<p>Planned Parenthood v. Casey- The Supreme Court rules that a state can decide to restrict abortion rights within limits. They can implant a 24-hour waiting period, parental consent, etc.
Gratz/Grutter v. Bollinger- Affirmative action case. SCOTUS rules that race can be a deciding factor in college admissions (UMich, in case you're interested), but colleges cannot automatically award POINTS because you have a certain race.
I thought I knew what Texas v. Johnson is, but I forgot.. lol.</p>
<p>Which Amendments have to do with increasing the amount of people that can vote?</p>
<p>Texas V Johnson has to do with burning the American flag. It is allowed because it is "symbolic speech"</p>
<p>OHH, that's a different question.</p>
<p>15- suffrage to all races
19- suffrage to all genders
23- suffrage to DC in presidential elections
24- elimination of poll taxes
26- suffrage to anyone over 18</p>
<p>US v O'Brein dealt with burning draft cards, which was obviously invalidated.</p>
<p><em>EDIT</em> My bad, Texas v. Johnston</p>
<p>[QUOE]Grats/Grutter: Admissions policy of University of Michigan violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment because its pointranking system gave an automatic point increase to all racial minorities.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>To be more specific, Gratz knocked down the points system, but Grutter upheld using "diversity" as something to be striven for, so nothing much really changed as a result.</p>
<p>24th Amendment, Ban on poll tax. 23rd Washington DC people allowed to vote or something. 26th...voting age down to 18.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Texas v Johnson made it so that flag burning was not a protected form of speech.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>It's the reverse. It upheld flag burning as protected.</p>
<p>A few Free-Exercise Clause cases:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Wisconsin v Yoder: Amish children don't have to attend school because it violated their freedom of religion</p></li>
<li><p>Employment Division v Smith (or Oregon v Smith): Smoking peyote was illegal and thus one cannot get unemployment benefits for participating in illegal activities</p></li>
<li><p>Tinker V Des Moines: Symbolic speech (expressed not only in words) is protected</p></li>
</ol>
<p>any others?</p>
<p>what about Near vs. MN, Miller vs. California?</p>
<p>Try Ashcroft v. ACLU/Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition</p>
<p>Brandenburg v Ohio?</p>
<p>Alright guys, I'm off to bed.
Thanks to everyone for their help, and good luck tomorrow! Get a good night's sleep and eat a healthy breakfast!</p>
<p>Baker V Car
Planned Parenthood of PA v Casey
Shaw v Reno / Miller v Johnson
Griswold v Connecticut
Gratz/Grutter v Bollinger
Boy Scouts v Dale
Texas v Johnson</p>
<p>sorry.... when you answer..put it a dash mark next to it....</p>
<p>Near v Minnesota basically said the same thing as NY Times v. Sullivan. Prior restraint may not be used unless malice is clearly demonstrated. Miller vs. California made it clear that prurient publications may be restrained.</p>
<p>Brandenburg v Ohio protected the KKK's right to rally because they did not openly engender violence.</p>
<p>Miller vs. Calif----it presents a test for what is obscenity...</p>
<p>OK so for Ashcroft v ACLU, the ACLU won because the Supreme Court decided to promote net neutrality? If they had prevented children from pornography online, they would have had to restrict many other online venues.</p>
<p>OK, besides Lemon test and Miller test, which others do we need to know?</p>
<p>what is the difference between substantive due process and procedural due process....</p>
<p>Baker Vs Car
Shaw vs Reno
Texas v Johnson</p>
<p>someone tell me what they are??? can't find them in the book I am studying...</p>
<p>also...with the civil rights act..do we need to memorize all of them..or is there a major one...</p>