MCQ: January 19, 2023

Heimler’s History Playlist: AP Government Unit 3 Review - YouTube

The Bill of Rights

Civil Liberties: Constitutionally established guarantees and freedoms that protect citizens against
arbitrary government interference.
The Origin of the Bill of Rights:
➔ Conflicts over the ratification of the Constitution between federalists and anti-federalists
➔ Anti-federalists asked for a bill of rights to ensure certain liberties that the strong federal
government could not overpower (or else they wouldn’t ratify)
➔ George Mason: Protested the lack of a bill of rights in the Constitution
➔ James Madison argued that the bill of rights was unnecessary because they are already implied
➔ Before the passage of the 14th amendment, the bill of rights was only meant to protect citizens
from the federal government (not state governments)
The Bill of Rights
➔ 1st Amendment: Protects the freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition
➔ 2nd Amendment: Protects the right to bear arms for a well-regulated militia
➔ 3rd Amendment: Protects citizens from having soldiers quartered in their homes
➔ 4th Amendment: Protects against unreasonable searches and seizures
➔ 5th Amendment: Rights for when someone is accused of a crime
➔ 6th Amendment: Explains the process of when someone is accused of a crime and the rights
they are entitled to
➔ 7th Amendment: Guarantees the right to trial by jury
➔ 8th Amendment: Protects against cruel and unusual punishment and excessive bail
➔ 9th Amendment: Acknowledges that there are other rights that citizens are entitled to even
though they aren’t necessarily stated in the first 10 amendments
➔ 10th Amendment: Powers not explicitly granted by the Constitution to the federal
government belong exclusively to the states

Selective Incorporation: The process by which the Bill of Rights is applied to the states
Due process and the rights of the accused:
➔ 5th amendment requires due process of the law
➔ Miranda v. Arizona established the Miranda Rights
➔ 4th-8th amendments apply to the rights of the accused
Due process and the right to privacy:
➔ The right to privacy is not in the Bill of Rights (explicitly)
➔ The court established this as an implicit right based on the first, fourth, fifth, ninth, and
fourteenth amendments
The First Amendment & Religion
➔ Establishment clause: Prevents government from establishing a national religion
➔ Free Exercise clause: Prevents government from interfering with citizens’ religious practices
➔ Wall of separation between church and state (Thomas Jefferson)
Engel v. Vitale
Facts of the case: NY Board of Regents had composed a non-denominational prayer to be recited by
school children after saying the pledge of allegiance. The prayer was optional, but some parents (Engel)
argued that this prayer violated their first amendment rights (specifically the establishment clause).
Question: Does the reading of a state-sponsored prayer at the beginning of school violate the
establishment clause of the first amendment?
Decision: (6-1 decision) Yes, it does.
Winning Arguments: Thomas Jefferson’s “wall of separation” between church and state
Significance: Demonstrated how the court protects individual liberties and established the groundwork
for future court cases about the relationship between religion and schools.

Wisconsin v. Yoder
Facts of the case: An Amish family (Yoder) in Wisconsin removed their children from school after the
8th grade. This is because they believe state education was no longer necessary after the 8th grade and
that the Amish children had to attend vocational training with their families. The vocational schools
properly prepared the Amish to become functioning members of society and prevented them from
learning ideas that went against their religious beliefs. Wisconsin’s compulsory education law
prevented the Yoder family from taking their children out of school after 8th grade. Yoder argued that
this law violated the family’s free exercise rights, and Wisconsin argued that the state’s interest to
educate their children trumped Yoder’s free exercise rights. This case demonstrates the conflicts
between striking a balance between church and state.
Decision: In a unanimous decision, the court ruled in favor of Yoder
Winning Arguments: Even though the state’s interests to educate its citizens are strong, they are not
enough to violate a person’s free exercise rights. Additionally, the Amish are known to be genuine in
their religious practices and they are often regarded as good citizens.
Significance: Impacted the way the courts view the balance between church and state.

The First Amendment & Freedom of Speech

➔ Although there are limits to free speech, the government usually won’t get involved with an
individual’s speech unless it poses a large conflict

Schenck v. United States

Facts of the case: During World War I, Schenck distributed pamphlets that urged young men not to
join the draft because of his opposition to the war. Schenck believed that the draft should have been
resisted because it is an example of involuntary servitude, which is prohibited under the thirteenth
amendment. He was charged with violating the Espionage Act because his actions could have affected
the government’s ability to recruit soldiers for the war. On trial, Schenck argued that his first
amendment rights were violated, therefore making specific parts of the Espionage Act
unconstitutional.
Decision: In a unanimous decision, the court ruled against Schenck because he wasn’t merely
protesting the draft. Instead, he was actively encouraging men to avoid the draft.
Winning Arguments: Clear and present danger test
Significance: Created clear measures by which freedom of speech can be restricted or silenced.

Tinker v. Des Moines

Facts of the case: During the Vietnam War, students (including the Tinker siblings) wore black
armbands to protest America’s involvement. The war was a sensitive and controversial topic, often
leading to outbreaks of violence in public settings. The students were sent home for wearing the
armbands under the argument they were disrupting the educational environment of the school. The
students argued that the black armbands were a form of “symbolic speech,” and therefore protected
under the first amendment.
Decision: The Supreme Court agreed with the students but also acknowledged that schools have a
responsibility to maintain peace amongst their students. However, there was no disruption resulting
from the Tinkers’ armbands, only a FEAR of disruption.
Winning Arguments: Substantial disruption test
Significance: Upheld students’ rights to symbolic speech

Morse v. Frederick (not one of the required cases)

Facts of the case: During a school-sponsored event, a student held up a sign that said: “bong hits 4
Jesus.” He was suspended but appealed his suspension under the argument that the administration
violated his first amendment rights.
Decision: The court ruled against the student and in favor of the school, deciding that the suspension
was justified. This is because the student’s sign advocated for illegal drug use and didn’t communicate
valuable messages. Therefore, the student’s first amendment rights were not infringed upon.
Significance: Despite Tinker v. Des Moines, there are still limits to students’ freedom of speech.

West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette (not one of the required cases)
Facts of the case: In a West Virginia school district, students were mandated to salute the flag after
certain activities. Children of Jehovah’s Witnesses claimed that this act violated their beliefs and right
to free speech.
Decision: The court agreed with the Jehovah’s Witnesses because compulsory symbolic acts cannot be
compelled by the government because it would reduce the possibility of dissenting opinions in a free
society.
Significance: Upheld freedom of speech for students of different beliefs

***In cases regarding freedom of speech, the court often tries to balance individual liberties
and social order. Tinker v. Des Moines and West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette
protect individual liberties, while Morse v. Frederick and Schenck v. United States protect
social order.

How Does the Court Decide On Free Speech Regulation?

1. Time, Place, and Regulation
For instance, in Morse v. Frederick, the main problem was not necessarily the content of the student’s
sign, but the time, place, and regulation in which the sign was being displayed. The student is free to
display such a sign in a less-regulated environment, such as his own house, but schools have rules that
help maintain order and peace.
2. Defamatory, Offensive, and Obscene Speech Regulations
Defamatory speech is rarely protected. Offensive and obscene speech is hard to define, but it is not
protected when it is.
3. Clear and Present Danger
Speech can be restricted and silenced if it is deemed dangerous (Schenck v. United States). This
criterion doesn’t exist anymore and was replaced by the Brandenburg test (which made it harder for the
government to censor citizens).

The First Amendment & Freedom of the Press

➔ Necessary to maintain a democratic society but not absolute
◆ Exposes corruption and evils
➔ Prior restraint: When the government restrains a story before its publication
◆ Standard has been set very high for prior restraint to happen
➔ Government censorship can only be allowed when there is an extreme threat
➔ Government censorship needs to be extremely justified (protecting national security)

New York Times v. United States

Facts of the case: Reports regarding the American government’s true intentions in the Vietnam War
were leaked by a government employee. These leaked reports became known as the Pentagon Papers,
and they were sent to the NY Times and Washington Post. These news outlets started publishing the
papers, informing the American public that their government was truly lying to them about the war.
Nixon ordered the prior restraint on the publications to protect national security, but the news outlets
argued their right to freedom of the press.
Decision: The court ruled that Nixon’s restraint was unconstitutional and allowed the paper to
continue printing the Pentagon Papers.
Significance: It made clear that prior restraint was allowed if national security was truly at stake.
However, national security was not at stake as a result of the publications so censorship was deemed
unconstitutional.

The Second Amendment: Well-regulated militia vs. individual protection/self-defense???

District of Columbia v. Heller

Facts of the case: Heller, a cop, wanted to bring his gun home for self-defense purposes. Washington
D.C., an area under federal jurisdiction, had extremely strict gun laws that prevented guns from being
useful at home (defeating the purpose of self-defense). Heller argued that these laws violated his second
amendment rights to keep and bear arms.
Decision: The court agreed with Heller and ruled in favor of individual liberty.
Significance: Although the court ruled in favor of individual liberty, D.C. is a federal district. This
means that it is not yet applied to state governments.

McDonald v. Chicago
Facts of the case: McDonald wanted the Heller decision to carry over in the states, specifically Chicago,
because he wanted to buy a handgun for self-defense. At the time, Chicago’s gun laws regarding
handguns were extremely restrictive and almost impossible to get through. McDonald argued that
these laws infringed upon his second amendment rights. Chicago argued that they were necessary to
protect public order and safety.
Decision: The court ruled for McDonald (in favor of individual liberty).
Significance: Since the Heller case only applied to the federal government, it didn’t impact much of the
American people. McDonald's decision applied the same ruling to the states (selective incorporation).
As a result, any state or city with similar restrictive gun laws had to rewrite the laws to fall in line with
the ruling.

Exclusionary Rule: If evidence is obtained unconstitutionally, it cannot be used in court.

Mapp v. Ohio: The case that incorporates the exclusionary rule to the states
Police Powers: Belong to the states and help maintain the health and safety of the people.

Gideon v. Wainwright
Facts of the case: Gideon was tried in a Florida court for breaking the law (burglary). Because he was
poor, he needed an attorney to be provided for him by the government. However, Florida only
provides attorneys for capital cases so Gideon acted as his own defense. He was found guilty and
convicted, but he appealed and the Supreme Court heard his case.
Decision: The court ruled in favor of Gideon and argued that the sixth amendment’s provision for a
lawyer does apply to the states via the fourteenth amendment’s equal protection clause.
Significance: The sixth amendment was incorporated into the states. Additionally, states were required
to fund and train more defense lawyers for people who cannot afford one. Betts v. Brady was
overturned because part of its decision ruled that the sixth amendment guarantee of counsel is not a
fundamental right.