COHEN final POSC 225 Nightingale College - Questions with complete solution COHEN final POSC 225
Baron v Baltimore (Baron-Baltimore-bill of rights) - correct answer Allowed states to continue to practice the law as they saw fit w/out being subjected to bill of rights
Schenck v US (Schenck-...
COHEN final POSC 225
Baron v Baltimore (Baron-Baltimore-bill of rights) - correct answer ✔Allowed
states to continue to practice the law as they saw fit w/out being subjected to
bill of rights
Schenck v US (Schenck-speech) - correct answer ✔Ruled Congress could
only regulate speech when protecting threatening evils that show a "clear &
present danger"
Stromberg v Cali (Stromberg-students-soviet flag) - correct answer ✔Ruled
plaintiff couldn't be fired for teaching student to pledge allegiance to soviet
union's flag bc it didn't constitute clear & present danger
Texas v Johnson (texas-express) - correct answer ✔Ruled flag burning was
legal bc it was expression of political opinion
Roth v US (roth-redeeming) - correct answer ✔Ruled work of art may be
deemed obscene when it is w/out redeeming social/cultural content according
to contemporary standards; ambiguous law
Miller v Cali (Cali-community standards) - correct answer ✔ruled that
whether something is obscene is to determinate by local communities rather
than states
Near v Minnesota (Near-nat'l security) - correct answer ✔rued government
can't sensor media unless it was an issue of nat'l security
, New York Times v US (PPP) - correct answer ✔ruled gov't didn't have
enough proof that publication of Pentagon Papers jeopardized nat'l security;
wouldn't exercise prior restrain
New York Times v Sullivan (sullivan-sue-slander-statements) - correct
answer ✔ruled that untruthful statements are not libel unless errors are made
knowingly & w/ reckless damage for the truth; public figures forfeit their right to
sue for libel and slander
Lemon v Kurtzman (lemon test) - correct answer ✔determines whether law
maintains separation of church and state; "lemon test" says law must have
nonreligious purpose, must not inhibit/advance a religion, & can't be entangled
in religion
*ambiguous, eventually replaced by neutrality test
Engel v Vitale (engel-illegal) - correct answer ✔ruled official/encouraged
school prayer was illegal bc schools are gov't funded
School district of Abington Township v Schempp (ab-bible) - correct answer
✔Ruled school-sponsored bible study was unconstitutional in schools
Cantwell v Connecticut (Cantwel-Connecticut-compelling) - correct answer
✔Ruled gov't must have "compelling gov't interest" when rejecting the free
exercise of religion clause
*ex. illegal drugs for religious reasons not protected by constitution
Free exercise clause - correct answer ✔Congress may not pass any
legislation prohibiting free exercise of religion
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller flyhigher329. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $14.99. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
