AP United States Educational Game!!!

Test Preparation
1221

<p>Court Cases: A Brief Summary</p>

<p>Some of these are my summaries and analysis are mine, but the majority of it is copied from [url=<a href="http://www.oyez.org/%5DOyez%5B/url"&gt;http://www.oyez.org/]Oyez[/url&lt;/a&gt;] or [url=<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page%5DWikipedia%5B/url"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page]Wikipedia[/url&lt;/a&gt;] and some of it is from a few other random sites.</p>

<p>If you see any errors or have anything to add, let me know. As you can see, some cases are missing things.</p>

<hr>

<p>$
Marbury v. Madison (1803)</p>

<p>Marbury was appointed to be a federal judge by Adams during his
Midnight appointments. Because Jefferson refused to recognize the
appointments, Marbury sued Secretary of State James Madison. Chief
Justice John Marshall, a Federalist, decided that Marbury did have
the right to his job, but that the power that allowed to court to
do so, the Judiciary Act of 1789, was unconstitutional.</p>

<p>Chief Justice: John Marshall</p>

<p>precedent: judicial review</p>

<hr>

<p>$
McColluch v. Maryland (1819)</p>

<p>In 1816, Congress chartered The Second Bank of the United States.
In 1818, the state of Maryland passed legislation to impose taxes
on the bank. James W. McCulloch, the cashier of the Baltimore branch
of the bank, refused to pay the tax.</p>

<p>Chief Justice: John Marshall</p>

<p>precedent: federal law > state law</p>

<hr>

<p>$
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)</p>

<p>The New York Legislature had passed a law giving a monopoly on steamship
travel in New York state to two individuals, one of whom was Aaron Ogden.
Thomas Gibbons, a steamship trader who did business between New York and
New Jersey, wanted to use the New York waterways for his business, too.
He had been given federal permission to do so. He was denied access to
these waterways by the State of New York, which cited its law as enforcement.
Gibbons sued Ogden.</p>

<p>precedent: extended the definition of interstate commerce and cemented
the power of the federal government over the states when
laws conflicted</p>

<p>Chief Justice: John Marshall</p>

<hr>

<p>$
Scott v. Sanford (1856)</p>

<p>Dred Scott was a slave whose master took him to a free state. Scott sued
his master on the grounds that he could not be a slave where slavery was
illegal. Scott wins the case, loses the appeal, and definitely lost in
the Supreme Court. Taney declared that slaves were property, not citizens,
and that no black person could ever be a citizen of the US. Since blacks
weren't citizens, they couldn't sue in federal court. Plus, Taney said
that Congress couldn't regulate slavery in the territories.</p>

<p>precedent: nullified the Missouri Compromise, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the
Wilmot Proviso, and the concept of popular sovereignty.</p>

<p>Chief Justice: Roger Taney</p>

<hr>

<p>$
Wabash [, St. Louis & Pacific Railroad Company] v. Illinois (1866)</p>

<p>question: Does the Court had to decide on whether states have the power to
regulate railroad rates for interstate shipments</p>

<p>conclusion: The Commerce Clause does not permit states to enact "direct"
burdens on interstate commerce</p>

<p>precedent: </p>

<p>effects: The decision led to the creation of the first modern regulatory
agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission.</p>

<p>Chief Justice: </p>

<hr>

<p>$
Slaughterhouse Cases, The (1873)</p>

<p>Louisiana had created a partial monopoly of the slaughtering business and
gave it to one company. Competitors argued that this created "involuntary
servitude," abridged "privileges and immunities," denied "equal protection
of the laws," and deprived them of "liberty and property without due process
of law."</p>

<p>question: Did the creation of the monopoly violate the Thirteenth and
Fourteenth Amendments?</p>

<p>conclusion: No. The involuntary servitude claim did not forbid limits on
the right to use one's property. The equal protection claim was
misplaced since it was established to void laws discriminating
against blacks. The due process claim simply imposes the identical
requirements on the states as the fifth amendment imposes on
the national government. The Court devoted most of its opinion
to a narrow construction of the privileges and immunities clause,
which was interpreted to apply to national citizenship, not state
citizenship.</p>

<p>precedent:</p>

<p>Chief Justice:</p>

<hr>

<p>$
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)</p>

<p>The state of Louisiana enacted a law that required separate railway cars
for blacks and whites. In 1892, Homer Adolph Plessy--who was seven-eighths
Caucasian--took a seat in a "whites only" car of a Louisiana train. He
refused to move to the car reserved for blacks and was arrested.</p>

<p>question: Is Louisiana's law mandating racial segregation on its trains an
unconstitutional infringement on both the privileges and immunities
and the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment?</p>

<p>conclusion: No, the state law is within constitutional boundaries.</p>

<p>precedent: Separate facilities for blacks and whites satisfied the Fourteenth
Amendment so long as they were equal.</p>

<p>Chief Justice:</p>

<hr>

<p>$
Korematsu v US (1944)</p>

<p>During World War II, Presidential Executive Order 9066 and congressional
statutes gave the military authority to exclude citizens of Japanese ancestry
from areas deemed critical to national defense and potentially vulnerable
to espionage. Korematsu remained in San Leandro, California and violated Civilian
Exclusion Order No. 34 of the U.S. Army.</p>

<p>question: Did the President and Congress go beyond their war powers by
implementing exclusion and restricting the rights of Americans
of Japanese descent?</p>

<p>conclusion: The Court sided with the government and held that the need to
protect against espionage outweighed Korematsu's rights. Justice
Black argued that compulsory exclusion, though constitutionally
suspect, is justified during circumstances of "emergency and
peril."</p>

<p>precedent: national security can outweigh civil rights</p>

<p>Chief Justice:</p>

<hr>

<p>$
Brown v. Board of Education (1954)</p>

<p>Black children were denied admission to public schools attended by white
children under laws requiring or permitting segregation according to the
races. The white and black schools approached equality in terms of buildings,
curricula, qualifications, and teacher salaries. This case was decided
together with Briggs v. Elliott and Davis v. County School Board of Prince
Edward County.</p>

<p>question: Does the segregation of children in public schools solely on the
basis of race deprive the minority children of the equal protection
of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment?</p>

<p>conclusion: Yes, despite the equalization of the schools by "objective" factors,
intangible issues foster and maintain inequality</p>

<p>precedent: seperate is inherently unequal</p>

<p>Chief Justice: Earl Warren</p>

<hr>

<p>$
Baker v. Carr (1962)</p>

<p>Plaintiff Baker was a Republican who lived in Shelby County, Tennessee, the
county in which Memphis is located. His complaint was that though the
Tennessee State Constitution required that legislative districts be redrawn
every ten years according to the federal census to provide for districts of
substantially equal population, Tennessee had not in fact redistricted since
the census of 1900. By the time of Baker's lawsuit, his district in Shelby
County had about ten times as many residents as some of the rural districts.
His argument was that this discrepancy was causing him to fail to receive
the "equal protection under the laws" required by the Fourteenth Amendment.</p>

<p>Defendant Joe Carr was sued in his position as Secretary of State for
Tennessee. Carr was not the person who set the district lines--the state
legislature had done that--but was sued ex officio as the person who was
ultimately responsible for the conduct of elections in the state and for
the publication of district maps. The State of Tennessee argued that
legislative districts were essentially political, not judicial, questions,
as had been held by a plurality opinion of the Court in Colegrove v. Green
(1946), wherein Justice Felix Frankfurter declared that, "Courts ought not
to enter this political thicket." Frankfurter believed that relief for
legislative malapportionment had to be attained through the political process.</p>

<p>question: Did the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over questions of legislative
apportionment?</p>

<p>conclusion: Ruled that Baker's case was judiciable, and Justice Brennan
reformulated the political question doctrine, proposing a
six-part test for determining which questions were "political"
in nature</p>

<p>precedent: </p>

<p>Chief Justice: Earl Warren</p>

<hr>

1222

<p>bye... ill follow your exaple ..</p>

1223

<p>William Lloyd Garrison: He was most strongly associated with "The Liberator," which basically expressed abolitionist ideals.</p>

1224

<p>$
Gideon v. Wainright (1963)</p>

<p>Gideon was charged in a Florida state court with a felony for breaking and
entering. He lacked funds and was unable to hire a lawyer to prepare his
defense. When he requested the court to appoint an attorney for him, the
court refused, stating that it was only obligated to appoint counsel to
indigent defendants in capital cases. Gideon defended himself in the trial;
he was convicted by a jury and the court sentenced him to five years in a
state prison.</p>

<p>question: Did the state court's failure to appoint counsel for Gideon violate
his right to a fair trial and due process of law as protected by
the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments?</p>

<p>conclusion: In a unanimous opinion, the Court held that Gideon had a right
to be represented by a court-appointed attorney and, in doing
so, overruled its 1942 decision of Betts v. Brady.</p>

<p>precedent: The Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel was a fundamental
right, essential to a fair trial, which should be made applicable
to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment</p>

<p>Chief Justice: Earl Warren</p>

<p>/////////////////////////</p>

<p>interesting notes:</p>

<p>Justice Black called it an "obvious truth" that a fair trial for a poor
defendant could not be guaranteed without the assistance of counsel. Those
familiar with the American system of justice, commented Black, recognized
that "lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries."</p>

<hr>

<p>$
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)</p>

<p>Ernesto Miranda, an Arizona native with only an elementary school education,
was arrested for robbery, kidnapping, and rape. He was interrogated by
police and confessed. At trial, prosecutors offered only his confession as
evidence. Miranda was convicted of rape and kidnapping and sentenced to 20
to 30 years on both charges. Miranda's lawyer, Alvin Moore, appealed to the
Arizona Supreme Court but the charges were upheld.</p>

<p>note: case was consolidated with 3 others</p>

<p>question: Does the police practice of interrogating individuals without
notifiying them of their right to counsel and their protection
against self-incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment?</p>

<p>conclusion: Yes, Warren said that no confession could be admissible under
the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination clause and Sixth Amendment
right to an attorney unless a suspect had been made aware of his
rights and the suspect had then waived them</p>

<p>precedent: the nation's police departments were forced to inform arrested
persons of their rights under the ruling, termed a Miranda warning</p>

<p>Chief Justice: Earl Warren</p>

<hr>

<p>$
Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)</p>

<p>John Tinker, 15 years old, his sister Mary Beth Tinker, 13 years old, and
Christopher Echardt, 16 years old, decided along with their parents to protest
the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to their Des Moines schools during
the christmas holiday season. Upon learning of their intentions, and fearing
that the armbands would provoke disturbances, the principals of Des Moins'
school districts resolved that all students wearing armbands be asked to
remove them or face suspension. When the Tinker siblings and Christopher
wore their armbands to school, they were asked to remove them. When they
refused, they were suspended until after New Year's Day.</p>

<p>question: Does a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school,
as a form of symbolic protest, violate the First Amendment's freedom
of speech protections?</p>

<p>conclusion: The wearing of armbands was "closely akin to 'pure speech'"
and protected by the First Amendment. School environments imply
limitations on free expression, but here the principals lacked
justification for imposing any such limits.The principals had
failed to show that the forbidden conduct would substantially
interfere with appropriate school discipline.</p>

<p>precedent: </p>

<p>Chief Justice: Earl Warren</p>

<hr>

<p>$
US v. Nixon (1974)</p>

<p>A grand jury returned indictments against seven of President Richard Nixon's
closest aides in the Watergate affair. The special prosecutor appointed by
Nixon and the defendants sought audio tapes of conversations recorded by
Nixon in the Oval Office. Nixon asserted that he was immune from the subpoena
claiming "executive privilege," which is the right to withhold information
from other government branches to preserve confidential communications within
the executive branch or to secure the national interest.
Decided together with Nixon v. United States.</p>

<p>question: Is the President's right to safeguard certain information, using
his "executive privilege" confidentiality power, entirely immune
from judicial review?</p>

<p>conclusion: No. The Court held that neither the doctrine of separation of
powers, nor the generalized need for confidentiality of high-
level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute,
unqualified, presidential privilege. The Court granted that there
was a limited executive privilege in areas of military or
diplomatic affairs, but gave preference to "the fundamental
demands of due process of law in the fair administration of justice."</p>

<p>Chief Justice: Warren Burger</p>

<hr>

<p>$
*Regents of California v. Bakke *</p>

<p>Allan Bakke, a thirty-five-year-old white man, had twice applied for admission
to the University of California Medical School at Davis. He was rejected both
times. The school reserved sixteen places in each entering class of one
hundred for "qualified" minorities, as part of the university's affirmative
action program, in an effort to redress longstanding, unfair minority
exclusions from the medical profession. Bakke's qualifications (college GPA
and test scores) exceeded those of any of the minority students admitted
in the two years Bakke's applications were rejected. Bakke contended, first
in the California courts, then in the Supreme Court, that he was excluded
from admission solely on the basis of race.</p>

<p>question: Did the University of California violate the Fourteenth Amendment's
equal protection clause, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by
practicing an affirmative action policy that resulted in the repeated
rejection of Bakke's application for admission to its medical school?</p>

<p>conclusion: No and yes. There was no single majority opinion. Four of the
justices contended that any racial quota system supported by
government violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Justice Lewis
F. Powell, Jr., agreed, casting the deciding vote ordering the
medical school to admit Bakke. However, in his opinion, Powell
argued that the rigid use of racial quotas as employed at the
school violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. The remaining four justices held that the use of race
as a criterion in admissions decisions in higher education was
constitutionally permissible. Powell joined that opinion as well,
contending that the use of race was permissible as one of several
admission criteria. So, the Court managed to minimize white
opposition to the goal of equality (by finding for Bakke) while
extending gains for racial minorities through affirmative action.</p>

<p>precedent: quotas = the suck, affirmative action = all right</p>

<p>Chief Justice: Warren Burger</p>

<hr>

1225

<p>If those huge posts annoyed anyone, let me know, I will refrain from doing another one ^^;.</p>

<p>On that note, does anyone have a list of authors + books to know (which are much easier, right? I mean, all you need to know is author, book, and one/two sentence description of effect, and the last one doesn't apply to all of the books).</p>

1226

<p>i think it might have been de bois ( or at least thats what the parents say.... its been a while for them soo..........)?</p>

1227

<p>feel free to make your posts as long as possible :)... im working on the authors titles list... if anyone has it.... do tell//</p>

1228

<p>I know that Johnson's policy very closely followed Lincoln's, which ****ed a lot of people off...but (looks into text): required ratification of 13th amendment could be the answer to the question??</p>

<p>Nice court cases... Should add Engele vs Vitale: banned public prayer from schools, believe it was the 1950s.</p>

1229

<p>It was [url=<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W.E.B._DuBois%5DDuBois%5B/url"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W.E.B._DuBois]DuBois[/url&lt;/a&gt;] ;)</p>

1230

<p>Ok John Brown was involved with Bleeding Kansas and another famous raid, don't remember it...</p>

<p>John Brown's big raid = Harper's Ferry</p>

1231

<p>who is henry george</p>

1232

<p>What is the roosevelt corollary?</p>

1233

<p>Who is henry george?
Henry George was an author who wrote Progress and Poverty...</p>

<p>List Clay's most famous compromises... What did each do?</p>

1234

<p>compromise of 1850-settle problem of slavery in newly acquired western territory: included strict fugitive slave law as concession to south
missouri compromise: settle issue of slavery in new territores-created 36 30 line as dividing line between slave/free states</p>

<p>how did taft alienate the progressives?</p>

1235

<p>roosevelt corollary-T.R.'s addition to the monroe doctrine that asserted the role of the U.S. as a police force in Latin American nations</p>

1236

<p>Question:
1.The purpose of the Wade-Davis Bill was to____.(fairly easy).</p>

1237

<p>wade davis bill-Congressional reaction to Lincoln's relatively soft policies on ex-confederates; required 50% of the voters of a state to take loyalty oath and permitted only non-confederates to vote for a new state constitution (as opposed to Lincoln's 10% plan)</p>

<p>marked as a conflict between executive and legislative branch during reconstruction</p>

<p>from which social group did the political machines gain the most support from?</p>

1238

<p>from which social group did the political machines gain the most support from?</p>

<p>Immigrants. The machines helped them become accustomed to American life by giving them jobs, helping with housing, etcetera. In return, the machines expected a vote.</p>

1239

<p>triangular trade involved.. errrr??
slaves from AFrica << US, Barley US>> Europe, guns/molasses europe >> US, and then back to africa for slaves.</p>

<p>When was the first nat'l speed limit imposed (under which president) and why?</p>

1240

<p>Your question seems trivial. If I ever come across it on a test, I'll find you--and shake your hand. Nevertheless, here's an easy question.</p>

<p>Q:Roe V. Wade legalized______</p>