Civil Liberties Quiz Kennedy 2nd
-
the legal concept under which the Supreme Court has nationalized the Bill of Rights by making most of its provisions applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment on a piecemeal basis
About This Quiz
The 'Civil Liberties Quiz Kennedy 2nd' assesses understanding of key constitutional concepts like the incorporation doctrine, privileges and immunities, and landmark Supreme Court cases. It's essential for learners studying American government or law, focusing on civil rights and their application through history.
Quiz Preview
- 2.
An exception to this clause would be out of state tuition
Explanation
The privileges and immunities clause refers to a provision in the United States Constitution that prohibits states from discriminating against citizens of other states in favor of their own residents. This clause ensures that individuals have the same rights and privileges regardless of their state of residence. It is an exception to the rule that allows states to charge out-of-state tuition fees, as these fees are considered to be discriminatory and violate the privileges and immunities clause.Rate this question:
- 3.
Gives citizens the right to believe and practice their religion without government interferance
Explanation
The given correct answer refers to the concept of "free exercise" or "free exercise clause." This term is used to describe the constitutional right that gives citizens the freedom to believe and practice their religion without any interference from the government. It ensures that individuals are free to engage in religious activities and worship according to their own beliefs, without facing any discrimination or restrictions from the government.Rate this question:
- 4.
The Supreme Court first ruled that part of the First Amendment should be nationalized or incorporated to apply to the state governments in the case of:
-
Slaughterhouse Case
-
Marbury v. Madison
-
Brown v. Board of Education
-
The Dred Scott Case
-
Gitlow v. New York
Correct Answer
A. Gitlow v. New YorkExplanation
In the case of Gitlow v. New York, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment's protection of freedom of speech and press applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This decision established the doctrine of incorporation, meaning that certain provisions of the Bill of Rights are applicable to the states and not just the federal government. The Slaughterhouse Case, Marbury v. Madison, Brown v. Board of Education, and The Dred Scott Case do not pertain to the nationalization or incorporation of the First Amendment.Rate this question:
-
- 5.
The early case that excluded the Bill of Rights from applying to the actions of state governments was:
-
Marbury v. Madison
-
Barron v. Baltimore
-
Gibbons v. Ogden
-
Scott v. Stanford
-
Gitlow v. New York
Correct Answer
A. Barron v. BaltimoreExplanation
Barron v. Baltimore is the correct answer because this case, decided in 1833, established that the Bill of Rights only applied to the actions of the federal government and not to state governments. In this case, the Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment's protection against the taking of private property without just compensation did not apply to actions taken by the state of Maryland. This decision set a precedent that would be later overturned in the 20th century when the Supreme Court began selectively incorporating certain provisions of the Bill of Rights to apply to the states.Rate this question:
-
- 6.
To say that the Supreme Court has selectively incorporated the Bill of Rights would be to say that:
-
In a case by case, right by right deliberation the Court has applied certain parts of the Bill of Rights to the states
-
The Supreme Court finds some parts of the Bill of Right too unimportant to bother with
-
The Supreme Court has found in several cases that the Bill of Rights should never apply to the states, thus challenging the entire process of incorporation
-
The states have rejected the selective nationalization of the Bill of Rights
-
Selective justices have always opposed any nationalization of the Bill of Rights
Correct Answer
A. In a case by case, right by right deliberation the Court has applied certain parts of the Bill of Rights to the statesExplanation
The correct answer suggests that the Supreme Court has selectively incorporated the Bill of Rights by applying certain parts of it to the states on a case by case and right by right basis. This means that the Court has not applied the entire Bill of Rights to the states at once, but rather has considered each right individually and determined whether it should be applied to the states. This approach allows for a more nuanced and flexible interpretation of the Bill of Rights in relation to the states.Rate this question:
-
- 7.
Of the following Supreme Court Cases, which is NOT an Establishment Clause case?
-
Lemon v. Kurtzman
-
Engel v. Vitale
-
Jaffree v. Wallace
-
Westside Community Schools v. Mergens
-
Mapp v. Ohio
Correct Answer
A. Mapp v. OhioExplanation
Mapp v. Ohio is not an Establishment Clause case because it does not involve the issue of government endorsing or promoting religion. Instead, Mapp v. Ohio is a Fourth Amendment case that dealt with the issue of unlawful search and seizure. The Supreme Court ruled in this case that evidence obtained through an illegal search cannot be used in a criminal trial, establishing the exclusionary rule.Rate this question:
-
- 8.
Chaplinsky v. the State of New Hampshire, Scheck v. the United States, and Gitlow v. New York are all cases that demonstrate that:
-
There are limits on the freedom of religion
-
There are limits on the issue of search and seizure
-
The government can really place no limits on religion
-
The government can really place no limits on free speech or expression
-
There are times when free speech can be limited by the government
Correct Answer
A. There are times when free speech can be limited by the governmentExplanation
The cases Chaplinsky v. the State of New Hampshire, Scheck v. the United States, and Gitlow v. New York all demonstrate that there are times when free speech can be limited by the government. In Chaplinsky v. the State of New Hampshire, the Supreme Court ruled that "fighting words" that are likely to incite violence or provoke an immediate breach of the peace are not protected by the First Amendment. In Scheck v. the United States, the Supreme Court held that falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater and causing panic is not protected speech. In Gitlow v. New York, the Supreme Court established the "clear and present danger" test, allowing for restrictions on speech that presents a clear and immediate danger to society. These cases highlight that while free speech is protected, there are certain circumstances where the government can limit it.Rate this question:
-
- 9.
The Supreme Court case that established that government could not invoke prior restraint or censorship on publications was:
-
Tinker v. Des Moines School District
-
Johnson v. Texas
-
Near v. Minnesota
-
Roth v. United States
-
New York Times v. Sullivan
Correct Answer
A. Near v. MinnesotaExplanation
Near v. Minnesota is the correct answer because this Supreme Court case in 1931 established that the government cannot invoke prior restraint or censorship on publications. This case involved a Minnesota law that allowed the government to shut down "malicious, scandalous, and defamatory" newspapers. The Supreme Court ruled that this law violated the First Amendment's protection of freedom of the press, setting a precedent that government censorship of publications is unconstitutional.Rate this question:
-
- 10.
A legal document, signed by a judge, authorizing authorities to conduct a lawful search or seizure with probable cause is called a:
-
Decree
-
Warrant
-
Indictment
-
Incrimination statement
-
Writ of assistance
Correct Answer
A. WarrantExplanation
A legal document signed by a judge that authorizes authorities to conduct a lawful search or seizure with probable cause is called a warrant. This document gives law enforcement the legal authority to enter a person's property or seize items that may be used as evidence in a criminal investigation. Warrants are an important protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and ensure that law enforcement follows due process and respects individuals' rights.Rate this question:
-
- 11.
The Supreme Court in ___________________agreed and declared that all persons should be given their rights at the time of arrest to ensure that they know and understand their civil liberty rights.
-
Mapp v. Ohio
-
Gideon v. Wainwright
-
Miranda v. Arizona
-
Engel v. Vitale
-
Brown v. Board of Education
Correct Answer
A. Miranda v. ArizonaExplanation
In the case of Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court ruled that individuals must be informed of their rights, known as the Miranda rights, at the time of arrest. This includes the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, and the understanding that anything they say can be used against them in court. The Court's decision was based on the principle that individuals should be aware of their civil liberty rights to ensure a fair and just legal process.Rate this question:
-
- 12.
The death penalty controversy hinges on the interpretation of “cruel and unusual punishment” from the:
-
Ninth Amendment
-
Article Three of the Constitution
-
Fourth Amendment
-
Eighth Amendment
-
First Amendment
Correct Answer
A. Eighth AmendmentExplanation
The correct answer is the Eighth Amendment. The death penalty controversy revolves around whether or not it constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment," as stated in the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution. This amendment prohibits the government from imposing excessive bail, fines, or cruel and unusual punishments on individuals. The interpretation of what qualifies as cruel and unusual punishment is at the heart of the debate surrounding the death penalty.Rate this question:
-
- 13.
Publishing something that is not true about someone else
Correct Answer
libel
libleExplanation
The correct answer is "libel." Libel refers to the act of publishing false information about someone else that can harm their reputation. It involves spreading defamatory statements in written or printed form, such as through newspapers, magazines, or online platforms. Libel is a form of defamation and can result in legal consequences for the person responsible for spreading false information. "Lible" is not a correct spelling or term related to this context.Rate this question:
- 14.
Burning the flag or wearing an armband
Correct Answer
symbolic speech
symbolicExplanation
The answer "symbolic speech" refers to the act of expressing one's ideas or beliefs through nonverbal actions or symbols, such as burning the flag or wearing an armband. These actions are considered to be forms of speech because they convey a message or express a particular viewpoint. The term "symbolic" in the answer emphasizes that these actions are not literal speech but rather a symbolic representation of speech.Rate this question:
- 15.
The situation occurring when the police have reason to believe that a person should be arrested. In making the arrest, police are allowed legally to search for and seize incriminating evidence.
Correct Answer
probable causeExplanation
Probable cause refers to the situation where the police have sufficient reason to believe that a person should be arrested. This belief is based on facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed. When making an arrest based on probable cause, the police are legally allowed to search for and seize any incriminating evidence related to the crime. This ensures that law enforcement can take necessary action to maintain public safety and prevent further criminal activity.Rate this question:
- 16.
Protection against double jeopardy and self-incrimination
Correct Answer
fifth amendment
5th amendment
5 amendmentExplanation
The Fifth Amendment provides protection against double jeopardy, which means a person cannot be tried twice for the same crime. It also protects against self-incrimination, meaning a person cannot be forced to testify against themselves in a criminal case. The Fifth Amendment guarantees these rights to individuals in order to ensure a fair and just legal process.Rate this question:
- 17.
The right to a speedy and public trial
Correct Answer
sixth amendment
6th amendment
6 amendmentExplanation
The right to a speedy and public trial is guaranteed by the sixth amendment. This amendment ensures that individuals accused of a crime have the right to a trial that is conducted in a timely manner and is open to the public. It is important for a trial to be speedy in order to prevent unnecessary delays and ensure that justice is served promptly. The public nature of the trial allows for transparency and accountability in the legal process. The sixth amendment protects the fundamental rights of individuals involved in criminal proceedings.Rate this question:
- 18.
a bargain struck between the defendant's lawyer and the prosecutor to the effect that the defendant will plead guilty to a lesser crime (or fewer crimes) in exchange for the state's promise not to prosecute the defendant for a more serious (or additional) crime
Correct Answer
plea bargain
plea
plea bargainingExplanation
A plea bargain is a negotiation between the defendant's lawyer and the prosecutor where the defendant agrees to plead guilty to a lesser crime or fewer crimes. In exchange, the state promises not to prosecute the defendant for a more serious or additional crime. This agreement allows both parties to avoid a lengthy trial and potentially harsher penalties. Plea bargaining is a common practice in the legal system to resolve cases efficiently and reach a mutually beneficial outcome.Rate this question:
- 19.
Laws that ensure that a person cannot be convicted of a crime if the action was performed before the action became illegal
Correct Answer
ex post facto laws
ex post facto law
ex post factoExplanation
Ex post facto laws refer to laws that protect individuals from being convicted of a crime if the action was performed before it became illegal. These laws prevent retroactive application of criminal laws and ensure that individuals cannot be punished for actions that were legal at the time they were committed. The term "ex post facto" is derived from Latin and means "after the fact." These laws are important for upholding the principle of fairness and preventing the government from unfairly punishing individuals for past actions.Rate this question:
- 20.
Prevents people from being held in custody without being charged with a crime
Correct Answer
writ of habeas corpus
habeas corpusExplanation
The correct answer is "writ of habeas corpus" or "habeas corpus". This legal term refers to a writ or legal action that ensures an individual cannot be held in custody without being charged with a crime. It is a fundamental right that protects against unlawful detention and allows individuals to challenge their confinement in court. The writ of habeas corpus is an essential safeguard of individual liberty and ensures that the government cannot detain individuals indefinitely without just cause.Rate this question:
Quiz Review Timeline (Updated): Mar 20, 2023 +
Our quizzes are rigorously reviewed, monitored and continuously updated by our expert board to maintain accuracy, relevance, and timeliness.
-
Current Version
-
Mar 20, 2023Quiz Edited by
ProProfs Editorial Team -
Feb 21, 2012Quiz Created by
Arippee
Back to top