to present a balanced and fair discussion of public issues on the air) with respect to a particular broadcast. • Question: Do the FCC's fairness doctrine regulations violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech guarantees? • Ruling: 7-0 • Implications: The fairness doctrine was consistent with the First Amendment. • Amendments/Clauses: First Amendment- freedom of speech, press, and assembly

  18. Majority/Dissenting •  Justice White argued that spectrum scarcity made it "idle to posit an unbridgeable First Amendment right to broadcast comparable to the right of every individual to speak, write, or publish.“ • No Dissenting Opinion Majority Dissenting

  19. School Dist. of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v.Schempp School Dist. Of Abington Township, Pennsylvania Schemmp

  20. School Dist. of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v.Schempp • Context: Students attending public school in Abington Township School District were required to recite at least ten bible verses as well as the Lords Prayer.  • Question: Did the Pennsylvania law and Abington policy violate the religious freedom of students as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?  • Ruling: 8-1 in favor of Schempp • Implications: The readings and recitations were essentially religious ceremonies and were intended to be by the state.  • Amendments/Clauses: Establishment of Religion; Free Exercise Clause; First Amendment

  21. Majority/Dissenting •  Justice Clark: The ability of a parent to excuse a child from these ceremonies by a written note was irrelevant since it did not prevent the school's actions from violating the Establishment Clause • Justice Potter Stewart: declared the cases consolidated with Schempp as "so fundamentally deficient as to make impossible an informed or responsible determination of the constitutional issues presented" Majority Dissenting

  22. Gregg v Georgia Troy Leon Gregg Georgia

  23. Gregg v Georgia • Context: After being found guilty for armed robbery and murder Gregg received the death sentence and argued that his capital sentence was “cruel and unusual” punishment. • Question: Is the imposition of the death sentence prohibited under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments as "cruel and unusual" punishment? • Ruling:7-2 in favor of Georgia • Implications: In extreme criminal cases, such as when a defendant has been convicted of deliberately killing another, the careful use of the death penalty may be appropriate if carefully employed. • Amendments/Clauses: Eighth Amendment: Cruel and Unusual Punishment

  24. NAACP v. Alabama NAACP Alabama

  25. NAACP v. Alabama • Context: The State Attorney General of Alabama required that the names and addresses of all members of the NAACP be given to him (for the purpose of disallowing the group to operate). • Question: Did Alabama’s requirement violate the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? • Court Ruling: 9-0 in favor of NAACP • Implications: The case has become the precedent of the constitutional jurisprudence of informational disclosure. • Amendments/Clauses: Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

  26. Majority/Dissent • Justice Harlan decided that, "Immunity from state scrutiny of petitioner's membership lists is here so related to the right of petitioner's members to pursue their lawful private interests privately and to associate freely with others in doing so as to come within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment." • No dissenting opinion Majority Dissent

  27. Tinker v. Des Moines Tinker Des Moines

  28. Tinker v. Des Moines • Context: Students were suspended from school for symbolic speech; they wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. • Question: Does suspension for wearing armbands as symbolic speech violate the First Amendment right to freedom of speech? • Ruling: 7-2 in favor of Tinker • Implications: The case upholds the rights of students in schools to express their views in a peaceful and orderly way. • Amendments/Clauses: First Amendment; freedom of speech

  29. Majority/Dissent • Justice Fortas decided, “They neither interrupted school activities nor sought to intrude in the school affairs or the lives of others.” • Justice Black stated, “…some students in Iowa schools -- and, indeed, in all schools -- will be ready, able, and willing to defy their teachers on practically all orders.” Majority Dissent

  30. Mapp v. Ohio Mapp Ohio

  31. Mapp v. Ohio • Context: A woman was arrested after an unlawful search of her home, during which explicit photos of her were found. • Question: Were the confiscated materials protected by the First Amendment? May evidence found in a search that violates the Fourth Amendment be admitted in a state criminal proceeding? • Ruling: 6-3 in favor of Mapp • Implications: The exclusionary rule was declared to be implied, not only in federal, but also in state court proceedings. • Amendments/Clauses: First Amendment – freedom of expression; Fourth Amendment – protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

  32. Majority/Dissent • Justice Clark decided, “At the trial, no search warrant was produced by the prosecution, nor was the failure to produce one explained or accounted for. At best, ‘There is, in the record, considerable doubt as to whether there ever was any warrant for the search of defendant's home.’” • Justice Harlan argued that the plurality had misconstrued the Wolf ruling as incorporating the specific command against unreasonable searches and seizures rather than merely the core right to privacy. Majority Dissent

  33. New Jersey v. TLO New Jersey T.L.O

  34. New Jersey v. TLO • Context: A 14-year-old student was caught smoking in school, was searched, and the principal found drugs and paraphernalia in her purse. • Question: Did the search violate TLO’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights? • Ruling: 6-3 in favor of New Jersey • Implications: School officials do not need a warrant to justify a search, as long as it is reasonable under the circumstances. • Amendments/Clauses: Fourth Amendment – protection against unreasonable searches and seizures; Fourteenth Amendment – protection against deprivation of property without due process of law

  35. Majority/Dissent • Justice White decided that school officials do require a "reasonable suspicion" to perform a search. • Justice Brennan stated, "Today's decision sanctions school officials to conduct full scale searches on a 'reasonableness' standard whose only definite content is that it is not the same test as the 'probable cause' standard found in the text of the Fourth Amendment.” Majority Dissent

  36. Gideon v. Wainwright Gideon Wainwright

  37. Gideon v. Wainwright • Context: A man was charged with breaking and entering and could not afford a lawyer for defense. Gideon was not presented with an attorney when he asked for one. • Question: Were the rights to fair trial and due process, as underlined in the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, violated? • Ruling: 6-3 in favor of Gideon • Implications: The Sixth Amendment guarantee of counsel was a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial, and applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. • Amendments/Clauses: Sixth Amendment – right to Assistance of Counsel; Fourteenth Amendment – protection against deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

  38. Majority/Dissent • Justice Black defended that The right of an indigent defendant in a criminal trial to have the assistance of counsel is a fundamental right essential to a fair trial, and petitioner's trial and conviction without the assistance of counsel violated the Fourteenth Amendment. • No dissenting opinion Majority Dissent

More Related