Table of Contents · McCulloch vs. Maryland This court case dealt with a series of individual...

Table of Contents

Teams Topic Page Team 1 Students Powers of the Federal Government 2-5 Leader Ellen Spencer Section Introduction and Summary 2 Rebecca Atkins Marbury V. Madison 3 Madison Wiles Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824 4 Abigail LeCompte McCulloch vs. Maryland, 1819 5 Team 2 Students Equal Protection Under the Law 6-12 Leader Kathryn Lyall Section Introduction and Summary 6 Alexa Nix Korematsu v. US, 1944 7 Jake Hutton Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 1964 8 John Yount Swann vs. Charlotte-Mecklenburg BOE, 1969 9 Chloe Mayes Regents of the University of California v Bakke, 1978 10 Cody Cochran Plessy v Ferguson, 1896 11 Jackie Elliott Brown v. Board of Education, 1954 12 Team 3 Students The First Amendment 13-19 Leader Erin Bendig Section Introduction and Summary 13 Bailey Boring Tinker v. Des Moines 1969 14 Courtland Sample Texas v. Johnson, 1989 15 Katelyn Logan Engel v. Vitale, 1962 16 Samantha Lawrence Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 1988 17 Brady Allen Texas Vs Johnson, 1989 18 Kevin Lu Bethel School District v. Fraser, 1986 19 Team 4 Students Rights of the Accussed 20-23 Leader Randolph Harper Section Introduction and Summary 20 Izaiah Reynolds Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963 21 Ashlynn Holton Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 22 Bria Lindsay Mapp v. Ohio, 1961 23 Team 5 Students Rights of the Accussed 24-27 Leader Isabella Bedoya-Patino Section Introduction and Summary 24 Babatunde Fakayode Furman v. Georgia, 1967 25 Jonathan Card Gregg v. Georgia 1976 26 Yadira Dorantes New Jersey v T.L.O, 1985 27 Team 6 Students Rights of the Accused 28-31 Leader John Beck Section Introduction and Summary 28 Jacob Hallenbeck Furman vs. Georgia 29 Spencer Messick Gregg .v Georgia, 1973 30 Jackson Scott New Jersey V. T.L.O, 1985 31 App. Appendix Supplementary Materials 32-39 Appendix 1 Vocabulary 33-36 Appendix 2 Check and Balances Chart 37 Appendix 3 Landmark Supreme Court Cases 38-39

Powers of the Federal Government By: Ellen Spencer These three cases all deal with the powers of the federal government. Each three of these cases have given a guide to other court cases and also have established the ruling. Each case is well known throughout many other cases and stand out because of their importance. The Federal powers are what make these cases stand out from any ordinary case. These court cases were also different because in every case there was a unanimous decision made by the judges in favor of the defendant. Marbury vs. Madison This case was the first case in the Supreme Court to establish judiciary review. John Adams tried to appoint William Marbury as a Justice of the Peace on the last day of his presidency, but did complete the appointment before it was up. This was the first time in court history that a court involved judiciary review in there ruling. What was being questioned was whether they could have original jurisdiction. All four judges that were in the trail agreed on the same verdict. In the end, William Marbury was entitled to the position that was granted by John Adams. But the final decision belonged to the new President, Thomas Jefferson. This case is known by everyone because of the first ever ruling using judiciary review. McCulloch vs. Maryland This court case dealt with a series of individual federal banks. McCulloch was the manager of the Federal Bank in Baltimore, Maryland. McCulloch refused to pay the state tax imposed by Maryland. This case presents a conflict between the national government and the state. McCulloch v. Maryland worked under the constitution. The law that was taxing McCulloch was considered to be unconstitutional which ruled in his favor. All seven judges riled in McCulloch’s favor declaring the taxing unconstitutional. McCulloch v. Maryland ruled in favor of the defendant because the Necessary and Proper Clause in the U.S.A Constitution. All of the judges agreed on the same case making the ruling to be considerably easy. In the end McCulloch did not have to pay any taxes that were enforced by the state. Gibbons vs. Ogden Ogden was given an exclusive license to run a ferry between New York and New Jersey. Gibbons got a license to run a ferry in New York waters, there for interfering with Ogden’s license. This case also uses a federal power. Intrastate Commerce The main issue of this court was whether the state should have a close control of interstate commerce. Once again all six judges ruled in Gibbons favor giving it a unanimous vote. The decision of the New York court was reversed. In the end Gibbons won the case. Gibbons was allowed to run through ferry throughout New York and New Jersey.

Marbury v. Madison, 1803 By: Rebecca Atkins Background Information: William Marbury was chosen to become the justice of the peace for the District of Columbia and in a last ditch effort to save his party after the recently lost election, John Adams attempted to appoint him on the last night he was president. The appointments didn’t go through and Marbury and the other Justices sued for their positions. Issue(s): Federal Powers This court case dealt with the power of judicial review and fully established that power. This was the first time judicial review was exercised. Original Jurisdiction

Another issue that arose was whether or not the Supreme Court had original jurisdiction in this case. It did as stated in Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 “And shall have exclusively all such jurisdiction of suits or proceedings… and original, but not exclusive jurisdiction of all suits brought by ambassadors, or other public ministers…”(Section 13). Supreme Court’s Decision: 4 to 0 in Madison’s favor John Marshall’s unanimous opinion was that the constitution is the supreme law of the land and if the constitution gave them a power it was not to be trumped by any other law or act made to restrict or allow judicial powers. Two of the Judges did not participate because their appointments were on trial as well. Concurring Opinion: The 4 participating judges agreed unanimously so there were no concurring opinions. Dissenting Opinion: Because all of the judges had the same opinion there were none. Sources: "Judiciary Act of 1789." Judiciary Act of 1789. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Apr. 2014. “MARBURY v. MADISON.” The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 11 April 2014. "The Supreme Court and Judicial Review." Supreme Court & Judicial Review. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Apr. 2014.

Gibbons v Ogden, 1824 By: Maddie Wiles Background Information:

Aaron Ogden had a state license to navigate his steamboat around New York, and Thomas Gibbons had a federal license for his boat. Gibbons began to carry passengers around the waters of New York, stealing all of Ogden’s business. So Ogden sued him, on the grounds that Gibbons didn’t have a specified state license. New York courts said Gibbons was no longer allowed to sail in New York waters; however Gibbons appealed to the Supreme Court who took Gibbons’ side and rejected Ogden’s argument. Issues: Interstate Commerce/ Commerce Clause

The main issue in this court case is whether the states or congress have more authority over interstate commerce.

There was a clash of the regulation of steam vessels in New York and whether the federal government would regulate the transportation of passengers across the Hudson River between New York and New Jersey. Supreme Court’s Decision: 6 to 0 in Gibbons’ favor The court decided the true definition of commerce wasn’t only the buying and selling of goods, but it describes the “intercourse” between nations and parts of nations. The decision of New York court was reversed, resulting in Gibbons victory. Concurring Opinion: The concurring opinion in this court case was that the national government had exclusive power over interstate commerce, denying state laws that interfere with that authority. Dissenting Opinion: There was not a dissenting opinion in this case; the final vote was 6 to 0 in Gibbon’s favor. Sources: McClenaghan, William. Magruder’s American Government. Needham: Prentice Hall, 1993.Print. April 17,

2014.

North Carolina End-Of-Year Coach: Civics and Economics. Triumph Learning,2006. Print. April 17, 2014.

"Supremacy Clause." Civics Today. The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc., 2008.Print. April 17, 2014.

Oestreicher, Cheryl. "Gibbons Family Papers Finding Aid." Drew University Library . N.p., 1 Jan. 2007. Web.

April 17,2014.

McCulloch v. Maryland By: Abigail LeCompte Background Information:

There was a conflict between the national government and a state, because Maryland was taxing a local branch of the bank of the United States. This was a result of a Maryland law that forced federally funded banks to use only a special paper to print money. James W. McCulloch, who was a cashier at the bank, refused to use the paper. McCulloch said that the states could not tax the federal government. Issues: Constitutional powers

The Maryland law that taxed branches of the United States bank was thought to be unconstitutional because it inhibited congressional powers. The question was whether or not the federal government had supremacy, considering these powers are not specifically listed in the constitution. Supreme Court Decision: 7 to 0 in McCulloch’s favor The court declared the Maryland law unconstitutional; they argued that "the power to tax implies the power to destroy." This is because congress has unremunerated powers that are not specifically listed in the constitution. This case established that the federal government has supremacy over the states. Concurring Opinion: There were no concurring opinions because the decision was unanimous. Dissenting Opinion: There were no dissenting opinions because the decision was unanimous. Sources: “McCulloch v. Maryland”, Magruder’s American Government, Massachusetts: Prentice Hall, 1993. MCCULLOCH v. MARYLAND. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 12 April 2014. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1792-1850/1819/1819_0>. “McCulloch v. Maryland”, United States Government in Action: Supreme Court Case Studies, New York: Glencoe, 2004. Photo of Justice John Marshall, April 2, 2014, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Marshall>.

Equal Protection Under the Law

By: Katie Lyall

According to the 14th Amendment, no person shall be denied life, liberty, or property without “due process of law.” All U.S. citizens should be provided with equal protection under the law

no matter what race, religion, or background they come from. Korematsu v. US, 1944 Korematsu was a part of the Japanese ethnic group. After Japan bombed Pearl Harbor in WWII, the US decided to relocate people of Japanese decent for safety reasons. Korematsu refused to relocate. In court, Korematsu believed his rights were being violated, but the Court stated that relocation was necessary during time of war. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US, 1964 The Heart of Atlanta did not allow African Americans to stay at the motel. The Court ruled this as a violation of the Civil Rights Act. This court case banned discrimination. You cannot be denied the right to something because of your race. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg BOE, 1969 During the time of this case, schools were still in the process of being integrated. There was not enough racial mix in the schools to achieve the integration goal. This case allowed busing across town in order to achieve successful integration. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 1978 In this case Bakke was denied acceptance into medical school because he was black. This violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which protected minority students who may be replaced by whites. Race can no longer be the only factor in determining admissions. Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896 Plessy persisted on sitting with the white people on the train. Since he was one-eighth black, he was asked to sit in the colored section of the train; he refused to do so. “Separate but equal” was established after this case. Segregation would remain in effect, but citizens would have equal rights. Brown v. Board of Education, 1954 A black girl by the name of Linda Brown was denied the right to go to a nearby white school. She wanted to go to the white school because it was closer and provided a better education. In the case it was ruled that her 14th Amendment rights were violated because she was kept from the quality of education she wanted. This case began the desegregation of schools. Southern states were more resistant in desegregating schools.

Korematsu v. United States By: Alexa Nix Background Information:

Fred Korematsu refused to obey wartime order and report to his internment camp. Following the attacks on Pearl Harbor, all Japanese-Americans were ordered to go to concentration camps. These camps were located towards the center of the United States and Korematsu, not wanting to leave, stayed in San Leandro.

Issue(s): Deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law, 5th Amendment

Korematsu claimed that the Executive Order violated his personal rights, specifically those in the Bill of Rights including life, liberty, or property. Equal protection under the law, 14th amendment

Korematsu believed that there was a violation of both the Fifth Amendment and a writ of habeas corpus, which states that a person cannot be detained more than a certain amount of time. Supreme Court Decision: 6 to 3 in favor of the United States The Supreme Court decided that during wartime the Presidential Executive Order was not unconstitutional. Concurring Opinion: Felix Frankfurter wrote the only concurring opinion in the Korematsu v. US case. Felix Frankfurter agreed with former Chief Justice Hughes that the government has "the power to wage war successfully." Frankfurter states that the case must be judged based on the context of war. Dissenting Opinion: Justice Roberts believed that the case was violation of Constitutional rights. Justice Murphy said, “This exclusion of ‘all persons of Japanese ancestry, both alien and non-alien,’ goes over ‘the very brink of constitutional power.’ Justice Jackson says that Korematsu was born in the United States so he should be treated like one. Sources: KOREMATSU v. UNITED STATES. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 15

April 2014. Web.

Fred Korematsu. Petaluma Pie Company. 30 Jan. 2011. 14 Apr. 2014.

Fred Korematsu

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US, 1964 By: Jake Hutton Background Information: African Americans came to the heart of Atlanta motel in hopes of being able to rent a room. The owner of the Heart of Atlanta Motel refused to rent rooms to African Americans, but allowed them to work as motel staff. African Americans found this unfair. The owner filed suit in the district court, saying that the public accommodations provisions were "unconstitutional". He lost the case and took it to the Supreme Court. Issue: Equal rights/discrimination, 14th amendment

An important part of the 14th amendment is that no person can be “deprived of life, liberty, and property without due process of law.”

Congress passed the Civil Rights Act, and exceeded its commerce clause powers by taking away motels rights to choose their own customers. The owner of the motel argued that he was deprived of the 14th amendment right to operate his business as he pleased.

Supreme Court’s Decision: 9 to 0 in U.S.’ favor The court ruled this way because they believed it was a violation of the Civil Rights Act. Concurring opinion: The precedent was that discrimination was banned. The court ruled that public businesses do not have the right to select people that they think is the best fit. The commerce clause is what allows the federal government to decide what goods and people are allowed. Conflict: The Supreme Court attempted to resolve whether or not an amendment was being violated at the Heart of Atlanta Motel. Sources: "HEART OF ATLANTA MOTEL v. U.S." Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Apr. 2014.

"Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US", McClenaghan, William. American Government. (274). New Jersey:

Prentice Hall. 1993. Print.

Photo of the Heart of Atlanta Motel, Web. April 15, 2014.

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg BOE, 1969 By: Alex Yount Background Information:

The Charlotte-Mecklenburg school district created a policy stating that African Americans and white students had the option of selecting any particular school they wanted to attend. In 1965, Darius Swann’s son wanted to attend a nearby white school. His son was denied enrollment. Darius Swann sued the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education. The case went through many lower court reviews before it was presented to the United States Supreme Court on October 12, 1970.

Issue(s): Equal Protection Laws, Desegregation, 14th Amendment

The 14th Amendment says, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The Equal Protection Laws gives every U.S. citizen equal rights under the law. The Equal Protection Laws also apply to the African Americans.

Supreme Court’s Decision: 9 to 0 in favor of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg BOE Chief Justice Burger said that in order put an end to segregated schools, one race schools should be eliminated and attendance zones shall be limited. The court also ruled in favor of Charlotte-Mecklenburg BOE because all black or mostly black schools required very close inspection by the courts. In order to achieve desegregation of the schools, Chief Justice Burger ruled that busing will be used. The courts ruling also overruled the Brown v. Board of Education case.

Concurring Opinion: Chief Justice Burger said that the courts should not use the white to black student ratio as a way of desegregating each school and that not every school district should reflect racial composition.

Dissenting Opinion: None

Sources: "Landmark Supreme Court Case Studies: Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education."

Glencoe Civics Today. N.p.: n.p., n.d. 394. Print.

Photo of Chief Justice Warren Burger, April 16, 2014, http://www.oyez.org/justices/warren-

_e_burger

Chief Justice Warren Burger

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. 1978

By: Chloe Mayes Background Information:

Allan Bakke applied to medical school twice and was rejected both times. While trying to find out why he was not accepted, he found out that his grades and test scores were higher than some of the people that got in. He also found out that the program had 16 spots reserved for disadvantaged people who were in minority groups; however, the rest of the 84 spots were available to any race. Bakke, who was white, thought this system was unfair. He sued the university on the grounds that he was rejected because of racial discrimination.

Issues: Equal protection clause, 14th amendment Violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Supreme Court’s Decision: 5 to 4 in Bakke’s Favor

A close vote gave Bakke admission into medical school, overturning the special admissions program. Four justices agreed with this decision saying "any racial quota system supported by government violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964." The other four agreed that race could be a factor in determining who got in to the school. Justice Powell wrote that "the guarantee of equal protection cannot mean one thing when applied to an individual and something else when applied to a person of color."

Concurring Opinion: It was argued that the university’s policy violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the

equal protection clause in the 14th amendment, which says "no person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance."

Dissenting Opinion: The people who disagreed with the decision said that people of minority backgrounds are

disadvantaged from birth and hardly ever receive equal education so they should be given more protection under the 14th amendment. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 protected minority groups and discrimination.

Sources: REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA V. BAKKE.The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-

Kent College of Law. 10 April 2014.

Lewis F. Powell, U.S. Supreme Court. N.d. The Free Dictionary. Web. 14 Apr. 2014.

Justice Powell

Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896

By: Cody Cochran Background Information:

The case of Plessy v. Ferguson was argued on April 13, 1896. The decision was made on May 18, 1896. Louisiana passed a law that required separate railway cars for blacks and whites. The question was whether or not this law was constitutional or unconstitutional. Homer Adolph Plessy, who was seven-eighths Caucasian, took a seat in one of the “whites only” cars of a Louisiana train. When he refused to move to the car reserved for blacks, he was arrested. Issue(s): 14th Amendment, Separate-but-equal belief

The question in this case was whether or not Louisiana law could mandate racial segregation on its trains and whether it was an unconstitutional act on the privileges, immunities and the equal protection clause included in the 14th Amendment. Supreme Court’s Decision: 7 to 1 in Ferguson’s favor Henry B. Brown wrote the majority opinion. The majority upheld racial segregation that was state-forced. The decision was based on the “separate but equal” belief that separate facilities for whites and blacks did satisfy the 14th Amendment, as long as they were treated equal under the law. Justice Brown acknowledged that the 14th Amendment intended to establish absolute equality for races before the law.

Brown also noted that “in the nature of things it could have not been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political equality, or commingling of the two races unsatisfactory to either.” (Oyez Par 4) Dissenting Opinion: Justice John Marshall Harlan dissented from the majority opinion. His decision also had a major impact in the case of Brown v. Board of Education. Justice Marshall argued that segregationist legislation, like the law in this case, was based on the assumption that “colored citizens are so inferior and degraded that they cannot be allowed to sit in public coaches occupied by white citizens.” Sources: Homer Plessy. N.d. Photograph. Legal Solutions BlogWeb. 11 Apr 2014.

"Landmark Cases." Streetlaw. Street Law Inc. . Web. 11 Apr 2014.

PLESSY v. FERGUSON. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 11 April 2014.

Homer Adolph Plessy

Brown v. Board of Education By: Jack Elliott Background Information:

A young girl named Linda Brown wanted to attend a school that was very close to her house, but the school was for white children only. Linda had to attend the school for blacks that was farther from her house than the school for whites. The law stated segregation by race was allowed in schools.

Issue(s): Segregation in schools, 14th amendment

The 14th amendment states "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The Question then became, does this take away their privileges as citizens of the Unites States as stated in the 14th amendment? Should public schools be segregated?

Supreme Court’s Decision: 9 to 0 in Brown’s favor

The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that racial segregation in schools can have long lasting effects on students because it makes minority children feel inferior. In public schools, “separate but equal” was found to be unequal. The Supreme Court voted unanimously for Brown, causing separate but equal to not be allowed in public schools and racial segregation in public schools to end.

Concurring Opinion:

The court voted unanimously for Brown, allowing segregation in schools to be banned. They believed it was a violation of the fourteenth amendment because all students should have equal education opportunities.

Dissenting Opinion:

Due to all of the votes being in favor of Brown, there was no dissenting opinion.

Sources: "BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION (I)." Brown v. Board of Education (I). N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Apr. 2014.

"Intent of the Fourteenth Amendment Was to Protect All Rights." Intent of the Fourteenth Amendment Was to

Protect All Rights. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2014.

Photo of Chief Justice Earl Warren: "Earl Warren." The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. N.p.,

n.d. Web. 13 Apr. 2014.

Chief Justice Earl Warren

The First Amendment By: Erin Bendig In the Bill of Rights, the first amendment guarantees 5 specific freedoms that an individual may have. These rights include: freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion, freedom of petition, and freedom of assembly. Freedom of speech means that you have the right to criticize the government without the fear of being punished by law. Freedom of the press means that you may publish anything as long as it is true. Freedom of religion means that the government cannot establish a national government or prohibit the practice of any certain religion. Freedom of petition means that people have to right to petition against decisions the government makes and freedom of assembly means that people have the right to gather in public or in private. Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969 In 1969, a group of students gathered to do something about their common opinion about the Vietnam War. These students were not in favor of American troops going to fight, so in awareness, they wore black armbands to school to express their protest. The school board met and agreed that they would not tolerate the wearing of these armbands and sent the kids home. Texas v. Johnson, 1989 A man named Gregory Johnson burned an American flag in protest of the president’s administrative policies. He was convicted and sent to jail. In the Supreme Court, they ruled that he has the right to burn an American flag because under the first amendment, he has the right to do so. Engel v. Vitale, 1962 In a New York school, the board decided that they would recite a prayer before they started each day. This violated the first amendment because they were establishing a religion which is unconstitutional. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmier, 1988 In a Missouri school, the students were going to include an article in their school newspaper about a sensitive topic related to the students. The principal did not allow them to publish the story because it was inappropriate. Cathy Kuhlmier and two other students said that that was a violation of their first amendment rights. Bethel School District v. Fraser, 1986 Matthew Fraser was speaking at his high school assembly and included some sexual gestures and metaphors. He was suspended from school because his speech interfered with the educational process. The school has the power to say what is appropriate to say and what not to say, so this was not a violation of his first amendment right to freedom of speech.

Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969

By: Bailey Boring Background Information: A group of adults and students in Des Moines wanted to publicize their opposition to the American involvement in the war in Vietnam by wearing black armbands. The principles at Des Moines schools decided that anyone doing this would be suspended until they appeared without the armband. Mary Beth, Christopher, and John Tinker wore the armbands and were suspended until the end of the protest. Issue(s): 1st Amendment: Speech, Press, and Assembly The argument became whether or not prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school was a violation of students’ right to free speech guaranteed by the 1st Amendment. Supreme Court’s Decision: 7 to 2 in Tinker’s favor The Supreme Court decided that the armbands represented pure speech, and were separate from the students’ conduct. They also decided that students didn’t lose their right to free speech while on school property. In order to justify the suppression of speech, school officials must be able to prove the conduct would interfere with the operation of the school. Concurring Opinion: Justice Potter Stewart stated that “children are not necessarily guaranteed the full extent of First Amendment rights.” Justice Byron R. White stated separately that “the majority’s opinion relies on a distinction between communication through words and communication through action.” Dissenting Opinion: Justice Hugo L. Black argued that “the First Amendment does not provide the right to express any opinion at any time.” Justice John M. Harlan argued separately that “school officials should be afforded wide authority to maintain order unless their actions can be proven to stem from a motivation other than a legitimate school interest.” Sources: Photo of the Warren Court, April 17, 2014

TINKER v. DES MOINES INDEPENDENT COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT. The Oyez

Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. April 11, 2014.

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Texas vs. Johnson, 1989

By: Courtland Sample Background Information Gregory Johnson set fire to an American flag during a protest at the Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas. He led the protest against national polices. Johnson was arrested for breaking Texas law which prohibits the desecration of the Texas and U.S. Flag and was found guilty in court. The appeals court reversed the decision and the State took it to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said that the Texas law was unconstitutional because of its limits on the right to “freedom of expression.” Issue(s): 1st Amendment, Freedom of Expression The problem with law was it limited the first amendment rights of freedom of expression. The Texas law took these rights away when they arrested Gregory Johnson. They found the law unconstitutional violating the first amendments rights. Supreme Court Decision The Supreme Court 5-4 vote held that Johnson burning of the flag is protected by the first amendment rights of expression. Johnson’s actions were not prohibited by the amendment. He was expressing his opinions on what he thought of the U.S. Supreme Court found just because the public takes offense to the actions doesn’t mean he is prohibited to speak his mind. The Supreme Court also designated that states don’t have the authority to tell what symbols are prohibited to be desecrated. Concurring Opinion Justice Kennedy stated, “The respondent is not a philosopher and perhaps did not even possess the ability to comprehend how repellent his statement must be to the Republic itself. Whether or not he could appreciate the offense he gave the fact remains that his acts were speech, in both technical and fundamental meaning of the Constitution.” Dissenting Opinion Chief Rehnquist said “But the court insists that the Texas statue prohibiting the public burning of the American flag infringes on respondent Johnson’s freedom of expression. Such freedom, is not absolute.” Sources Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, < http://www..law.cornell.edu >

Photo of Johnson, 1989, < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson>

“Texas vs. Johnson”, American Government:, New York: Glencoe, 2004.

Gregory Johnson on the right

Engel v. Vitale, 1962 By: Katelyn Logan Background Information: In New York, parents of ten students in attendance of a public school in Long Island began a petition that led to a trial to challenge the constitutionality of a nondenominational prayer, which was approved by the New York State Board of Regents, being recited everyday before school. The prayer reads as follows: “Almighty God; we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country.” The prayer recitation was offered to schools and was a voluntary exercise. The parents (Engel) stood against the New York Board of Regents (Vitale) in a trial. Issue(s): 1st amendment, Establishment Clause The first amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The question was asked if this nondenominational prayer established a religion in a government funded public school. The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause prohibits the government from establishing an official religion. The majority noted that religion is very important in the majority of American people, but the argument became is it fair for a religion to be forced upon the minority. Justice Hugo Black Supreme Court’s Decision: 6 to 1 in Engel’s favor The court decided that the prayer citation was ruled as unconstitutional and against the First amendment Establishment Clause. The majority stated that the opportunity allowing students to absence themselves from this prayer activity did not make the law constitutional because the purpose of the first amendment is to prohibit government interference with religion. The majority also mentioned how when the government was with involved religion wars and other destructive events arose. Concurring Opinion: Justice Douglas looked at the Establishment Clause from a broader perspective and argued hat any type of public promotion of religion is against the Establishment Clause. Dissenting Opinion: Justice Stewart argued that the majority used the Establishment Clause out of context. He stated, “I cannot see how an ‘official religion’ is established by letting those who want to participate in saying a prayer, say it.” Sources: ENGEL v. VITALE. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 10 April 2014.

John, Black. Justice Hugo Black. 2006. Photograph. n.p. Web. 11 Apr 2014.

Remy, Richard. United States Government, Engel v Vitale. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1998. Print.

Hazelwood School District v Kuhlmeier, 1988

By: Sammi Lawrence Background Information: Two articles were written in Hazelwood East High School’s newspaper, “The Spectrum,” were eliminated due to offensive topics. When the principal edited the school newspaper, he believed that two articles were “inappropriate, personal, sensitive, and unsuitable topics for student readers.” The articles were withheld from publications, Cathy Kuhlmeier and two previous students of Hazelwood took the case to court. Issue(s): 1st Amendment Students believed that removing the articles were violating their constitutional right. They thought they were deprived of their freedom of expression, of the first amendment. The school board had agreed with the principal’s decision in removing the articles. Supreme Court’s Decision: 5 to 3 Hazelwood’s favor The Supreme Court decided that the principle’s decision was not violating the student’s freedom of speech or expression. With it being a school-sponsored newspaper, the principal had the authority to override any decision that the students may or may not have made. The school may censor student publications, as long as they have a reasonable excuse to edit out certain articles. Concurring Opinion: The school reserves the right to remove any article, in a school sponsored newspaper. Justice Byron White states that "A school must also retain the authority to refuse to sponsor student speech that might reasonably be perceived to advocate drug or alcohol use, irresponsible sex, or 'conduct otherwise inconsistent with the shared values of a civilized social order,' or to associate the school with any position other than neutrality on matters of political controversy." Dissenting Opinion: The dissent believed that the majority failed to distinguish the difference between school-initiated and school-sponsored speech. They also believed that the precedent of the case, Tinker v Des Moines, demonstrated how easily officials of the schools and courts can declare “discrimination” as protection against sensitive topics. Sources: "HAZELWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT v. KUHLMEIER." Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier. N.p., n.d.

Web. 13 Apr. 2014.

"Justice Byron White - Dissents from Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton and Their Progeny." Justice Byron White -

Dissents from Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton and Their Progeny. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2014.

Justice Byron White

Texas v Johnson, 1989 By: Brady Allen Background Information During the 1984 Republican National Convention taking place in Dallas, Texas there was a large protest in the city against the Reagan Administration. The people of this protest marched through the city streets picketing and shouting anti-political chants against the president. When the protest had reached the city hall of Dallas, one of the protesters (Johnson) took a flag that was stolen from a local flagpole and set it on fire as a symbolic act of their protest. After many witnesses were offended at the sight of burning the nation’s flag, Johnson was arrested and charged under a Texas law that stated desecration of a venerated object was illegal. Issue(s): Freedom of speech, 1st amendment The first amendment to the US constitution states that congress shall make no law that “abridges the freedom of speech”. In this case, Johnson claimed that whenever he was arrested for desecrating a venerated object that this first amendment right was infringed. The key part of deciding the constitutional rights involved within the Johnson’s court case is distinguishing whether or not the rights of symbolic protests that are offensive to society are valid as described by the constitution. Supreme Court’s Decision: 5 to 4 in Johnson’s favor The court decided that Johnson’s symbolic act of protest of burning the American flag was indeed protected by the first amendment. The court felt that Johnson’s behavior was expressive conduct and was only of a distinctive political nature. The justices of the court also upheld to the idea that just because an expression of protest may be offensive or disagreeable does not mean that the government has the right to place punishment on it. Concurring Opinion: Justice Anthony Kennedy, one of the justices who were at first in opposition to Johnson’s case, later voted in favor of him stating that sometimes one must vote in favor of something that they do not believe in because the constitution supports the issue. Dissenting Opinion: Justice Kennedy stated, “The national flag is honored with “almost mystical reverence” by millions of Americans and desecration of that symbol should be punished”. Sources: William A. McClenaghan. Maglunder’s American Government. Englewood, New Jersey: Practice Hall, 1993

TEXAS v. JOHNSON. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 15 April 2014.

Photo of Justice Anthony Kennedy, August 30, 2010, web.

Justice Anthony Kennedy

Bethel School District vs. Frasier, 1986

By: Kevin Lu Background Information: A student was giving a sexually suggestive speech during an assembly. The administration had punished him after the assembly but the student had argued that the school rules were limiting his 1st amendment rights. The student then took it up to the Supreme Court to decide. Issue(s): Freedom of speech, 1st amendment The student thought that the school rules were a violation of his 1st amendment rights because they limited his freedom of speech. The problem wasn’t the restriction of the student’s 1st amendment but how he approached it during the speech. The student even said that he did it on purpose. Supreme Court Decision: 7 to 2 in Bethel school’s favor. The court decided that the school having rules against certain words or phrases were not in violation to the 1st amendment. They also said that schools are not prohibited to prohibit such language on school grounds. Concurring Opinion: Almost everyone was in favor of Bethel School because the school’s job is to teach students “habits and manners of civility.” their job is to also teach students how to behave in the real world and have a civil attitude. Dissenting Opinion: The dissenting opinion is strange because the people that voted against Bethel School had agreed with the base idea of how the school wasn’t breaking the 1st amendment. They think that it was the school’s fault because they didn’t teach the students what type of language was disruptive and what wasn’t. Sources: McClenaghan, William A., and Frank Abbott Magruder. Magruder's American Government. Needham, MA:

Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2004. Print.

Remy, Richard C. United States Government: Democracy in Action. New York: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill, 2003. Print.

"FindLaw | Cases and Codes." FindLaw | Cases and Codes. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2014.

Photo of Justice Brennan, April 17, 2014, web.

Justice Brennan

Rights of the Accused By: Price Harper The cases that deal with the rights of the accused involve the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments.

The 4th amendment is states that in order for police or officials to search you or your possessions they must have a probable cause and a warrant. The 5th amendment involves, due process of law, No double jeopardy, be trialed twice for the same exact crime, eminent domain, government can take your property for public use but they must pay you for it, and you must be charged with a

crime before you are arrested. The 6th amendment deals with due process of law, like the right to an attorney, a jury trial, and witnesses. The 14th amendment has to do with your rights as a

citizen, such as the government cannot deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963 Gideon vs Wainwright has to do with an old man, Clarence Gideon, who was convicted of robbing a pool hall of some alcohol and some change from machines. He was given an unfair trial because he was poor and could not afford a lawyer, and when he requested a lawyer he was refused to be given one by the judge, and was given a retrial by the Supreme Court and they overturned his case. Miranda v. Arizona, 1966 A man named, Ernest Miranda was arrested for raping a girl in the desert. He was found guilty in trial but he argued that they never told him of his rights before he was arrested so he did not know his rights. Because of this today you must be read your rights before you are arrested and convicted of a crime. Today these rights are called Miranda Warnings, and some of them are, right to council, right to remain silent, and anything you say can and will be held against you in court. Mapp v. Ohio, 1961 Ms.Dollree Mapp, a lady living in Ohio, was illegally searched by police officers because they had no warrant they just decided to search her home, they found some illegal substances in her house and arrested her based on what they illegally found. The case was overturned because the police violated the 4th amendment because they searched Ms. Mapp’s home without a probable cause and a search warrant.

Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963 By: Izaiah Reynolds Background Information Clarence Earl Gideon was arrested in Bay Harbor, Florida, by the police in June of 1961. He was accused of breaking, and entering in to the local pool hall, which is a misdemeanor. During the trial Mr. Gideon asked for a lawyer, but the judge said that he had no special needs for him to be appointed an attorney. Mr. Gideon felt that it was unfair to be tried in court without a lawyer. The judges at the time didn’t consider being poor, or not being able to afford a lawyer reason to be a special case. Now today because of this case everyone has the right to an attorney. Issue(s): Right to Council, 14th amendment The 14th amendment’s due process clause should be interpreted to include within its meaning the guarantee of rights to council in all criminal cases. No state can deprive you of a fair and speedy trial, without due process of law. The Supreme Court had an obligation by the constitution to protect people’s life, liberty, and property, so they couldn’t just deny your rights like in the Betts v. Brady case. Supreme Court’s Decision: 9 to 0 in against Gideon’s favor The court decided that the right to council could be inferred from the Fifth, and the Fourteenth amendment. They also determined that the because of the elastic clause they could stretch the right to council even though it wasn’t stated in the Constitution. They ruled that from the time a person has been accused of a crime until the time the trial is over, the accused has the right to an attorney. Concurring Opinion Justice William O. Douglas stated that whenever a jail sentence is a possible punishment even for a misdemeanor, and petty offenses the accused has the right to a lawyer from the time of arrest through the appeal process. Sources: GIDEON v. WAINWRIGHT. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 17 April 2014

Remy, Richard. United States Government. New York 1998. Print. Pg. 527

Miranda v. Arizona, 1966

By: Ashlynn Holton Background Information: Ernesto Miranda was arrested and convicted of raping and kidnapping an 18-year-old woman. After being selected by her in a lineup, he was questioned for two hours by the police. Eventually he confessed, unaware that he could remain silent and have a lawyer. Issues: 5th amendment, 6th amendment Self-incrimination is testifying against oneself. It is also called “The right to remain silent.” This right is protected by the 5th amendment. You are able to take this while being arrested. The 6th amendment states that everybody has the right to a fair and speedy trial. This gives everybody the right to a lawyer, and if you cannot afford one you may ask the judge to appoint one to you.

Chief Justice Earl Warren

Supreme Court’s Decision: 5 to 4 in Miranda’s favor The court decided that because he was unaware of his rights, what Miranda said may not be used against him. They decided that since the 5th amendment states that he has the right to remain silent, he did not have to testify against himself. Since he was unaware he could have a lawyer, they also brought this into consideration with the 6th amendment. Because of this, The Miranda Warnings came into affect. Concurring Opinion: Judge Earl Warren decided that what Miranda said may not be used in court due to not having knowledge of his rights. Dissenting Opinion: Miranda should have been found guilty due to him confessing to committing the crime. Sources: Earl Warren.jpg. 2008. Wikipedia, n.p. Ed. Wikipedia.

MIRANDA v. ARIZONA. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 11 April 2014.

<http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_759>.

Remy, Richard C., and Gordon P. Whitaker. Civic Today Citizenship, Economics, & You. New York, NY:

Glencoe/McGraw-Hill, 2003. Print. Page 438.Remy,

Richard C. United States Government: Democracy in Action. New York: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill, 2003. Print.

Page 205, 206.

Mapp v. Ohio, 1961

By: Bria Lindsay Background Information: In 1965, Dollree Mapp was searched by policemen without a legal search warrant. The police said they had found sexual material. When she went to court she said that the 4th Amendment protects her from being searched without probable cause. Since she was guilty of having the sexual material she was sent to prison. Issue(s): Search and Seizure, 4th Amendment The 4th Amendment says that anyone’s personal items can not be searched or used as evidence against you unless there is a probable cause or they have a legal search warrant. The policemen who did knew that they didn’t have permission to search Mapp’s house and knew that the warrant wasn’t real. Some did argue if the Exclusionary Rule had part to do with the search then it was illegal. The Exclusionary Rule says that evidence obtained illegally cannot be used against you in a court case because that goes against the Constitution. Supreme Court’s Decision: 6 to 3 in Mapp’s favor Justice Clark The Supreme Court did overrule the case because the same issue had occurred in previous cases and also use the Exclusionary Rule. The reason why they changed their minds was because it violated the 4th Amendment, and as before stated in the Exclusionary Rule which had a huge part in why it was overruled. Since they did overrule the case it now gives everyone the right to not be searched without a legal search warrant or a probable cause. Concurring Opinion: Justice Clark agrees because of the Exclusionary Rule and was an illegal search because the material obtained at her house was taken and used against her illegally in court. Dissenting Opinion: Justice Harlan disagrees with the decision because he says Mapp was under Ohio law and he also says that they ignored the judicial restraint and that the Exclusionary Rule didn’t have an effect in the case. Sources: Photo of Justice Clark, April 14, 2014

MAPP V. OHIO The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of law. “Mapp v. Ohio”. April 14, 2014

McClenaghan, William A., and Frank Abbott Magruder. Magruder's American Government. Needham, MA:

Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2004. Print. Pg. 767

Rights of the Accused

By: Isabella Bedoya

As outlined and stated in various amendments of the constitution, any one person who is convicted of a crime or violation of the law has, regardless of their punishment, certain rights to

protect them from actions that can be taken against them. It is primarily the 5th, 6th, and 7th amendments that outline these rights of the accused; however, there are some cases in which

other factors come into play, such as the right to equal protection under the law that states that all citizens should be treated equally, or the 8th amendment that protects a person from receiving cruel and unusual punishment. In the following cases, different variations of the rights of the accused will be argued, in which cases the decision that is made will leave a precedent and a

basis to solve many other similar cases that could arise in the future. Furman v. Georgia, 1967 In Furman v. Georgia, Furman accidentally killed the resident of a house he was burglarizing and was convicted of murder. His punishment was to be sentenced to death, and this gave rise to the argument that the measures taken were cruel and unusual, since the murder had taken place by accident. After a debate in court, it was decided that the death penalty in cases such as Furman’s was definitely considered too extreme and thus violated the 8th amendment. Gregg v. Georgia, 1976 Gregg was found guilty of armed robbery and murder and received the death penalty as his consequence. It was argued that this punishment violated the eight and fourteenth amendments, one for being cruel and unusual, and also because his skin color was, according to him, a determining factor for his conviction and charges. It was decided that in this case, capital punishment was not cruel and unusual and did not violate his rights of being treated equally since he had deliberately killed the victim. New Jersey v. TLO, 1985 TLO, a high school student, was searched due to the suspicion of her carrying cigarettes in her purse. It was found that not only was this true, but she also possessed marijuana and a list of people that owed her for sales. She was sentenced to probation, and the argument arose with the claim that the exclusionary act, which states that evidence gained by illegal means cannot be used for conviction, should be applied to schools. It was however, decided that it should not be used in high school curriculum since students were under the care of school officials and they had the right to do whatever was necessary to keep them safe.

Furman v. Georgia, 1972

By: Babatunde Fakayode Background Information: William Henry Furman was sighted by a family member of the house he was burglarizing. He tripped and fell and in doing so, the gun he carried went off and killed a resident of that home. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. Issue(s): Death Penalty, 8th Amendment The main point of the 8th amendment states that “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” In the case of Furman v Georgia, questions concerning the death penalty in race by state courts were raised. Most of the people convicted of the death penalty were African American, poor, or both.

Furman claimed he couldn’t be convicted of the death penalty since it violates the 8th amendment right of the constitution which states that no cruel or unusual punishment should be inflicted.

Supreme Court’s Decision: 5 to 4 in Furman’s favor

The Supreme Court decided that William Henry Furman was not to be convicted of the death penalty. The court ruled this way because the death penalty offends the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the 8th amendment. The death penalty then set the precedent that states will change their laws in order to solve the problems prescribed in Furman v. Georgia. Concurring Opinion: Mr. Justice Douglas believes that the death penalty is not cruel, unless the manner of execution can be said to be inhuman and barbarous. He also stated that cruel and unusual punishment “Is not fastened to the obsolete but may acquire meaning as public opinion becomes enlightened by a humane justice.” Dissenting Opinion: Mr. Justice Blackmun believes that the death penalty is not a good punishment to give and he states that “distaster is buttressed by a belief that capital punishment serves no useful purpose that can be demonstrated.” Sources: FURMAN v. GEORGIA. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 17 April 2014.

<http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_69_5003>.

McClenaghan, William. Magruder’s American Government. Needham, Massachusetts: Prentice hall, 1993. Print

April 17, 2014.

Photo of Judge Douglas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Justice_William_O_Douglas.jpg.

Gregg v. Georgia, 1976

By: Jonathan Card Background Information:

Gregg was found guilty of murder and armed robbery by the jury in Georgia. He was able to get his court case appealed by the Georgia Supreme Court. The court declared the death sentenced, but Gregg decided to challenge this ruling, claiming that his sentence was a “cruel and unusual” punishment and that it violated the Eight and Fourteenth Amendments.

Issue(s): Cruel and unusual punishment, 8th amendment

The 8th amendment states that no one should be punished unfairly or by extreme means. The issue lied in whether or not the death penalty was constitutional or unconstitutional and if it violated the 8th amendment in this case. Supreme Court’s Decision: 7 to 2 in Georgia’s favor

The court ruled that the death penalty was not considered cruel and unusual punishment, under the right circumstances, and thus it was constitutional. Concurring Opinion:

Mr. Justice White believed that the death penalty should not be a power imposed in the constitution for the government since it could be discriminatory at times and mistakes could be made. Dissenting Opinion:

Mr. Justice Brennan does not understand that the Court disagrees that, “In comparison to all other punishments today… the deliberate extinguishment of human life by the state is uniquely degrading to human dignity”, if “less severe punishment can adequately achieve the same purposes invalidates the punishment”. Sources: Photo of Judge John Paul Stevens, October 2, 2006,

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:John_Paul_Stevens,_SCOTUS_photo_portrait.jpg>.

McClenaghan, William. Magruder’s American Government. Needham: Prentice Hall, 1993. Print: April 17, 2014.

US Supreme Court Media. “Gregg v. Georgia”. Oyez. Web. 13 April 2014.

Thomas G. Walker. “Gregg v. Georgia”. CqPress. Sage. Web. 13 April 2014.

Justice John Paul Stevens

New Jersey vs. TLO, 1985

By: Yadira Dorantes Background information: In a New Jersey high school a vice-principal found two girls smoking cigarettes in a girl’s bathroom. One of them (TLO) admitted to have been smoking and with suspicion the school searched her items finding cigarettes and marijuana. Issue(s): Search and seizure in schools, 4th amendment

There had already been a few limitations or extensions to the 4th amendment in other cases (Mapp vs. Ohio, 1961) talking about the need of a warrant to search a home. In this case however, they were concerned with whether or not the fourth amendment applied to schools. Supreme Court’s Decision: 6 to 3 in the New Jersey’s favor Justice Byron White wrote the Court opinion. It stated that the rights of children and adolescents are different than adults since the school officials are responsible for the students and discipline needed for education. In a school, a search could be done without probable cause, as long as it is by reasonable suspicion. Concurring Opinion: Justice Powell stated that he agreed with the courts decision but “would place greater emphasis on the special characteristics of elementary and secondary schools that make it unnecessary to afford students the same constitutional protections granted adults and juveniles in a no school setting…” Dissenting Opinion: Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a dissent saying that New Jersey chose to not include the 4th amendment in their petition. Sources: "Byron White." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation.Web. 22 April, 2014.

Cornell Law school "New Jersey v. T.L.O.."Legal Information Institute.” 1992 .17 April, 2014

“New Jersey v. TLO (1985)” infoplease. Pearson Education, Inc. 2005 web. 13 April, 2015.

US Supreme Court Media. “New Jersey v. TLO.” Oyez. Web. 13 April, 2014

Rights of the Accused By: Jack Beck In all of the Rights of the Accused cases the defendants each believe they have a right that is stated in the constitution. All of them are accused of something and they think that one of their rights has been taken. They each fight for their liberties in court and try to prove that have been stripped of their rights. Furman vs. Georgia, 1972 This case was about a man named William Henry Furman. He was charged with murder after he got caught robbing somebodies house. He said under oath that he didn’t mean to fire his gun and kill the man. Even though the police said that when he was leaving the scene he fired a shot at them. Furman was charged with the death penalty but it never got carried out. Gregg. vs. Georgia, 1973 This case was a follow up of the Furman vs Georgia case. It was about a man named Troy Leon Gregg. who was the first man to be sentenced the death penalty and it be passed by the Supreme Court. When he was on death row he began to think that the death penalty is against the 8th and 14th amendment and this began the case. The verdict at the end was with the State of Georgia. New Jersey vs. T.L.O, 1985 This case is about a 14 year old girl that was caught in the bathroom smoking cigarettes. The teacher that caught her searched her backpack and found many more illegal things and then the teacher notified her parents and the police. The young girl said that this is a violation of the 4th amendment. The Supreme Court took this case and ended up agreeing with New Jersey.

Furman v. Georgia By: Jacob Hallenbeck Background information: In the case Furman v. Georgia, Furman was caught burglarizing a house while he was fleeing the scene he tripped and fell dropping his weapon. As the weapon hit the floor it discharged and the projectile hit a resident of the building killing them. Furman was charged with murder and given the death penalty. Issue: Cruel and unusual punishment, 8th amendment The 8th amendment states that “nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” The question that was being asked was, whether or not the death penalty was a cruel and unusual punishment to have administered. And the court was also worried that the death penalty was not being administered properly and racial status was affecting the way it was given. Supreme Court’s Decision: 5 to 4 in Furman’s favor. The court decided that the death penalty was being imposed unfairly in a number of cases on the pretense that the penalty was being imposed on the bases of the persons race and was therefore attacking the persons right to not have any unfair or cruel punishment but the death penalty was still allowed to be imposed as long as there was no racial biased in the decision to give this punishment Concurring opinion: “It would seem to be incontestable that the death penalty inflicted on one defendant is "unusual" if it discriminates against him by reason of his race, religion, wealth, social position, or class, or if it is imposed under a procedure that gives room for the play of such prejudices” states Mr Justice Douglas Dissenting opinion: “Cases such as these provide for me an excruciating agony of the spirit. I yield to no one in the depth of my distaste, antipathy, and, indeed, abhorrence, for the death penalty, with all its aspects of physical distress and fear and of moral judgment exercised by finite minds.” Mr Justice Blackmun Sources: FURMAN v. GEORGIA. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 22 April 2014.

"Law Library - American Law and Legal Information." - JRank Articles. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Apr.

2014

Justice Harry Blackmun

Gregg v. Georgia, 1976 By: Spencer Messick Background Information: A man named Gregg was charged for killing a man and stealing his car. Later on they were found in the stolen vehicle in North Carolina but the man had the same exact weapon in his pocket that was used to kill the man but he claimed that he shot the man in self-defense. Issue(s): Capital punishment, 8th amendment The issue with this Supreme Court case is that Gregg had killed a man and stole his car so he was sentenced to the death penalty. But he found that unconstitutional and that it violated the 8th amendment which was cruel and unusual punishment. The state of Georgia thought the death penalty was a reasonable punishment for the crime that he committed. Supreme Court’s Decision: 7 to 2 in the state of Georgia’s favor The courts final decision was that he will receive the death penalty for the crime that he committed. The court said, “Capital Punishment is an expression of society’s moral outrage … It is an extreme sanction, suitable to the most extreme of crimes.” The court case was not overruled, clarified, or changed even though Gregg had tried his hardest to change the decision. The precedent for this case was Furman v. Georgia, 1972. Concurring Opinion: The concurring opinion was that Gregg definitely deserved the death penalty for the crime that he had committed. Dissenting Opinion: The dissenting opinion was that he should not get the death penalty because they thought that it violated the 8th amendment. Sources: "Latest Stories from ISCOTUSnow." The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law.

N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2014.

McClenaghan, William A., and Frank Abbott Magruder. Magruder's American Government.

Needham, MA: Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2004. Print.

"What's New." DPIC. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2014.

Justice William Brennan

New Jersey v. T.L.O., 1985 By: Jackson Scott Background Information: A girl with the initials T.L.O. and another girl were caught smoking a Cigarette in the bathroom at school by a teacher. They were taken to the Principal’s office and one girl confessed to smoking. T.L.O stayed with her story and said she was not smoking so the Vice Principal searched her purse. He found Cigarette papers, marijuana, and a pipe. The Vice Principal notified the police and her parents. Issue(s): Exclusionary Rule, 4th Amendment The problem in this case was that the girl said they searched her purse illegally and it violated her 4th Amendment. Another issue was that the school thought they had reasonable suspicion to search her backpack. Supreme Court Decision: 6 to 3 in New Jerseys favor The court decided that schools have reasonable suspicion to searches and seizures because students are in their care. Concurring Opinion: Justice Powell and Justice O’Connor agreed with what the court said but, they think different levels of education should have different protection from searches and seizures. Dissenting Opinion: Justice John Paul Stevens thought it wasn’t the Supreme Courts main concern to look at a violation of the 4th Amendment. He also thought the Supreme Court didn’t have enough knowledge for the case.

Sources: "Latest Stories from ISCOTUSnow." The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law.

N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2014.

"New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985)." Infoplease. © 2000–2014 Pearson Education, n.d. Web.

<http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar24.html>.

Justice John Paul Stevens

1. Vocabulary 2. Checks and Balances Chart 3. Landmark Supreme Court Cases

Vocabulary

Terms Definitions Ambassador person officially representing the interests of the United States

Amendments a change in, or addition to the constitution or a law

Annexation process of extending a municipalities boundaries

Anti-federalist people who were against the Constitution

Appellate Jurisdiction authority to hear a case that is appealed from a lower court

Apportionment population of each state that determines the number of representatives to which each state is entitled

Autocracy divine right or a small group which holds power

Ballot device by which a voter registers their choice in an election

Bicameral A legislature with two houses, or chambers.

Bill a proposed law

Bill of Rights first ten amendments to the Constitution. State basic rights

Boycott refusal to buy certain goods

Bureaucracy large network of individuals and federal agencies who oversee the execution of law

Cabinet group of advisors to the President. They head the important executive departments.

Caucus a meeting to nominate people to run for office. A meeting of party leaders and/or members to conduct party business

Censure vote of formal disapproval of a member's actions

Census a population count. Occurs every ten years in the US on years ending in a zero.

Checks and Balances keeps each branch in their proper place. (Madison)

Chief Diplomat gives the President the responsibility of dealing with other countries

Chief Executive job of the President to carry out the nation’s laws

Cloture procedure that allows each senator to speak only one hour on a bill under debate

Colony people who in one place that are governed by people in another place

Commander and Chief power that makes the President the leader of the armed forces

Committee a group of congressmen that is specialized to a certain area that reviews bills

Compensation repayment

Compromise majority rule with minority rights

Concurrent both state and national powers

Confederation loose collection of states that have a common interest

Conference Committee a place of discussion about a bill and how it can be changed

Connecticut Plan (Great Compromise) outlined the legislative branch

Constituents the group of people that a politician represents

Constitution plan that provides the rules for government

Constitutionalism of or having to do with the Constitution

Council legislative branch of a local government

Declaration of Independence

document written by Thomas Jefferson, signed July 4, 1776 (Gave freedom from control by Great Britain)

Defendant person who must defend his or her innocence against charges

Delegated Powers powers of the National Government

Democratic Party a group that wants "...opportunity to every American, and responsibility from every American. And today’s Democratic Party is determined to reawaken the great sense of American community" www.democrat.gov

Direct Democracy people make all decisions on their own

Districts a grouped area that is looked at as a whole for reasons like voting and schools

Division of Powers when power is shared between central and state government

Electorate the people eligible to vote

Enumerated unnumbered powers

Executive Branch enforces the laws (Article 2 of the Constitution)

Executive Order Rule or command of the President which has the force of law

Expressed powers of the Legislative Branch written out in the Constitution

Federal System (Federalism) system of government where power is divided between local and a central governments

Federalist people who were for the Constitution

Filibuster to keep talking until a majority of the Senate either agrees to modify its most controversial provision

Floor Action all of the things that happen to a bill in Congress when it is not in committee

General Election consists of all of the Primary nominees

Gerrymandering when district lines are drawn in order for one group to gain an advantage in elections

House of Representatives

the lower house where representation is based on population

Implied powers Congress has because of the elastic clause

Implied Because of the elastic clause

Incorporated city or town with a town charter

Incumbents members that have already been in office and won the re-election

Independence freedom to govern yourself

Independent Party a party based on reform, but shows all sides on the political issues. www.cuip.org

Inherent national government has these powers because they are the government

Intolerable Acts laws put into action act because of the Boston Tea Party

Enumerated numbered powers that are written out in the Constitution

Judicial Branch interprets the laws (Article 3 of the Constitution)

Judicial Review when a law or actions are determined to be unconstitutional or not

Jurisdiction authority of a court to hear a case

Legislative Branch makes the laws (Article 1 of the constitution)

Limited Government not absolute power

Lobbyist a person which is employed to convince representatives to vote a certain way

Magna Carta English document that King James was forced to sign. (Protected the nobles rights and made John’s power not absolute)

Majority the larger amount of the people that agree on a vote or issue

Majority Leaders Speaker's top assistants

Mercantilism theory that you should sell more than you buy

Monarchy Autocracy, based on divine right (power goes to the heirs)

Municipality city or town with organized government with authority to make laws

Nomination the process of selecting candidates for office

Oligarchy power held by a single group and a person (dictatorship)

Ordinance law effective only within city limits

Original Jurisdiction the authority of a trial court to be first to hear a case

Parliament the name of Britain’s legislature

Parliamentary Procedure

the way to make a movement in Congress. The proper form of conducting business. See Roberts Rules of Order

Plaintiff Person who initiates a law suit

Political Parties a group of people with similar beliefs about political issues

Polling Place place where people go to vote

Popular Sovereignty The belief that power should be held by the people and that the country should be ruled by the people

President of the Senate the presiding officer of a Senate: in Congress, the Vice President of the United States

Presidential succession rules to determine who is next in line for the President’s seat if unoccupied (25th Amendment)

Primary when there is only one nominee

Quartering Act law which forced people to allow British soldiers to stay in their homes

Ratify to approve or pass

Redistricting process of setting up new district lines after apportionment

Reform Party ...believes in a Balanced Tailored Trade program that promotes the economic interests and welfare of all our citizens while safeguarding domestic production." www.reformparty.org

Registration the process by which your name is put on to a list show that you can vote. This can be done by contacting county clerk’s office

Representative Democracy

Type of democracy where the people vote for persons to make decisions for them (delegates)

Republic voter’s have sovereign right

Republican Party a group that wants "... the restoration of self-government by breaking Washington’s monopoly on power. The American people want their country back. We will help the to regain it." www.rnc.org

Reserved Powers powers reserved by the states

Rider a bill, that most likely will not pass, that is tacked on to another bill that will most likely

pass, as an amendment

Rural area where not many people live

Senate the upper house of congress where the representation is equal from each state

Separation of Power central government is divided into three branches

Session meeting of Congress to conduct business (lasts about a year)

Social Contract The belief that the government of a country has a moral duty to ensure the needs of it’s people are taken care of, and that the people give the government power to do so

Speaker and President Pro Tempore:

person who presides over the House or the Senate when the Speaker or President is now present

Speaker of the House the presiding officer of the House of Representatives, chosen by and from the majority party in the house

Special Session an unscheduled meeting often called by the President

Spoiler or 3rd Party a smaller group of voters that splits the votes

Stamp Act taxes on legal documents, pamphlets, etc...

Standing Committee a permanent committee that reviews legislation and issues

Suffrage the right to vote

Supremacy Clause law of the nation "Supreme Law of the Land" (Article 6 of the Constitution)

Term time in office served

Town Charter document defining a city’s boundaries, authority and government

Town Meetings gathering of local citizens to discuss or vote on important issues

Treaty A formal agreement between two or more countries

Unconstitutional goes against the Constitution

Unincorporated part of a county that is outside of cities or towns

Veto President's power to reject or "kill" a bill that has been passed by Congress

Voter Efficiency the lack of a sense of power to achieve the desired results (many people do not show up to vote)

Whips people who serve as assistant floor leaders in the House

Zoning specialization of an area

Data: Audra Bauman, Sarah Beckner, Danny Lovell, Brittany Wooten, Amanda Day, and Allen Rawls

By Brent Polston Mr McVicker 3rd Period “…be the means of keeping each other in their proper place” James Madison on the system of Checks and Balances Federalist Paper #51

President may veto legislation,

call special sessions, appeal

to people.

Congress creates lower courts and can

impeach judges.

Courts may declare acts of congress unconstitutional.

President appoints judges.

Congress creates agencies and

programs, appropriates funds, may

override vetoes, may impeach president, and

senate approves judges

Judges are appointed for life, are free

from executive control, courts

may declare acts of executive

branch unconstitutional.

Landmark Supreme Court Decisions

The Case of… Year Issue Decision

Marbury Vs. Madison 1803 Judicial Review 1st Supreme Court decision to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional. Established the power of Judicial Review.

McCulloch Vs. Maryland 1819 Implied Powers

Allowed a broader interpretation of the Constitution in determining implied powers. (The Elastic Clause) Established National Supremacy

Gibbons Vs. Ogden 1824 Supremacy of National Law

Federal laws take priority over state laws in regulating interstate commerce. (Supremacy Clause)

Plessy Vs. Ferguson 1896 Segregation Established segregation. “Separate but Equal”

Korematsu Vs. U.S. 1919 Free Speech The government may limit your rights in time of national danger. (5th/14th amendments)

Brown Vs. Board of Education of Topeka Kansas

1954 Segregation Determined that “Separate but Equal” in public schools was unconstitutional. Over turned the case of Plessy Vs. Ferguson

Mapp Vs. Ohio 1961 Rights of Citizens Bill of Rights and States. Extended the 14th amendment to protect citizens against the state. “Due Process”

Engel Vs. Vitale 1962 Freedom of Religion

Determined that public schools cannot require students to recite prayers.

Gideon Vs. Wainwright 1963 Right to Council Provided free legal council to defendants accused of felonies who cannot afford a lawyer.

Miranda Vs. Arizona 1966 Rights of the Accused

Accused persons must be informed of their rights upon the time of arrest. Right to remain silent, right to an attorney (lawyer). “You have the right to remain silent…” (Miranda Warnings)

Tinker Vs. Des Moines 1969 Free Speech Free speech of students cannot be abridged. Unless it shows evidence of the possibility of a “Substantial Disruption”

Bakke Vs. Board of Regents of the University of California

1978 Race Colleges may consider a person’s race as one of the conditions of admission, but not the only one. College admission policy.

New Jersey Vs. TLO 1985 Search and Seizure / Probable Cause

Right of schools to ensure an environment for learning. Search and Seizure without probable cause by school officials is constitutional.

Heart of Atlanta Vs. United States 1964 Civil Rights Segregation is illegal in all places. Upheld the

Civil rights act as constitutional

Swann Vs. Charlotte 1969 De-Segregation Schools systems could use what ever tools or methods at their disposal to de-segregate schools. Forced bussing

Texas Vs. Johnson 1989 Free Speech Free expression and speech is protected even if the expression is offensive to others.

Bethel Vs. Fraser 1986 Free Speech / Rights of Students

School officials may determine what is “vulgar and lewd” language and punish persons for using it, in order to preserve the “school’s basic educational mission.”

Hazelwood Vs. Kuhlmeir 1988 Free Speech /

Rights of Students Schools have editorial power over school sponsored events and publications.

Furman Vs. Georgia 1967 Cruel and Unusual Punishment / Death Penalty

The death penalty was unconstitutional under state law because it was not administered equally. States will change their laws in order to solve the problems presented in Furman Georgia.

Greg Vs. Georgia 1967 Cruel and Unusual Punishment / Death Penalty

The death penalty was constitutional as long as it met certain criteria. No undue pain, proportionate to the crime committed. Capital punishment is allowed under Federal Law.

Who presides over Impeachment Trials in the Senate? Who is the Current Supreme Court Chief Justice? How Many Supreme Court Justices Are there?

Table of Contents · McCulloch vs. Maryland This court case dealt with a series of individual...

Documents

Transcript of Table of Contents · McCulloch vs. Maryland This court case dealt with a series of individual...