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

The correct answer is (A) because judicial activism is a philosophy that courts take on when they are willing to make changes in current policy.

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

The correct answer is (A), a writ of certiorari indicates that the Supreme Court will review a lower decision.

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

The correct answer is (C), because the Supreme Court has to abide by the supreme law of the Constitution and cannot rewrite federal law.

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

The correct answer is (E), the Constitution does not mention the length of term of federal judges.

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.

The correct answer is (A), federal courts do not review state cases unless they are requested under process.

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

The correct answer is (B), the holding of the original case referred to the Fifth Amendment's requirement of law enforcement to state a suspect's rights. 

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

The correct answer is (C) because defendants are unable to sue the state in most cases due to protection.

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

The correct answer is (D), Mapp v. Ohio was a case of police obtaining items in an illegal search and seizure, and the court ruled that these items could not be presented.

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.

The correct answer is (A), a private party suing another is tried in civil court.

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.

The correct answer is (D), Congress has the power to create new federal courts.

Blog #4

1. Roe v. Wade (1973)

• In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruled abortions as legal, as long as the mother's health and life is not at risk or put in danger. Under this ruling, states were not allowed to ban or regulate first trimester abortions. During the second and third trimesters, states were only allowed to enact laws and regulations toward abortion to protect the life of the mother and life of the fetus. This case is one of the Supreme Court's most recognized cases.
• Judicial Philosophy: This was a case of judicial activism because the court was basically looking out for the well being of the people, and slashed a previous ruling that made abortions illegal. They did not stick too closely to the constitution, but looked at the case from a more adjusted point of view.
• Personally, I am and always have been pro-choice. I believe this is mostly due to my parents' initial beliefs that they had passed down to me, but I think women should be able to make their own decisions regarding their own bodies. Abortion is a serious decision, and it is up to no one but the woman affected what to do at that point in their life. Because every individual is under different circumstances and dealt different cards, I believe every woman should be able to make this choice according to their own lives and personal reasons.

2. Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

• In Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled that segregation in schools was unconstitutional as it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It canceled the ruling of Plessy v. Ferguson, which ruled separate but equal. This case was a major step in racial equality for America, and paved the way for many other civil rights movements.
• Judicial Philosophy: This was a case of judicial activism because it passed a ruling that improved the well being and rights of "colored" people by giving them a more fair chance of education. 
• I believe that this was such a major turning point in the civil rights movement. "Separate but equal" was never actually equal, and I believe that the court only initially ruled this as fair in Plessy v. Ferguson because it was such a common point of view back then that races should not mix in any aspect. But as always, the government had to adjust with changing times and realize that for the education to be truly equal, people should have been able to attend school wherever they wanted to. 

3. Mapp v. Ohio (1960)

• In Mapp v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that items found in an illegal search and seizure that violated the Fourth Amendment could ultimately not be used as legitimate evidence in criminal court cases. This stemmed from Mapp being convicted for possession of certain items, but she argued that the materials were obtained in an illegal search of her home without a proper warrant. 
• Judicial Philosophy: This was a case of judicial restraint because the court stuck to the basis of the Fourth Amendment, which protected citizens from improper search and seizure. This is basically what the whole case centered around and even though it is controversial the court stuck to the constitution which limited its power.
• In my opinion, I would have to disagree with this verdict. I believe that even though police officials should make every effort to obtain a warrant to be more prepared, illegal items are illegal items. If something is found that someone can be tried for, it does not make it any less illegal to have just because police found it without a warrant. 

Blog #3

In the aforementioned cartoon, one judge is asking another "Do you ever have one of those days when everything seems unconstitutional?". Basically, what the cartoonist is trying to say is that in a lot of rulings, the Supreme Court almost always rules cases unconstitutional without much thought, just because they can. The "days" the judge is talking about is when they just rule everything unconstitutional in order to get the case over with.

Even though this is what I think the cartoonist is saying, I personally disagree with this point of view. I believe that since cases take so long to actually reach the Supreme Court and it requires a lot of work to get up there, the Supreme Court would take great consideration in reaching a verdict. If something is ruled unconstitutional, it is because the Court has looked into it thoroughly and through many lenses, and not just because they are being complacent about the case. Essentially, the court is held in very high regard and is there to provide fair and true verdicts in the long run. For example, in the famous case of Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court thoroughly and fairly reconsidered the Plessy v. Ferguson verdict and overall ruled that separation is not equal. In Roe v. Wade, the court did not just simply rule abortion unconstitutional, but that under the constitution women did have the right to make their own choices in this aspect. In conclusion, the Supreme Court does a great job in serving the country.

Blog #2

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

The US Supreme Court has a number of judicial powers exclusive to their name, stated in Article III of the Constitution. These powers consist of reviewing certain cases such as all cases dealing with constitutional law, all cases relating to admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, and all cases dealing with ambassadors or public leaders. They also deal with controversies such as controversies between two or more states, citizens of different states, or a state and citizens of another state, among others. These specific powers come from Article III Section 2.

Blog #1: A short hello

Hello to whoever is reading this little post.
My name is Marilee, and I currently am a senior in high school.

I'm new to this whole blogging world so I'm unsure how to begin. I do have a Tumblr, but writing out entire posts is quite different from simply reblogging other people's pictures. I think blogging is very different from writing in a notebook... Personally, I have been writing in journals since my early teen years, so that's typically what I prefer. Something about physically writing thoughts down just feels a lot more authentic and visually appealing to me. Either way, I'm excited to express my thoughts and feelings about certain AP Gov issues. :)

Here's to second semester!