Government_Ch7_Homework-1

=**Government Chapter 7 Homework #1**=

1. The Bill of Rights are the first ten amendments to the Constitution. The Bill of Rights provides us with our civil liberties that are protected from government intrusion. The Bill of Rights upholds the principle of limited government, since it states what the federal government cannot do in terms of infringing on rights and freedoms. The first amendment contains several important civil liberties. The first part of the first amendment deals with religious freedom. The first clause of the amendment is called the establishment clause since it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." This means that Congress cannot establish a national church or national religion. An established religion was one that all citizens were required to adhere to by law, pay taxes for, pay fines for not attending, and overall being punished for not obeying the government-controlled church. This was what the framers didn't want to see happen in America. The second clause is the free exercise clause, which prohibits the government from unduly interfering with the free exercise or practice of one's faith. In 1801, Baptists in Connecticut, a state where the Congregational Church was the dominant church, wrote to President Jefferson out of concern of the Congregationalists establishing their faith as the official religion of the state of Connecticut. Jefferson wrote back to the Baptists putting their worries at ease saying that a "wall of separation between church and state exists." This phrase "Separation of Church and State" has been misused and misinterpreted over the years. Today, many believe that school students cannot pray, cannot have Christian clubs or discussion, that public grounds cannot display the Ten Commandments or a Nativity scene. The framers wanted the church to influence government officials. They didn't want the opposite - they didn't want the government influencing the church. Over the recent decades, cases have gone through the Supreme Court in attempts to secularize America even though our foundation was deeply rooted in Judeo-Christian principles. The Court had to rule on state aid to religious schools. In //Everson v. Board of Education// the Court rule that aid for busing students to religious schools was allowed. Further cases ruled that aid at to be secular (such as nonreligious textbooks - math, reading, etc). In //Lemon v. Kurtzman// 1971 the Court created a three-part test in terms of state aid - (1) aid had to be secular in purpose, (2) its effects can't advance or hinder a religion, and (3) avoid "excessive entanglement" with religion. The Supreme Court banned school prayer in the 1960s under //Engel v. Vitale// and in the 1980s struck down moments of silence in schools (//Wallace v. Jaffree)//. In 2000, the Court ruled that students can't lead stadium crowds in prayer (//Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe//). The Court has upheld student-groups in public schools such as students being allowed to have a Bible study or club in the school (//Westside Community Schools v. Mergens//). A major topic is the teaching of Creation vs. teaching evolution. Many Americans approve teaching both, while Secularists aim to have only evolution taught. The Supreme Court has never allowed religious freedom to justify any behavior, particularly when religious practices conflict with criminal laws. The Court first dealt with this issue in //Reynolds v. United States//, which the Court ruled that polygamy was not protected. The Court ruled that people are not free to worship in ways that violated laws protecting health, safety, or morals of the community. The Court also upheld laws requiring vaccinations before starting school, even if some religious groups do not approve. The Court denied unemployment to a native who was fired for using illegal drugs as part of a religious ceremony.
 * What did the Bill of Rights do? (A) gave the government civil liberties (B) gave the states more power (C) limited the government's power (D) created a republic since it was part of the original Constitution (E) all (F) none**


 * What does the Establishment Clause say? (A) government can't say that there is an official church for all to belong to (B) government can't keep you from going to church (C) government can tell public businesses which religious articles to display and not display (D) if someone practices their religion in public it violates everyone else's rights (E) all (F) none**


 * What does the Free Exercise Clause say? (A) government can't say that there is an official church (B) government can't keep you from going to church (C) government can tell public businesses which religious articles to display and not display (D) if someone practices their religion in public it violates everyone else's rights (E) all (F) none**


 * Which case set up the three part test for the Court to decide on the Establishment Clause? (A) Engel v. Vitale (B) Lemon v. Kurtzman (C) Mueller v. Allen (D) Wallace v. Jaffree (E) all (F) none**


 * How did the Reynolds case determine types of religious acts that can't be practiced? (A) if the act violates health, safety, or morals of a community (B) if it's happening in government sessions (C) if it's happening in the workplace (D) saying God in the pledge is wrong (E) all (F) none**


 * What was the original intent of religious freedom? (A) keep churches form being involved in government (B) keep Christians from public worship (C) ensure Christians could worship God as they saw fit (D) keep Christians from influencing moral laws (E) all (F) none**

2. Those who support democracy value the right of expression for people with different opinions from their own. Voltaire of France was the one who said "I might disagree with what you say but I'll defend your right to say it." What is meant by speech when we talk about freedom of speech? Clearly, talking with neighbors or addressing a crowd on a topic is speech. Are students who wear black armbands to protest something engaging in an act of "speech" that is protected by the 1st Amendment? Is demonstrating in front of a government building to protest by something a form of speech? To answer these questions, the Supreme Court has distinguished two categories of speech that the 1st Amendment protects. Pure speech, the verbal expression of thoughts and opinion before an audience that has chosen to listen, is the most common form of speech. Symbolic speech, sometimes called expressive conduct, involves the use of actions and symbols, in addition to or instead of words, to express opinion. An example was during Vietnam when protestors burned their draft cards. Both types of speech can be restricted by the government if such speech endangers the public. One of the famous cases that protects symbolic speech came from //Tinker v. Des Moines// in 1969 in which students who wore black armbands in protest of Vietnam was allowed to do so. The Court also ruled that burning the American flag out of protest was symbolic speech and protected in //Texas v. Johnson// 1989. Many today want a constitutional amendment to protect the American flag as a symbol of our nation. There are types of speech that can be curtailed or limited for the protection of society. One example is seditious speech, or speech urging resistance to lawful authority or advocating the overthrow of the government. Furthermore, speech cannot lead to a clear and present danger. If so, then it can be limited. When the speech in question clearly presents an immediate danger, the first amendment does not protect such speech. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in //Schenck v. United States// used "yelling fire in a crowded theater" as an example of a clear and present danger. Another example of limited speech is the Bad Tendency Rule. This is speech that can lead to illegal activity as ruled in //Gitlow v. New York// 1925. The Supreme Court has narrowed its view of sedition in cases such as //Yates v. United States// in which Communists in America were allowed to SAY the government should be overthrown, as long as they weren't ADVOCATING it. In //Brandenburg v. Ohio// the Court ruled that hate speech (this case dealt with the KKK) was legal as long as it wasn't advocating violence. Other types of speech that are unprotected include defamatory speech or defamation of character. Slander is speaking a lie that hurts a person's reputation. The Court has also held that "fighting words" such as threats and racial slurs are also unprotected. The government can regulate the time, place, and manner of speech. They can prohibit rallies at night in a residential neighborhood, for example. The government can allow picketing on a sidewalk, but the picketing cannot block the sidewalk. What is not permissible is when the government allows some speakers with one message but prohibits other speakers just because of their message. In Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley the court ruled that speech may not be regulated simply because of its content. Campaigning for office and donating to a campaign is a type of speech. In campaigning, candidates are limited on campaign donations. Money helps a candidate get their message out there. Restricting that money flow will restrict speech and helps incumbents since they have the ability to use the mail service for free. The purpose of campaign laws is to prevent corruption, which is a good goal. However, states found that by having donations all written down and made public helps stop corruption. The Supreme Court should be ruling on the principle that the least restrictive law that gets the same goal should be used.
 * Which is NOT a permitted type of speech? (A) speech that leads to illegal activity - Bad Tendency Rule (B) urging overthrow of the government - Seditious speech (C) slander (D) racial slurs and fighting words (E) all of the above listed are not permitted**


 * What is a spoken lie that hurts a person's reputation (also called defamation of character)? (A) Fighting words (B) inflammatory speech (C) slander (D) seditious (E) all (F) none**


 * Schenck v. United States set up (A) slander as being illegal (B) obscenity was unprotected (C) the clear and present danger rule (D) the bad tendency rule (E) all (F) none**


 * The Brandenburg decision ruled that -- speech was legal as long as it was not urging the breaking of laws. (A) obscenity (B) hate (C) racial slurs (D) threats (E) all (F) none**


 * The Yates decision ruled that (A) urging someone to overthrow the government was illegal (B) expressing that the government should be overthrown was illegal (C) you can't yell fire in a crowded theater (D) protesting calculus is unprotected (E) all (F) none**

3. Prior restraint, or censorship of information before it is published, is a common way for government to control information and limit freedom. In the United States, the Supreme Court has ruled that the freedom of the press is a fundamental right, but the press can be limited and censored in advance only if the reason is for national security. The Supreme Court ruled in //New York Times Co. v. United States// in 1971 that the government could only use prior restraint for national security purposes. In this case, the New York Times had gotten information from a Pentagon leak that showed that the government had misled the public for years regarding Vietnam. The government tried to stop the publication of the Pentagon Papers, but the Supreme Court ruled that the government could not do such a thing. Sometimes, conflict can arise between the right of free press and the right to a fair trial. Pretrial publicity and news stories can make it difficult to obtain a jury capable of fairly deciding the case. The Supreme Court described several measures that judges could take to restrain coverage of a trial such as moving the trial to reduce pretrial publicity, limit the number of reporters in the courtroom, control reporters' conduct in the courtroom, isolate witnesses and jurors from the press, and have the jury sequestered, or kept isolated, until the end of the trial. Judges are allowed to issue a gag order, which is an order by a judge barring the press from publishing certain types of information about a pending court case. Reporters do have some protections in terms of their sources for a story. Most states have passed shield laws, or laws that give reporters some protection from disclosing their sources in state courts. Libel is not protected under free press. Libel is a written lie that hurts a person's reputation. What if the newspaper prints a story on a person that the paper believed was true and evidence surfaces later that the story was false? The newspaper is only guilty if a false story was printed with malice in mind in other words if the story was known to be false when it was printed. Radio and television use public airwaves and therefore don't enjoy as much freedom as the printed media. The FCC, or Federal Communications Commission is a government agency that regulates TV and radio. The Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that speech on the Internet was more closely related to print media than broadcast media. Obscenity is also unprotected. The Court ruled in //Miller v. California// 1973 that obscene speech, pictures, and written material is unprotected. Advertising is considered to be "commercial speech," or speech that has a profit motive and is given less protection under the 1st amendment than purely political speech. Advertisers face strong government regulation.
 * What is a written lie that hurts a person's reputation? (A) slander (B) defamation (C) libel (D) sequestration (E) all (F) none**


 * No prior restraint of the press means (A) journalists write articles (B) newspapers can publish articles (C) government cannot censor (D) obscenity can be used (E) all (F) none**


 * Why do people accused of crimes need special protection against possible government abuse? (A) people aren't able to care for themselves (B) government is usually abusive (C) prevent innocent people from being punished (D) the Court doesn't like police (E) all (F) none**


 * New York Times Co. v. United States ruled that the government couldn't censor the printing of the Pentagon Papers. This ruling set a precedent that government can't stop articles from being printed unless (A) damaging (B) prevent election (C) national security (D) against agenda of the president and Congress (E) all (F) none**


 * Which government agency regulates TV and radio?**

4. Freedom of assembly is a right closely related to freedom of speech because most gatherings, no matter how large or small, involve some form of protected speech. Without this basic freedom, no political parties and no interest groups could exist to influence the actions of government. This freedom includes the right to assemble even for groups that have a negative message as long as that group isn't advocating illegal activity. Freedom to assemble includes the right to parade and demonstrate in public. Since these forms of assembly usually occur in parks, in streets, or on sidewalks, they could interfere with the rights of others to use the same facilities. Demonstrations have a high potential for violence because those with opposite views may launch counterdemonstrations. For this reason, parades and demonstrations can be subject to greater government regulation than other kinds of speech or assembly. Many states and cities require (and are allowed to) permits for parades and demonstrations in order to maintain public safety. Many regulations that limit assembly are to protect the public safety. Labor unions have the right to picket when on strike, but there are regulations on picketers such as not conflicting with others. The heckler's veto refers to attempts by the public to veto free speech and assembly of groups that are unpopular (hate groups such as Nazi groups, Communist groups, KKK, Black Panthers) - groups that could result in violence. Freedom of association has been maintained as a founding principle. However, court protection of the freedom of association began to evaporate. In Roberts v. United States Jaycees in 1983 the Jaycees was limited to males and so the Supreme Court had to determine if this was discrimination against females and therefore a violation of rights. The Supreme Court ruled against the Jaycees. This ruling was good against discrimination, but bad in terms of a group being forced to abide by the court ruling, not the group's own by-laws. Does this violate the freedom of association to force a large private organization to accept women (or force a women's group to accept men)? This ruling against the Jaycees shows that the Supreme Court took it upon itself to evaluate the Jaycees and their ruling on what they considered gender discrimination was a compelling interest and set a precedent for other clubs. A Boy Scouts' scoutmaster that was gay was dismissed by the scouts and went to court. The New Jersey Supreme Court sided with the scoutmaster based on the ruling in the Jaycees case. It would go to the Supreme Court. In Boy Scouts of America v. Dale 1999 the Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts had the right to do this (control their own membership and membership standards). This ruling was the opposite of the Jaycees ruling. Four justices ruled for the scoutmaster while five went with the Boy Scouts. The Supreme Court did not rule that ALL groups can decide their own membership, so it didn't overturn the Jaycees case. This ruling was only for the Boy Scouts. The legal question should be who has the power to decide the membership policies of private clubs. The answer has been the Supreme Court based on their own biases and opinions.
 * Who is allowed to assemble?**


 * What is your opinion on the cases involving the Boy Scouts and the Jaycees?**

5. Those accused of crimes have rights as well. The 4th amendment guarantees the right against illegal or unreasonable searches and seizures. The police need evidence to accuse people of committing crimes, but getting evidence often requires searching people or their homes, cars, and offices. To protect the innocent from searches, the 4th amendment was put in place. Today, the police must state under oath that they have probable cause to suspect that someone has committed a crime. This probable cause justifies the police search. Usually, the police must get a warrant from a court official before searching for evidence or making an arrest. The warrant must describe the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized. The exclusionary rule says that illegally obtained evidence cannot be used in court. This rule was established in //Weeks v. United States// 1914 and would be applied to the states in //Mapp v. Ohio// 1961. The Supreme Court has ruled that as long as the police act in good faith when they ask for a warrant, the evidence they collect may be used in court even if the warrant turns out to be flawed. The 4th amendment is limited in schools. In //New Jersey v. T.L.O.// 1985 the Supreme Court ruled that school officials do not need a warrant or probable cause to search students or their property with only needing reasonable suspicion that a student has broken school rules. Students in extracurricular activities can be subjected to random drug testing as long as their told about the possibility before signing up. The rule with wiretapping is that if a person has a "reasonable expectation of privacy" such in their home, a warrant is needed to listen in on phone calls or look at emails. After the terror attacks of 9/11 the Patriot Act passed, which allowed the FBI to listen in on phone calls of suspected terrorists without needing a warrant. The 6th amendment has guarantees as well. A defendant has the right of counsel, or the right to an attorney. The Supreme Court ruled in //Gideon v. Wainwright// that if a defendant could not afford an attorney that one would be appointed. The 6th amendment also guarantees citizens the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of peers. The 5th amendment has several protections as well including the right against self-incrimination. The basis for this right is that the government must prove the guilt of a person beyond a reasonable doubt, not the person have to prove his or her innocence. In //Escobedo v. Illinois// the Supreme Court ruled that a suspect arrested for a crime has the right to remain silent and have an attorney present when being questioned by police. A major landmark case was //Miranda v. Arizona// in which the Supreme Court ruled that a person has to have their rights read to them when arrested. These rights have become known as the Miranda Rights. The 5th amendment also provides for the right of a person to not be "twice put in jeopardy of life and limb," which as been called no double jeopardy. This means that a person cannot be put on trial for the same crime more than once. The 8th amendment also protects citizens from excessive bails and fines as well as no cruel or unusual punishment for crimes. Capital punishment, or the death penalty, has been a topic of debate when it comes to the 8th amendment. The Supreme Court banned the death penalty for a short time in the 1970s, but has since reinstated it and has allowed each state to decide if it will have it or not.
 * The Patriot Act allows (A) government censorship of terrorism articles (B) speech that favors terrorism (C) FBI wiretaps without a warrant to stop terrorism (D) bans flag buring at national ceremonies during national holidays (E) all (F) none**


 * What makes a search legal? Having a search w-- or p--- cause.**


 * What is the exclusionary rule?**


 * The M-- R- have to be read to a person when arrested.**


 * How are citizens guaranteed a fair trial?**


 * What is capital punishment?**

6. Watch the video below and give your opinion: media type="custom" key="25340194"

Back to the Chapter 7 main page