Ap Government Chapter 15 Study Guide

Why was the bill of rights added to the constitution?  The framers thought a bill of rights was not necessary because the constitution spelled out the extent of the feds power.  In 1791 the states ratified 10 amendments and the nation had a bill of rights. The BOR imposed limits on the national gov but not on state gov.  So… all in all I’m really not sure what the exact answer is.  Difference between civil liberties and civil rights . Civil liberties (sometimes referred to as “negative rights”) are freedoms that are guaranteed to an individual.

These are restraints on the gov. Civil liberties declare what the government cannot do.  Civil rights (“positive rights”) are powers and privileges that are guaranteed to the individual and protected against arbitrary removal at the hands of the gov or individuals. Like the right to vote or free expression and stuff.  The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion in two clauses:  The establishment clause- this prohibits laws establishing religion.  Free exercise clause- which prevents the government from interfering with the exercise of religion.

Together, these ensure that the government can neither promote nor inhibit religious beliefs or practices.  Know where phrase “Wall of separation between church and state” appears and comes from h. In 1879, the Supreme Court contended, quoting Thomas Jefferson, that the establishment clause erected “a wall of separation between church and State. ”  Lemon v. Kurtzman bottom of 490-491: in 1971, the court struck down a state program that would have helped pay the salaries of teachers hired by parochial (parochial means of or relating to a church or parish) schools to give instruction in secular subjects. . The justices proposed a 3 prong test for determining the constitutionality of gov. programs and laws under the establishment clause. The must have a secular purpose ii. Their primary effect must not be to advance or inhibit religion iii. They must not entangle the government excessively with religion.  The program in Lemon v Kurtzman did not satisfy the last prong of the test. The government would have had to constantly monitory the program which would have cause and excessive entanglement with religion.

Order custom essay Ap Government Chapter 15 Study Guide with free plagiarism report

450+ experts on 30 subjects Starting from 3 hours delivery

Get Essay Help

Engel v Vitale (bottom on 493) in 1962 the court struck down the daily reading of a 22 word nondenominational prayer in New York’s public schools. Justices stated that official state approval of prayer was an unconstitutional attempt on the part of the state to establish a religion. This decision drew a storm of protest that has yet to subside. k. In class I wrote down that he told us we needed to know the difference between freedom of beliefs and freedom of practice but I really don’t see how that has anything to do with this court case.. like whateverrrr coach sybert. l.

He also said to note the “Certain things you can’t do and hide behind religion. The one we talked about in class was the guy with the snakes” So I’m clueless yet again. 7. Strict scrutiny- A neutral law that burdens the free exercise of religion is subject to strict scrutiny. This means that the law may be upheld only if the government can demonstrate that: m. The law is justified by a “compelling governmental interest” n. The law is narrowly tailored to achieve a legitimate goal o. The law in question is the least restrictive means for achieving that interest p.

That was on page 496 and you may need to read the paragraph to understand the definition in context 8. Scheneck v U. S. (pg 498)- Charles Scheneck and his fellow defendents were convicted for attempting to disrupt WWI military recruitment by distributing leaflets claiming that conscription (conscription is enlistment for state service, typically the military) was unconstitutional. The gov believed that this behavior threatened public order. q. There’s supposed to be a famous quote we get out of this case but the quote is a whole big paragraph. Here is an excerpt from the quote: iv. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such nature to create a clear and present danger that will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent” v. That’s known as the clear and present danger test. Duh. r. Because the actions of the defendants were deemed to create a clear and present danger to the US at that time, the Supreme court upheld their convictions. 9. Tinker v Des Moine Independent County School District (pg 500)- involved 3 public school students who wore a black armbands to protest the Vietnam War.

Principles in their school district had prohibited the wearing of armbands on the ground that such conduct would provoke a disturbance; the district suspended the students but the Supreme Court overturned the suspensions. s. Justices declared for the majority that the principals had failed to show that the forbidden conduct would substansially interfere with appropriate school discipline. t. “……fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression. ”

Chaplinsky v New Hampshire (500)- In 1942 Walter Chaplinksy, a Jehovah’s Witness, convicted under a state statute for calling a city marshal a “God-damned racketeer” and “a damned fascist” in a public place, appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld Chaplinksy’s conviction on the theory that fighting words do not convey ideas and thus are not subject to first amendment protection. u. Fighting words- words that inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. v. To dumb it down- he was found guilty because the things he said were not protected by the first amendment.  Reno v ACLU (501)- the supreme court upheld the lower court’s ruling in June 1997 by unamimously deciding a broad affirmation of free speech rights in cyberspace, arguing that the Internet was more analogous (analogous means comparable) to print media than to television, and thus even indecent material on the internet was entitled to First Amendment protection.  New York Times v Sullivan (502)- First off you need to know that libel is the written defamation of character. A person who believes their name and character have been harmed can sue.

In this case, the supreme court declared that freedom of the press takes precedence—at least when the defamed individual is a public official. w. The court agreed that the first amendment protects the publication of all statements about the conduct of public officials, except statements made with actual malice. x. Actual malice- with knowledge that they are false or in reckless disregard for their truth or falsity. y. 3 years later, the court extended this protection to apply to all public figures, not just government officials.

Prior restraint case dealing with the pentagon papers . Supreme court doesn’t believe in prior restraint although you can be punished after the fact. And in order for the supreme court to prevent publication they have to have a really good reason- have to prove immediate, inevitable, and irreparable harm following the publication of the documents. |. First amendment offers protection against government censorship 14. Case in Louisville, Kentucky- a reporter who had researched and written an article about drug related activities was called on by a grand jury to identify people he had seen in possession of the drugs.

The reporter refused to testify, saying that freedom of the press shielded him from this inquiry. . In a closely divided decision, the supreme court rejected his position stating that no exception is permissible to the rule that all citizens have a duty to give their government whatever testimony they are capable of giving.  He had to give up the information and some of his freedom to maintain order 15. Bong hits for Jesus. Pg 505- supreme court upheld the suspension of the boy who held up the sign at an outside school event. School officials may prohibit speech if it could be interpreted as promoting an illegal drug use.  The 2nd amendment states “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.  If you are a gun control advocate- you focus on the first part and your argument is that everyday citizens are not part of a militia. . If you are NOT a gun control advocate- you focus on the second part that your right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. D. C. vs Heller- (federal level)- was a challenge to the strictest gun control statute in the country. It barred private possession of handguns and required trigger locks and stuff.

The court ruled in a 5-4 decision that it is a constitutional right to keep a loaded handgun at home for self defense. McDonald v Chicago– (state level)- this case had the same ruling as the first one except this one was on a state level.  Bill of attainder- a law that pronounces an individual guilty of a crime without a trial.  Most freedoms protected in the BOR today function as limitations on the states. The changes have been achieved through the supreme court’s interpretation of the due process clause of the 14th amendment: .

Due process clause-“nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without the due process of law. ” This clause has 2 central meanings: vi. It requires the government to adhere to appropriate procedures. vii. It forbids unreasonable government action. . Under this clause you have a trial by jury available to you, if you can’t afford a lawyer they’ll provide you with one, etc. Not all states have the same number of jurors. Supreme court says minimum of 6.  Gideon vs Wainwright- pg 511 case made due process applicable to the states. The state must provide you with a lawyer if you cannot afford one. 2. Miranda Warnings-protects against self incrimination. comes from Miranda v Arizona 23. Exclusionary rule- Something discovered as the result of an illegal search cannot be used in trial. Mapp vs us on 512 24. The exception is the good faith clause- U. S. vs Leon. Pg 513 . Griswald v Conneticut- 517 personal autonomy. Could the state outlaw birth control. Zone of privacy that exists because of the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th amendment. . Birth control is a personal choice. 26. Rowe vs. Wade- extension of Gridwald. You should have choice on child bearing. Blah blah blah. Struck down abortion laws.

First amendment and the freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is not absolute. Explain (or give 2 examples of) 2 limits on speech and the related cases. Fighting words- Chaplinsky b. Idk. Similar concept. Rules against illegal search and seizure and self incrimination protect your right to a due process. One rule regarding illegal search and seizure, and the case. Explain how that protects your due process . One rule regarding self incrimination and the related case and explain how that protects your right to due process of law.

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Run a free check or have your essay done for you

Check my essay Hire Writer