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 |
|
Created By
Metadata
Favourited By
Comments
No comments yet. Add yours below!
Add a Comment
Related Cheat Sheets
More Cheat Sheets by lewalker