C3.2(2) LANDMARK SUPREME COURT CASES
description
Transcript of C3.2(2) LANDMARK SUPREME COURT CASES
![Page 1: C3.2(2) LANDMARK SUPREME COURT CASES](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062304/56813a3c550346895da22607/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
C3.2(2) LANDMARK SUPREME COURT CASESMarbury v Madison (1803)
ISSUE: Judicial ReviewThis is in your C3.1(4) notes, add to these notes
![Page 2: C3.2(2) LANDMARK SUPREME COURT CASES](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062304/56813a3c550346895da22607/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
C3.2(2)
• McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)• ISSUE: Federalism (Necessary and Proper Clause)• Q: Can the Government create a national bank?• It is not granted that power in the Const.
• A: yes. • WHY? Because Congress has “implied powers”(the elastic
clause)
![Page 3: C3.2(2) LANDMARK SUPREME COURT CASES](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062304/56813a3c550346895da22607/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
C3.2(2)
• Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)• ISSUE: Federalism (Commerce Clause) • Q: When State Gov’t and Federal Gov’t laws conflict, who
wins?• A: Federal Gov’t wins.• Why? Constitution gives Congress the right to regulate
interstate (between state) commerce
![Page 4: C3.2(2) LANDMARK SUPREME COURT CASES](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062304/56813a3c550346895da22607/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
C3.2(2)
• Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)• ISSUE: Slavery (Due Process)• Q: Can an African-American sue someone in court?• A: No.• WHY? Because they are not citizens, so are not protected
under the Constitution
![Page 5: C3.2(2) LANDMARK SUPREME COURT CASES](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062304/56813a3c550346895da22607/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
C3.2(2)
• Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)• ISSUE: Segregation (Equal Protection Clause)• Q: is it legal to have separate facilities for Blacks and Whites?• A: Yes• WHY? Segregation is constitutional (“separate but equal”)
![Page 6: C3.2(2) LANDMARK SUPREME COURT CASES](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062304/56813a3c550346895da22607/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
C 3 .2 (2 )
• Brown v. Board of Education (1954)• ISSUE: Segregation (Equal Protection) • Q: Is segregation legal?• A: No• WHY? State laws requiring “separate but equal” schools are
unconstitutional
![Page 7: C3.2(2) LANDMARK SUPREME COURT CASES](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062304/56813a3c550346895da22607/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
C 3 .2 (2 )
• Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)• ISSUE: Right to a Lawyer (Due Process) • Q: Are states required to provide attorneys for some felony
defendants?• A: Yes• WHY? States are bound by the Constitution, too
![Page 8: C3.2(2) LANDMARK SUPREME COURT CASES](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062304/56813a3c550346895da22607/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
C3.2(2)
• Mapp v. Ohio (1961)• ISSUE: Unreasonable Search and Seizure (Due Process) • Q: can police search your house without a warrant?• A: No• WHY: the Constitution prohibits “unreasonable search and
seizure”
![Page 9: C3.2(2) LANDMARK SUPREME COURT CASES](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062304/56813a3c550346895da22607/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
C3.2(2)
• Miranda v. Arizona (1966)• ISSUE: Self-Incrimination • Q: can police question you without first notifying you of your
rights? • A: No• WHY? The Constitution protects us from self-incrimination
![Page 10: C3.2(2) LANDMARK SUPREME COURT CASES](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062304/56813a3c550346895da22607/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
C3.2(2)
• Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)• ISSUE: Freedom of Speech• Q: Can students wear certain clothing as a form of protest?• A: Yes• WHY? Students do not lose their constitutional rights when
they enter a school
![Page 11: C3.2(2) LANDMARK SUPREME COURT CASES](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062304/56813a3c550346895da22607/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
C3.2(2)
• United States v. Nixon (1974)• ISSUE: Checks and Balances• Q: Is the president immune from checks and balances under
“executive privilege”? • A: No• WHY: Executive Privilege has limits
![Page 12: C3.2(2) LANDMARK SUPREME COURT CASES](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062304/56813a3c550346895da22607/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
C 3 .2 (2 )
• Regents of the U. of California v. Bakke (1978)• ISSUE: Affirmative Action (Equal Protection)• Q: should race help determine who is accepted to
universities? • A: No and Yes• WHY? The University’s code was too rigid, but Affirmative
Action is constitutional
![Page 13: C3.2(2) LANDMARK SUPREME COURT CASES](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062304/56813a3c550346895da22607/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
C 3 .2 (2 )
• New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985)• ISSUE: Unreasonable Search and Seizure • Q: Do school officials need “probable cause” to search a
student?• A: No• WHY? “probable cause” is for police outside of school, in
school “reasonable suspicion” is enough
![Page 14: C3.2(2) LANDMARK SUPREME COURT CASES](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062304/56813a3c550346895da22607/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
C3.2(2)
• Texas v. Johnson (1989)• ISSUE: Freedom of Speech• Q: is burning the American flag protected under “freedom of
speech”?• A: Yes• WHY? Freedom of speech protects even those who offend
people
![Page 15: C3.2(2) LANDMARK SUPREME COURT CASES](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062304/56813a3c550346895da22607/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
C 3 .2 (2 )
• Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)• ISSUE: Censorship (Freedom of the Press)• Q: Can a principal censor student speech in a school
newspaper?• A: Yes• WHY? Schools must set high standards for student speech in
non-public forums
![Page 16: C3.2(2) LANDMARK SUPREME COURT CASES](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062304/56813a3c550346895da22607/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
![Page 17: C3.2(2) LANDMARK SUPREME COURT CASES](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062304/56813a3c550346895da22607/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
C3.2(1) SUMMARY QUESTIONS
Choose 5 cases that interest you the most. Explain why you believe the Supreme Court got it right, or got it wrong.