Blog 4

Case 1: Lemon V Kurtzman
Ruling: Non-secular laws and statutes are in violation of the first amendment.
No dissent
Shows judicial activism because the judges interpreted the bill of rights in context of the time and ruled accordingly.
I think that this was definitely the right choice because it pushed schools towards religious equality and secularism. I don't think that religion should be encouraged or supported in any way that secularism isn't.

Case 2: Texas V Johnson
Ruling: The burning of the American flag is constitutional and protected by the first amendment's freedom of speech and expression.
5-4 vote, majority in favor of allowing this political expression
Somewhat shows judicial restraint because they referred to the fact that the "bedrock principle" of the first amendment is to allow freedom of expression regardless of society's opinion.
I think this was a fair ruling because the first amendment can only protect citizens' rights. It is also fairly clear that its purpose is just that.

Case 3: Bush V Gore
Ruling: It would be unconstitutional to recount ballots.
5-4 vote, majority in favor of no recount
Shows judicial restraint because they based their ruling off of precedent that said ballots can't be devalued by "later arbitrary and disparate treatment."
I don't agree entirely with this decision because given the context of the situation it seems more reasonable to me to do a recount, even if it is unfair in practice. For the given situation, the recount was, in theory, fair.

Blog 5

1. A Supreme Court that demonstrates a willingness to change public policy and alter judicial precedent is said to be engaging in

a) judicial activism
b) due process
c) judicial restraint
d) ex post facto lawmaking
e) judicial review

A, because they are being active in making their own judgement that goes against what was previously established.

2. A writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court indicates that the Court

a) Will review a lower decision

b) Has rendered a decision on a case

c) Has decided not to hear an appeal

d) Will recess until the end of the calendar year

e) Plans to overturn one of its previous rulings

A, because that's what a writ of ceriorari is...

3. The Supreme Court holds original jurisdiction in all of the following types of cases EXCEPT

a) If the United States is a party in the case

b) In controversies in criminal law between a citizen and a state

c) In controversies under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties

d) if a case is between citizens of different states

e) If cases arise under admirality and maritime laws

B, that is a case for the state courts first.

4. All of the following are specifically mentioned in the Constitution EXCEPT

a) judicial review

b) the national census

c) rules of impeachment

d) the State of the Union address

e) length of term if federal judgeships

A, this was determined in Marbury v Madison

5. Which of the following correctly states the relationship between the federal and state judiciaries?

a) Federal courts are higher courts than state courts and may overturn state decisions on any grounds.

b)The two are entirely autonomous, and neither ever hears cases that originate in the other.

c) The two are generally autonomous, although federal courts may rule on the constitutionality of state court decisions.

d) State courts are trial courts; federal courts are appeals courts.

e) State courts try all cases except those that involve conflicts between two states, which are tried in federal courts.

C, they generally function independently of each other except when federal courts review lower courts' decisions.

6. The Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona was based mainly on the

a) Constitutional prohibition of ex post facto laws

b) Incorporation of the Fifth Amendment through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

c) Eighth Amendment restriction against cruel and unusual punishment

d) Abolition of slavery by the Fourteenth Amendment

e) full faith and credit clause of the Constitution

B, the rights to counsel and protection from self-incrimination were violated.

7. The Supreme Court has used the practice of selective incorporation to

a) Limit the number of appeals filed by defendants in state courts

b) Extend voting rights to racial minorities and women
c) apply most Bill of Rights protections to state law

d) Hasten the integration of public schools

e) Prevent the states from calling a constitutional convention

C, selective incorporation involves the application of the Constitution to states.

8. Which of the following cases extended the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures to the states?

a) Gideon v. Wainwright

b) Schneck v. United States
c) Miranda v. Arizona

d) Mapp v. Ohio

e) Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States

D, because in that case it was ruled that illegally obtained evidence is void in a trial

9. Which of the following is true of court cases in which one private party is suing another?

A) They are tried in civil court

B) The federal court system has exclusive jurisdiction over them

C) They are tried in criminal court

D) The state court system has exclusive jurisdiction over them.

E) They are tried before a grand jury.

A, civil court deals with disagreements between parties.

10. Which of the following is an accurate statement about the federal court system?

a) The creation of new federal courts requires a constitutional amendment

b) The creation of new federal courts requires the unanimous consent of all 50 states

c) The Supreme Court has the sole power to create new federal courts.

d) Congress had the power to create new federal courts

e) The number of federal courts if fixed by the Constitution and cannot be changed.

D, the constitution gives Congress the power to create new federal courts.

Blog 3

The author of the cartoon portrays the Supreme Court justices as having a skewed point of view and thinking that everything seems unconstitutional. This questions the integrity and credibility of the justices' actions and rulings.

For the most part, I agree with this viewpoint. Most of the time, the Supreme Court rules according to the Constitution and what is explicitly written. However, this is not to say that they don't also have "good" rulings where they exercise their power correctly. In the Brown v. Board of Education case it was determined that "separate but equal" was not constitutional and segregation became illegal. However, an earlier case of this in Plessy v. Ferguson, they ruled that segregation was constitutional under the "separate but equal" clause. In addition, many cases show Supreme Court demonstrations of incompetence. For example, in Dred Scott V. Sandford, the Court ruled that African Americans were to be treated as property. This was based on a grossly racist and convoluted reading of the Constitution. In Buck V. Bell, Justices decided that "feeble-minded" people can, and should be, sterilized. This completely ignored the basic human rights outlined in the Constitution and claimed that the 14th amendment didn't apply to these "feeble-minded." Many cases show the Supreme Court's skewed judgement and interpretation of the Constitution, which has caused them to have such an image.

Supreme Court Powers

What are the judicial powers of the US Supreme Court and where does this power come from?

The Supreme Court has the ultimate say when determining constitutionality of laws and constitutional interpretation. Its power extends to all issues involving common law, equity, civil law, criminal law, and public law. The constitution states that the Supreme Court has the power of jurisdiction over cases involving: the constitution, laws, maritime authority, the US as a party, controversy between a state and a citizen of another state, issues between states/citizens of different states, issues between domestic and foreign citizens, and public ministers/ambassadors.

Blog Post One

Blogging is for attention-seeking people who either are insecure with their opinion and feel the need to share it with as many people as possible or are so self-absorbed that they need a new medium in which to bask in all their glory while simultaneously having people agree with them. That being said, I'm somewhere in between. Or I would be if this was a non-school related blog. I dunno. My name's Kylan.