Civil Liberties Quiz Rippee 2nd

The privileges and immunities clause refers to a provision in the United States Constitution that prevents states from discriminating against citizens of other states. This clause ensures that individuals from out of state are granted the same rights and privileges as residents of the state they are visiting. It is an exception to the general rule of out of state tuition, where individuals attending a college or university outside of their home state are often required to pay higher tuition fees.

The correct answer is "free exercise" or "free exercise clause." This refers to the constitutional right that allows citizens to believe and practice their religion freely without any interference from the government. It ensures that individuals have the freedom to worship and follow their religious beliefs without restrictions or limitations imposed by the government. This clause is an essential part of religious freedom and protects individuals' rights to express and exercise their religious beliefs.

The correct answer is "libel." Libel refers to the act of publishing false information about someone else, which can harm their reputation. It involves spreading false statements in writing or through other forms of media. "Lible" is not a word and does not have any meaning in this context.

Probable cause refers to the situation when the police have reasonable grounds to believe that a person should be arrested. It is a legal standard that allows the police to make an arrest and search for any evidence that may be used to support the arrest. This standard ensures that law enforcement officers cannot make arbitrary arrests and that there is a sufficient basis for taking legal action against an individual.

The Fifth Amendment provides protection against double jeopardy and self-incrimination. This means that a person cannot be tried twice for the same offense and cannot be forced to testify against themselves. This amendment ensures that individuals have the right to remain silent and not be compelled to incriminate themselves in a criminal case. It is an essential safeguard of individual rights and due process in the legal system.

The given answer refers to the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees the right to a speedy and public trial. This amendment ensures that individuals accused of crimes have the right to a trial that is conducted promptly and in a public setting, allowing for transparency and fairness in the judicial process. The answer includes different variations of the amendment's name, all of which refer to the same constitutional provision.

A plea bargain refers to an agreement made between the defendant's lawyer and the prosecutor. In this agreement, the defendant agrees to plead guilty to a lesser crime or fewer crimes. In return, the state promises not to prosecute the defendant for a more serious crime or additional crimes. Plea bargaining is the process of negotiating and reaching this agreement between the two parties. The terms "plea" and "plea bargaining" are related to this concept of reaching a compromise in criminal cases.

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 are designed to prevent retroactive punishment and ensure fairness in the legal system. By prohibiting the application of laws retroactively, ex post facto laws uphold the principle that individuals should not be held accountable for actions that were legal at the time they were committed. This legal principle is crucial in safeguarding individuals' rights and maintaining the integrity of the justice system.

The writ of habeas corpus is a legal term that refers to a court order that requires a person who is holding someone in custody to bring the detained individual before a judge or court. This writ prevents individuals from being held in custody without being charged with a crime, as it ensures that the person's detention is lawful and justified. It is a fundamental right that protects individuals from arbitrary or unlawful detention, and it is an important safeguard in upholding the principles of due process and the rule of law.

The incorporation doctrine refers to the legal concept where the Supreme Court has applied most provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. This has been done on a piecemeal basis, meaning that the Court has selectively incorporated specific rights over time. Therefore, the correct answer is incorporation doctrine and selective incorporation. This doctrine has played a crucial role in ensuring that individuals' rights are protected at both the federal and state levels.

The correct answer is symbolic speech because burning the flag or wearing an armband are examples of actions that express a message or convey a particular meaning without the use of words. These actions are considered forms of symbolic speech because they are a non-verbal way of expressing a viewpoint or making a statement. Symbolic speech is protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which guarantees the right to freedom of speech.

A legal document, signed by a judge, authorizing authorities to conduct a lawful search or seizure with probable cause is called a warrant. This document is necessary to ensure that law enforcement officials have the legal authority to search a person's property or seize any evidence that may be related to a crime. It is a crucial safeguard in protecting individuals' rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court ruled that individuals must be informed of their rights at the time of arrest, including the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. This decision was based on the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination. The Court emphasized the importance of ensuring that individuals understand their civil liberty rights to prevent any coerced confessions or violations of constitutional rights during the interrogation process.

The correct answer is the Eighth Amendment. The death penalty controversy revolves around whether or not it constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment," which is prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. This amendment protects individuals from excessive or disproportionate punishment, and the interpretation of what qualifies as cruel and unusual has been a subject of debate in relation to the death penalty.

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 Gitlow v. New York. This landmark case in 1925 established the doctrine of selective incorporation, which held that certain protections of the Bill of Rights are applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Gitlow v. New York specifically dealt with freedom of speech and press, affirming that these rights are protected from state infringement as well.

Mapp v. Ohio is not an Establishment Clause case because it deals with the Fourth Amendment and the exclusionary rule, not with the separation of church and state. The case established that evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure cannot be used in a state criminal trial.

The cases of Chaplinsky v. the State of New Hampshire, Scheck v. the United States, and Gitlow v. New York demonstrate that there are times when free speech can be limited by the government. These cases involved situations where the government imposed restrictions on certain forms of speech or expression, such as offensive or defamatory language, false statements of fact, or speech that incites violence. They establish that while the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, there are circumstances where the government can place limits on this right in order to protect public safety, maintain social order, or prevent harm to individuals or society.

Near v. Minnesota is the correct answer because this Supreme Court case established the principle that government cannot impose prior restraint or censorship on publications. In this case, the court ruled that a state law allowing for the suppression of "malicious, scandalous and defamatory" newspapers violated the First Amendment's protection of freedom of the press. This landmark decision set an important precedent for protecting freedom of speech and press from government interference.

Barron v. Baltimore is the correct answer because in this case, the Supreme Court held that the Bill of Rights only applied to the actions of the federal government, not to state governments. This decision established the principle of dual federalism, which limited the power of the federal government and allowed states to retain their own sovereignty.

The explanation for the given correct answer is 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 uniformly applied all the provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states, but has instead chosen to incorporate specific rights based on individual cases and their respective circumstances. This approach allows for flexibility and consideration of the unique circumstances of each case, ensuring that the rights protected by the Bill of Rights are applied appropriately to the states.