FSOT UPDATED ACTUAL Exam Questions and CORRECT ANSWERS
6 vues 0 fois vendu
Cours
FSOT
Établissement
FSOT
FSOT UPDATED ACTUAL Exam
Questions and CORRECT ANSWERS
Mculloch v Maryland - CORRECT ANSWER- - constitution has right to enact laws
beneficial to country, in this case, central bank
Marbury v Madison - CORRECT ANSWER- - John Marshall enacted judicial review.
Was regarding james madisons app...
FSOT UPDATED ACTUAL Exam
Questions and CORRECT ANSWERS
Mculloch v Maryland - CORRECT ANSWER✔✔- - constitution has right to enact laws
beneficial to country, in this case, central bank
Marbury v Madison - CORRECT ANSWER✔✔- - John Marshall enacted judicial review.
Was regarding james madisons appointments after he was out of office
Gibbons v Ogden - CORRECT ANSWER✔✔- - Each had a permit, one federal, and one
state, this ruling set up the supremacy clause that federal law takes priority
Dred Scott vs Sandford - CORRECT ANSWER✔✔- - Each had a permit, one federal, and
one state, this ruling set up the supremacy clause that federal law takes priority
Charles River Bridge - CORRECT ANSWER✔✔- -The responsibility of government is to
"sacredly guard" the rights of property for the prosperity of the community.
Munn vs Illinois - CORRECT ANSWER✔✔- -Companies that serve the public good/interest
are subject to regulations by government. This also made it clear that complains on these
regulations should be taken to the legislators, not the courts
Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896 - CORRECT ANSWER✔✔- -Jim Crow laws are constitutional
under the doctrine of 'Separate but Equal.' One dissenting opinion came from Marshall
Harlan
Lochner vs New York - CORRECT ANSWER✔✔- Seen as overreach by judges in favor of
laizze-faire economics. This ruling struck down the NY law requiring a maximum hours
bakers could work, saying that employees have a right to contract.
Judges invented novel economic "rights" — most notably "substantive due process" and
"liberty of contract" — that they engrafted upon the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment.
,Schenck v. United States, 1919 - CORRECT ANSWER✔✔- Speech that presents a "clear
and present danger" to the security of the United States is in violation of the principle of free
speech as protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Based on a man who passed out socialists propaganda telling people not to enlist in warm. It
was during time of war and presented "clear and present danger". This stood for half century
Near v. Minnesota, 1931 - CORRECT ANSWER✔✔- "The liberty of the press is safeguarded
from invasion by state action."
Although the First Amendment ensures a free press, until this case, it only protected the press
from federal laws, not state laws. Minnesota shut down J. M. Near's Saturday Press for
publishing vicious antisemitic and racist remarks. In what is regarded as the landmark free
press decision, the Court ruled that a state cannot engage in "prior restraint
Brown v. Board of Education, 1954 - CORRECT ANSWER✔✔- "In the eld of public
education, the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place."
This unanimous decision marked the beginning of the end for the "Separate But Equal" era
that started with Plessy, and the start of a new period of American race relations. With Brown,
desegregation of public schools began—as did resistance to it. Ten contentious years later, the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 made racial equality a matter of federal law.
Mapp v. Ohio, 1961 - CORRECT ANSWER✔✔- Evidence that is illegally obtained by the
state may not be used against a defendant in court.
Extended notion that federal AND states need to obtain evidence legally. Prior to this it was
only feds who had to
Dealt with Arresting ms. Mapp for possessing "obscene" books
Baker vs Carr- anti germandering - CORRECT ANSWER✔✔- held that the states must meet
a Constitutional standard for appointment: districts cannot be drawn in such a way that they
violate the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Engel v. Vitale, 1962 - CORRECT ANSWER✔✔- Public institutions (i.e., a school system)
cannot require prayer. Dealt with atheist who didn't want his kids to be forced to pray in
schools. Vitale was principal of the school in the case
Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963 - CORRECT ANSWER✔✔- Defendants in criminal cases have
an absolute right to counsel.
, Gideon was too poor for a lawyer, he appealed to supreme court, which ruled that all accused
have the right to be provided counsel. Originally this only applied to felonies but now applies
cases facing 6month imprisonment or longer.
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 1964 - CORRECT ANSWER✔✔- To win a libel case,
public gures must prove "actual malice" on the part of the writer.
In 1964, the Times published an ad critical of an elected commissioner of an Alabama city.
The commissioner sued for libel and won. The Supreme Court overturned that ruling, and
said that, to ensure "uninhibited, robust and wide-open" debate about public gures, the law
must protect writers from libel suits.
Miranda v Arizona - CORRECT ANSWER✔✔- You have to remain silent....5th amendment
Tinker v Des Moines - CORRECT ANSWER✔✔- The 1969 landmark case of Tinker v. Des
Moines affirmed the First Amendment rights of students in school. The Court held that a
school district violated students' free speech rights when it singled out a form of symbolic
speech - black armbands worn in protest of the Vietnam War - for prohibition, without
proving the armbands would cause substantial disruption in class.
Could remember this by Tinker from lovejoy - cause he was in Vietnam
San Antonio School District vs. Rodriguez - CORRECT ANSWER✔✔- Said that the
constitution does not guarantee education, but rather places boundary on Governments. This
was done after some san Antonio families schooled the school district after claiming that
wealthier districts had better schools. Also says constitution does not provide welfare.
United States vs Nixon. - CORRECT ANSWER✔✔- Watergate scandal. Nixon wanted
immunity. Supreme responded by saying that neither confidentiality or separation of powers
can keep president immune. Nixon said he needed to be tried by the senate. Court would not
accept confidentiality of presidential communications.
Texas vs Johnson - CORRECT ANSWER✔✔- The flag burning case- supreme court ended
up protecting it.
"Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea because society ands the idea itself
offensive or disagreeable."
Les avantages d'acheter des résumés chez Stuvia:
Qualité garantie par les avis des clients
Les clients de Stuvia ont évalués plus de 700 000 résumés. C'est comme ça que vous savez que vous achetez les meilleurs documents.
L’achat facile et rapide
Vous pouvez payer rapidement avec iDeal, carte de crédit ou Stuvia-crédit pour les résumés. Il n'y a pas d'adhésion nécessaire.
Focus sur l’essentiel
Vos camarades écrivent eux-mêmes les notes d’étude, c’est pourquoi les documents sont toujours fiables et à jour. Cela garantit que vous arrivez rapidement au coeur du matériel.
Foire aux questions
Qu'est-ce que j'obtiens en achetant ce document ?
Vous obtenez un PDF, disponible immédiatement après votre achat. Le document acheté est accessible à tout moment, n'importe où et indéfiniment via votre profil.
Garantie de remboursement : comment ça marche ?
Notre garantie de satisfaction garantit que vous trouverez toujours un document d'étude qui vous convient. Vous remplissez un formulaire et notre équipe du service client s'occupe du reste.
Auprès de qui est-ce que j'achète ce résumé ?
Stuvia est une place de marché. Alors, vous n'achetez donc pas ce document chez nous, mais auprès du vendeur MGRADES. Stuvia facilite les paiements au vendeur.
Est-ce que j'aurai un abonnement?
Non, vous n'achetez ce résumé que pour 9,52 €. Vous n'êtes lié à rien après votre achat.
