Chapter 5 - Civil Liberties Quiz #2

In the case of Texas v. Johnson, the Supreme Court ruled that flag burning is protected under the First Amendment as a form of symbolic speech. Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag during a protest at the 1984 Republican National Convention, and he was convicted under a Texas law that prohibited flag desecration. However, the Supreme Court held that the law was unconstitutional because it violated Johnson's right to free expression. This landmark decision established that individuals have the right to express their political views, even if it involves burning the American flag.

The Supreme Court demanded that the evidence obtained in Mapp v. Ohio be excluded because the police had not obtained a search warrant. This is because the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and generally requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant based on probable cause before conducting a search. In the Mapp case, the police entered Mapp's home without a search warrant, which violated her Fourth Amendment rights. Therefore, any evidence obtained as a result of that unlawful search was deemed inadmissible in court.

The exclusionary rule states that any evidence obtained by the government in violation of the Constitution, such as through an illegal search or seizure, cannot be used against the defendant in a trial. This rule is based on the Fourth Amendment, which protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. It aims to deter law enforcement from violating constitutional rights and ensures that the legal system upholds the principles of fairness and justice. By excluding unlawfully obtained evidence, the rule helps to safeguard the rights of defendants and maintain the integrity of the criminal justice system.

Miranda v. Arizona is the correct answer because it was a landmark case that established the requirement for law enforcement to inform individuals of their constitutional rights before questioning them in police custody. This case led to the creation of the Miranda warning, which includes the right to remain silent and the right to have an attorney present during questioning. The decision in Miranda v. Arizona greatly impacted the protection of individual rights during interrogations and has since become a fundamental aspect of criminal procedure in the United States.

In the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case, the Supreme Court ruled that the part of the McCain-Feingold law that denied corporations and labor unions the right to run ads violated their rights to free speech under the Constitution. This decision established that political spending by corporations and unions is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and therefore cannot be restricted by the government. The ruling had significant implications for campaign finance laws and opened the door for increased political spending by corporations and unions.

The exclusionary rule is a legal principle that prohibits evidence obtained illegally or in violation of constitutional rights from being used in court. The purpose of this rule, according to the Supreme Court, is to control the behavior of the police. By excluding illegally obtained evidence, the rule serves as a deterrent and encourages law enforcement officers to abide by the law and respect individuals' constitutional rights. It ensures that police officers are held accountable for their actions and prevents them from engaging in unlawful or unconstitutional practices.

Engel v. Vitale is the correct answer because in this landmark case, the Supreme Court ruled that prayer, even if it is nondenominational, is prohibited in public schools. The court determined that the inclusion of prayer in the school's activities violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from endorsing or promoting any religion. This decision set an important precedent for the separation of church and state in public schools.

The main provisions of the U.S.A. Patriot Act cover telephone taps, Internet taps, voice mail, and money laundering. However, airport security is not specifically mentioned as one of the main provisions of the act. Therefore, the correct answer is airport security.

The Supreme Court upheld the voucher program because the schools promised not to teach any courses involving religion. This suggests that the Court believed that the program did not violate the separation of church and state, as the schools were not using public funds to promote or teach religious content. Instead, the aid was given to families who chose the schools, and the schools themselves removed all religious symbols and artifacts. Additionally, the fact that the teachers were certified by the state may have also played a role in the Court's decision, as it ensured that the schools met certain educational standards.

The correct answer is the writings of Thomas Jefferson. This is because Thomas Jefferson, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States and the principal author of the Declaration of Independence, used the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" in a letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. This letter is often cited as a key historical reference to the concept of separation of religion and the state in the United States.