Test Prep just to be prepared for Valentines day. Better known as Blog Five

Tomorrow I have a test!

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

Judicial activism means that the judges are willing to have a looser interpretation of the constitution and use their own opinion to interpret laws.

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

a) Will review a lower decision

A writ of certiorari is when a higher court requests all of the documents from a case in a lower court for review

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

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

If there is a controversies between a citizen and the state they reside in, it gets settled in state court.

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

a) judicial review

Although the other choices aren’t mentioned in the same sections, all of them are in the constitution. Judicial review was established during the Marshall court during the case Marbury v Madison.

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

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

The two courts have separate jurisdiction but sometimes they overlap and higher courts like the Supreme Court may rule that decisions in lower courts like state courts are unconstitutional.

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

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

In this case, the court determined that the police need to read suspects their rights in order to use their interrogation in court which has to do with enforcing the 5th amendment.

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

c) apply most Bill of Rights protections to state law

Selective incorporation means that the court is enforcing the Bill of RIghts and other amendments in states and making it clear that the laws apply to states.

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

d) Mapp v. Ohio

In Mapp v Ohio the supreme court determined that evidence obtained illegally can not be used in  state court cases.

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

In criminal court one party has specifically broken a law but civil court settles disagreements between 2 parties which is what suing is.

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

d) Congress had the power to create new federal courts

In the constitution, Congress was given the power to create federal courts.

Some court cases and what I think of them. AKA Blog Four

Schenck v. U.S. (1918)  

In this case the Supreme Court voted unanimously that some statements that are allowed in peacetime because of free speech aren’t allowed during wartime because it can be detrimental during wartime.

This is a result of judicial restraint because it was consistent with  decisions made in other wars about the rights awarded to citizens in peacetime versus in wartime. For example, in the civil war President Lincoln withheld the right to habeas corpus to prisoners during the war because their actions were often viewed as detrimental to the health of the Union. Although the two incidents do not involve the same right, they are both examples of rights being limited during wartime.

I believe that this decision is acceptable to an extent as long as it is proven that by denying this right will make the country safer and the majority of rights will be maintained.Today similar rights, such as the right to privacy, are somewhat withheld as a result of the “War on Terrorism” and although I think that the laws go too far sometimes it is justified to withhold some of our rights to keep us safe.

Engel v. Vitale (1961)

In a 6 to 1 vote the supreme court ruled that the  state could not draft a “nondenominational,  optional prayer” because by doing so it would be sanctioning a religion.

This decision showed Judicial Activism because before this time, prayer was allowed in schools. This case established precedent for a series of cases where the Supreme Court began to take religion out of many public institutions.

I think that because one of the founding ideals of the US was the separation between church and state, prayer should be kept out of public schools especially considering the wide range of religions living in the US.

Roe v. Wade (1971)

The Supreme Court ruled in a 7 to 2 vote that abortions were constitutional as an extension to the right to privacy and were allowed to varying degrees in the 3 trimesters.

In the case Roe v Wade, the majority of judges showed Judicial Activism by setting precedent and declaring many laws against abortion unconstitutional.

I agree with the decision to allow abortions because some people that get one wouldn’t be able to take care of the child if they gave birth to it and there are many circumstances where the woman shouldn’t be required to have the child.  A common example is a woman being raped; if she is raped she shouldn’t be forced to have a baby she had no control over. Additionally, the children of women unready to have or take care of kids have a high chance of being less well taken care of or being put into adoption which doesn’t always end well. By allowing women to have abortions, we give them similar treatment as men in sexual encounters. After sex women have a chance of becoming pregnant  which makes them responsible for sex but men don’t really have any way to be held responsible for sex.

"Do you ever have one of those days when everything seems unconstitutional?" also known as Blog Three

"Do you ever have one of those days when everything seems unconstitutional?"

The context behind this cartoon is that the Supreme Court is faced with many cases dealing with issues that are unconstitutional and the Supreme Court declares things unconstitutional all the time. However, this cartoon shows that they are often subject to the whims of the times. For example, the case of Brown vs Board overturned the Court's previous ruling on the constitutionality of segregation in Plessy vs Ferguson. As the US's views on segregation changed so did the court's even though the original Constitution never actually changed, it was just interpreted differently. Another example is the case of Roe v Wade. After this case, many state laws were declared unconstitutional in their total ban on abortions and nationally, abortions were legalized to varying degrees in the 3 trimesters. Previously, the courts decided that abortions were illegal but as the US shifted to a more liberal era, the court decided that a more liberal interpretation of the constitution was appropriate.

The Powers of the Judiciary!

The Supreme Court obtains its powers in Article III section 2 of the Constitution. Their powers were fairly loosely defined in the constitution because framers, like Alexander Hamilton, didn't think it was a dangerous branch of government. They believed it wouldn't have the power necessary to create tyranny.
The Supreme Court was given the power to hear cases involving interpretations of the constitution and high ranking officials or ambassadors. Additionally, the Supreme Court will hear cases where the US is a party, citizens of different states are in a dispute or if multiple states are in a dispute. Finally, the Supreme Court handles cases between a state and a foreign country or the citizens in them.

Hello World

Hi I'm Elise. I don't like computers but I think they are pretty darn amazing. I have zero experience in blogging and despite my technological deficits I'm optimistic about blogging in history class even though it doesn't sound like it.