How Much Do You Know About Warren Court? Trivia Quiz

Reviewed by Editorial Team
The ProProfs editorial team is comprised of experienced subject matter experts. They've collectively created over 10,000 quizzes and lessons, serving over 100 million users. Our team includes in-house content moderators and subject matter experts, as well as a global network of rigorously trained contributors. All adhere to our comprehensive editorial guidelines, ensuring the delivery of high-quality content.
Learn about Our Editorial Process
| By Winters8
W
Winters8
Community Contributor
Quizzes Created: 1 | Total Attempts: 672
| Attempts: 672
Quiz Flashcard
SettingsSettings
Please wait...
  • 1/13 Questions

    Which court case ruled that segregation in school was unconstitutional?

    • Mapp v. Ohio
    • Baker v. Carr
    • Gideon v. Wainwright
    • Brown v. Board of Education
Please wait...
About This Quiz

How much do you know about warren court? The Warren Court is best remembered for expanding civil rights, civil liberties, judicial power, and the federal power in ways the courts before them never did, and others followed after his retirement. The trivia quiz below will teach you more about the Constitution and achievements of this court. Give it a shot!

How Much Do You Know About Warren Court? Trivia Quiz - Quiz

Quiz Preview

  • 2. 

    Conservatives critizied the court because they belived it benifited criminal suspects and limited the police's investigating power.

    • True

    • False

    Correct Answer
    A. True
    Explanation
    Conservatives criticized the court because they believed it benefited criminal suspects and limited the police's investigating power. This suggests that the statement accurately reflects the conservative viewpoint towards the court's decisions.

    Rate this question:

  • 3. 

    Which of the following is NOT a Miranda Right?

    • You have the right to remain silent.

    • You have the right to one phone call.

    • Anything you say can be used as evidence against you.

    • You have the right to consult with an attorney before questioning and to have him with you during questioning.

    Correct Answer
    A. You have the right to one phone call.
    Explanation
    The Miranda Rights are a set of rights that must be read to individuals who are in police custody and about to be interrogated. These rights include the right to remain silent, the right to have an attorney present during questioning, and the warning that anything they say can be used as evidence against them. However, the right to one phone call is not actually a Miranda Right. While individuals in custody may be granted access to a phone call, it is not explicitly stated as a Miranda Right.

    Rate this question:

  • 4. 

    Who was the chief justice of the Warren Court?

    • Susan B. Anthony

    • Eugine Warren

    • Dwight Carter

    • Earl Warren

    Correct Answer
    A. Earl Warren
    Explanation
    Earl Warren was the chief justice of the Warren Court. The Warren Court refers to the Supreme Court of the United States during the tenure of Chief Justice Earl Warren, which lasted from 1953 to 1969. Earl Warren is known for leading a liberal majority that made significant decisions in areas such as civil rights, criminal justice, and individual liberties.

    Rate this question:

  • 5. 

    Miranda v._______ established the Miranda Rights.

    • Illinois

    • California

    • Arizona

    • New York

    Correct Answer
    A. Arizona
    Explanation
    Miranda v. Arizona is the correct answer because this landmark Supreme Court case established the Miranda Rights. In this case, the Court ruled that individuals must be informed of their rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney, before being interrogated by law enforcement. This ruling has had a significant impact on the criminal justice system in the United States, ensuring that individuals are aware of their rights and protected during police interrogations.

    Rate this question:

  • 6. 

    Liberals agreed with the rulings because they put necessary limits on police power, and protected the right of all citizens to a fair trial. 

    • True

    • False

    Correct Answer
    A. True
    Explanation
    Liberals support the idea of necessary limits on police power and believe in protecting the rights of all citizens to a fair trial. Therefore, it is likely that they would agree with rulings that align with these principles.

    Rate this question:

  • 7. 

    Escobedo v. Illinois justices ruled that an accused person has the right to have a lawyer present during police questioning.

    • True

    • False

    Correct Answer
    A. True
    Explanation
    In the case of Escobedo v. Illinois, the justices ruled that an accused person has the right to have a lawyer present during police questioning. This means that if a person is being questioned by the police, they have the right to have legal representation to ensure their rights are protected and to provide guidance during the questioning process. This ruling is important as it helps to safeguard the rights of the accused and ensures a fair legal process.

    Rate this question:

  • 8. 

    In Mapp v. Ohio court ruled that evidence seized illegally could be used in court.

    • True

    • False

    Correct Answer
    A. False
    Explanation
    The explanation for the given correct answer, which is False, is that in the case of Mapp v. Ohio, the court actually ruled the opposite. The Supreme Court held that evidence seized illegally, in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, cannot be used in court. This ruling established the exclusionary rule, which prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence in criminal trials. Therefore, the statement that evidence seized illegally could be used in court is incorrect.

    Rate this question:

  • 9. 

    The way in which states redraw election districts based on changes in the population is called:

    • Reapportionment

    • Maranda Rights

    • Commision

    • Recall

    Correct Answer
    A. Reapportionment
    Explanation
    Reapportionment refers to the process of redrawing election districts based on changes in the population. This is done to ensure that each district has a relatively equal number of residents, thus maintaining fair representation. It is a crucial aspect of democracy as it helps to balance political power and prevent gerrymandering, where districts are manipulated to favor a particular political party.

    Rate this question:

  • 10. 

    ________ district had fewer than 200,000 people which gave them more representation.

    • Urban

    • Middle class

    • Rural

    • Segregation

    Correct Answer
    A. Rural
    Explanation
    Rural districts typically have a smaller population compared to urban districts. This means that the number of representatives in rural districts is proportionally higher, giving them more representation per person.

    Rate this question:

  • 11. 

    Law enforcement officers carry a________ that contain the Miranda Rights.

    • Folder

    • Card

    • Paper

    • Gun

    Correct Answer
    A. Card
    Explanation
    Law enforcement officers carry a card that contains the Miranda Rights. This card is used to inform individuals of their rights when they are being arrested or questioned by the police. The Miranda Rights include the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, and the warning that anything they say can be used against them in court. By carrying a card with these rights, law enforcement officers ensure that individuals are aware of their rights and can exercise them during the legal process.

    Rate this question:

  • 12. 

    Before the Baker v. Carr case the________ district had more than 600,000 people which gave them less representation and less power.

    • Urban

    • Middle Class

    • Suburb

    • Rural

    Correct Answer
    A. Urban
    Explanation
    Before the Baker v. Carr case, the urban district had more than 600,000 people, which resulted in less representation and less power. This implies that the urban district had a larger population compared to the other options (middle class, suburb, rural), and therefore, its residents had less proportional representation and political influence. The case of Baker v. Carr was a landmark Supreme Court decision that established the principle of "one person, one vote," requiring that legislative districts be drawn based on population size to ensure equal representation.

    Rate this question:

  • 13. 

    Baker v. Carr was the last of several decisions that established the principle of "one person, one vote."

    • True

    • False

    Correct Answer
    A. False
    Explanation
    Baker v. Carr was not the last decision to establish the principle of "one person, one vote." In fact, it was one of the first significant cases to address this principle. The Supreme Court's decision in Baker v. Carr in 1962 opened the door for subsequent cases that further solidified the principle, such as Reynolds v. Sims in 1964. Therefore, the statement that Baker v. Carr was the last decision to establish the principle of "one person, one vote" is incorrect.

    Rate this question:

Quiz Review Timeline (Updated): Mar 21, 2023 +

Our quizzes are rigorously reviewed, monitored and continuously updated by our expert board to maintain accuracy, relevance, and timeliness.

  • Current Version
  • Mar 21, 2023
    Quiz Edited by
    ProProfs Editorial Team
  • Mar 25, 2009
    Quiz Created by
    Winters8
Back to Top Back to top
Advertisement
×

Wait!
Here's an interesting quiz for you.

We have other quizzes matching your interest.