Cheatography
https://cheatography.com
Amendments3rd Amendment | no troops can be put in a house w/out consent in war/peace | 4th Amendment | right of the people to be secure | 5th Amendment | right to not testify against yourself | 6th Amendment | accused have a speedy & public trial | 7th Amendment | if accused of a crime over $20(230 now), then right to a jury | 8th Amendment | no excessive bail, fines, or cruel & unusual punishments | 9th Amendment | just because it's not in the constitution doesn't mean it's legal/illegal | 10th Amendment | powers not delegated by Constitution are reserved to states respectively | 13th Amendment | no slavery or involuntary servitude | 14th Amendment | all persons born or naturalized in U.S. are subject to jurisdiction | 15th Amendment | rights will not be denied by race, color, or previous condition |
Amendment CasesGideon vs Wayne Wright | everybody is allowed to a court attorney | Forman vs Georgia | determines that execution is not cruel & unusual | Kelso Case | state is allowed to take property |
Article 1Section 1 | creates legislative branch; bicameral govt. created | Section 2 | representative must be 25 years old, 7 years U.S. Citizen | general assembly | legislative body in which each member has one vote | Section 3 | 2 senators from each state serves 6 years, 1 vote; | Senator requirements | 30 years old, 9 years a citizen | Section 5 | a journal is kept and published unless secrecy is needed | Quorum | minimum number of people for entity to work | Section 6 | law determines how much officials | Section 7 | process of bills | Section 8 | Congress can lay & collect taxes | Letter of Marque & Reprisal | formal declaration of war against a nation | House of Representative Powers | war, tax, treaty ratification, impeach | Section 9 | no title of nobility will work | Section 10 | restriction on certain state powers | habeas corpus | someone must be told what they are charged with | Ex Post Facto | prosecuting someone with something that was legal but is now illegal | Bill of attainder | condemn someone w/out due process |
Article 2Section 1 | creates executive power | Presidency Requirements | 35 years old, 14 years a citizen | Case of Removal | VP acts in place of president | Section 2 | Civilian is in commander in chief of armed forces | Section 3 | State of the Union address | Section 4 | civil Officers can be removed from office on impeachment for high crimes |
Article 3Section 1 | creation of judicial branch | Section 2 | judicial power extends to all cases | Section 3 | treason cases |
| | Speech and Finance Cases and TermsZenger Case | Zenger accused governor Cosby of corruption; accused of libel but later acquitted | libel | written lies that cause damage | slander | spoken lies | Buckley vs Valego | Money is speech | SpeechNow vs FEC | contribution limits were unconstitutional | Citizens United Decision | allowed corporations to spend unlimited money | Texas vs Johnson | burning a U.S. flag counts as protest | PAC | can give money to parties ($2600) | SuperPAC | cannot give money to parties but may pay for ads | McCutcheon vs FEC | allows giving of money to infinite of people | Shank and Deb Cases | (1920) Clear and present danger clause | Gitlo vs NY | (1925) accused of breaking criminal anarchy act by creating a left wing pamphlet | Chief Justice during Shank and Deb | Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. | Debs and Shank broke what law? | Sedition Act of 1917 | Clear & Present Danger Test | 1st speech test; speech is unprotected if it causes a disturbance | Bad Tendency Test | speech is restricted if it can incite illegal activity | Clear & Present Danger w/eminence | 3rd Speech test; extension of proximity and degree(more urgency) | Public vs Private Speech | 4th speech test; some people enjoy more latitude than others | prior restraint | suppression of speech that would be broadcasted and may cause harm | Tinker vs Des Moines Case | speech is protected even if it is unpopular |
Obscenity and Porn CasesWhat is porn or obscenity? | no definite answer | Chaplinsky vs New Hampshire | (1942) Supreme Court rules porn has no redeeming social value | Roth Case vs U.S. | (1957) sex appealing to pruriant manner (no social value) | Stanley vs Georgia | courts ruled it was ok to watch porn in your own home | Miller vs California | (1973) no definite answer for porn |
|
Help Us Go Positive!
We offset our carbon usage with Ecologi. Click the link below to help us!
Created By
Metadata
Favourited By
Comments
No comments yet. Add yours below!
Add a Comment
Related Cheat Sheets
More Cheat Sheets by lewalker