Chapter 5 - Civil Liberties Quiz #1

The correct answer is the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified in 1868 and includes the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. These clauses have been interpreted by the courts to apply the protections of the Bill of Rights to the states, ensuring that state governments cannot infringe upon individual rights. This interpretation has been a significant development in constitutional law, extending the reach and impact of the Bill of Rights beyond just the federal government.

Selective incorporation is the best term to describe the manner in which the Supreme Court has applied the Bill of Rights to the states. This refers to the process by which the Court has selectively applied certain provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It means that not all provisions of the Bill of Rights are automatically applied to the states, but rather the Court has gradually incorporated them over time based on their importance and fundamental nature. This approach allows for a balance between protecting individual rights and preserving state sovereignty.

The correct answer is the due process and equal protection clauses. The Bill of Rights was initially applied to the federal government only, but through the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, these rights were incorporated and made applicable to the states as well. The due process clause ensures that individuals are protected from arbitrary government action, while the equal protection clause guarantees that all individuals are treated equally under the law. These clauses have been crucial in extending the protections of the Bill of Rights to all citizens.

Civil liberties refer to the protections provided by the Constitution against government abuse. This includes safeguarding the rights of individuals and groups, such as women, gays, and African Americans. Additionally, civil liberties encompass free speech, free press, religious freedoms, and the rights of the accused. Both options A and C accurately describe civil liberties, making the answer "Both A and C are true."

The Supreme Court decision in Gitlow held that the federal guarantees of free speech and free press also applied to the states. This means that the protections provided by the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech and of the press, are not only applicable to the federal government but also to the state governments. This decision expanded the scope of free speech and press rights, ensuring that individuals have these fundamental freedoms protected at both the federal and state levels.

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. The case involved Gregory Lee Johnson, who burned an American flag during a protest at the 1984 Republican National Convention. The Court determined that flag burning was a form of expression and therefore protected by the Constitution, even if it was offensive or disrespectful to some. This landmark decision established that the government cannot prohibit the desecration of the American flag as it would violate the right to freedom of speech.

Slander refers to oral statements, whereas libel refers to written statements. Slander involves making false spoken statements about someone that can harm their reputation. On the other hand, libel involves making false written statements that can harm someone's reputation. Therefore, the correct answer is oral statements.

The "clear and present danger" test emerged in the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Schenck v. United States. This case involved the conviction of Charles Schenck, a socialist who distributed pamphlets urging men to resist the draft during World War I. The Supreme Court ruled that Schenck's actions were not protected by the First Amendment because they presented a "clear and present danger" to the government's ability to conduct the war effort. This case established the precedent that speech can be restricted if it poses a clear and present danger to national security or public safety.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes proclaimed that the Congress could punish dangerous speech when that speech represented a "clear and present danger" to the United States. This means that if the speech poses an immediate threat to the safety or security of the country, Congress has the authority to take action against it. This standard allows for the restriction of speech that could potentially lead to harm or violence, even if it does not directly incite citizens to commit a lawless action or if it is false. Therefore, option A is the correct answer.

During times of war, the Supreme Court has typically supported and upheld curtailments of civil liberties. This suggests that the Court believes that the government's actions in restricting civil liberties are justified and necessary for the security and well-being of the nation during wartime. By upholding these curtailments, the Court acknowledges the importance of balancing individual rights with national security interests.