Collins JOUR 303 Final Exam Questions And
Answers
article 1 of the constitution
established the legislative branch (congress)
article 2 of the constitution
established the executive branch (president)
article 3 of the constitution
established the judicial branch (federal court system)
five freedoms of the first amendment
speech, religion, press, assembly, petition the govt
one example of a limit on the first amendment freedom of speech
going under oath in court. you still have freedom of speech, but if you lie under oath you will be
charged with perjury
First amendment
congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press
speech not under the umbrella of protection
criminal speech and porn
the only regulation on porn is child pornography
speech that is somewhat under the umbrella of protection
commercial speech
6 rationales for regulating speech
-yes, but... (need a compelling reason)
-somewhat protected (cable broadcast/commercial speech)
-not protected (criminal speech)
-time/place/manner (in order to be constitutional it must be: content neutral, reasonable, and cannot
be a complete ban on speech)
-expressive conduct
-derivative/secondary claims (right of access, journalistic privilege to withhold information)
if the first amendment protects anything, it's
political speech
if the first amendment prohibits anything, it's
prior restraint
process of passing a law
,bill is proposed, congress passes, committee votes to pass, house votes to pass, senate votes to pass,
president signs into law
a bill can be killed at any stage of this process by not winning the vote
3 part rational basis test
-plaintiff is the challenger
-assume the law is constitutional
-courts test if the law has a rational basis
when do we use a rational basis test
to see if a law is constitutional
compelling interest test / strict scrutiny test
-burden on the govt
-assume the law is not constitutional
-govt has to prove that they have a compelling reason to allow it (ex. war times)
this only applies to fully protected speech
when do we use a compelling interest test
if the govt tries to make a law about something they're not supposed to, they need a compelling
reason
4-step process to determine what a law mean
-read the law
-look for precedent
-look to the lawmakers (did the people who made the law give you any clues)
-look to the history of the times the law was made
constriction act
law that allowed the govt to have the draft
espionage act of 1919
congress passed a law making it a crime to speak out against the war effort during war times
Schenck v. US (1919)
Schenck mailed anti-draft pamphlets to people who had been drafted and not yet reported, govt
arrested Schenck and charged him with conspiring to violate the espionage act, mailing violation, and
violating the espionage act. Schenck is convicted and appeals but lost because it was ruled that the
espionage act did not violate the first amendment
Verdict from Schenck v US
if speech is intended to result in a crime, and there is a clear and present danger that it will result in a
crime, the first amendment does not protect the speaker from govt action
is Schenck v. US current law
, No, much has changed since then
2 types of law
-criminal
-civil
4 sources of American law
-constitution
-statutory law
-regulatory law
-common law
statutory law
made by legislators (criminal law)
regulatory law
regulations, ex. FCC
common law
judge-made law, decision by decision
in order to be constitutional a law needs to specify:
-what is the act
-state of mind (if it was premeditated)
-what is the penalty
5 different ways to make a criminal case
-evidence
-catch them in the act
-suspect could turn themselves in
-someone files a complaint
-grand jury investigates returning an indictment
criminal law process
designed to protect the presumed innocent accused
criminal procedure
stop, arrest, Miranda rights, county jail, preliminary hearing, grand jury, indictment, formal
arraignments (plea bargaining), select a jury, trial
steps of a trial
prosecution opening statement
defense opening statement
prosecution presents evidence
defense cross examination
defense moves for a direct verdict (likely not granted)
defense introduces evidence
Answers
article 1 of the constitution
established the legislative branch (congress)
article 2 of the constitution
established the executive branch (president)
article 3 of the constitution
established the judicial branch (federal court system)
five freedoms of the first amendment
speech, religion, press, assembly, petition the govt
one example of a limit on the first amendment freedom of speech
going under oath in court. you still have freedom of speech, but if you lie under oath you will be
charged with perjury
First amendment
congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press
speech not under the umbrella of protection
criminal speech and porn
the only regulation on porn is child pornography
speech that is somewhat under the umbrella of protection
commercial speech
6 rationales for regulating speech
-yes, but... (need a compelling reason)
-somewhat protected (cable broadcast/commercial speech)
-not protected (criminal speech)
-time/place/manner (in order to be constitutional it must be: content neutral, reasonable, and cannot
be a complete ban on speech)
-expressive conduct
-derivative/secondary claims (right of access, journalistic privilege to withhold information)
if the first amendment protects anything, it's
political speech
if the first amendment prohibits anything, it's
prior restraint
process of passing a law
,bill is proposed, congress passes, committee votes to pass, house votes to pass, senate votes to pass,
president signs into law
a bill can be killed at any stage of this process by not winning the vote
3 part rational basis test
-plaintiff is the challenger
-assume the law is constitutional
-courts test if the law has a rational basis
when do we use a rational basis test
to see if a law is constitutional
compelling interest test / strict scrutiny test
-burden on the govt
-assume the law is not constitutional
-govt has to prove that they have a compelling reason to allow it (ex. war times)
this only applies to fully protected speech
when do we use a compelling interest test
if the govt tries to make a law about something they're not supposed to, they need a compelling
reason
4-step process to determine what a law mean
-read the law
-look for precedent
-look to the lawmakers (did the people who made the law give you any clues)
-look to the history of the times the law was made
constriction act
law that allowed the govt to have the draft
espionage act of 1919
congress passed a law making it a crime to speak out against the war effort during war times
Schenck v. US (1919)
Schenck mailed anti-draft pamphlets to people who had been drafted and not yet reported, govt
arrested Schenck and charged him with conspiring to violate the espionage act, mailing violation, and
violating the espionage act. Schenck is convicted and appeals but lost because it was ruled that the
espionage act did not violate the first amendment
Verdict from Schenck v US
if speech is intended to result in a crime, and there is a clear and present danger that it will result in a
crime, the first amendment does not protect the speaker from govt action
is Schenck v. US current law
, No, much has changed since then
2 types of law
-criminal
-civil
4 sources of American law
-constitution
-statutory law
-regulatory law
-common law
statutory law
made by legislators (criminal law)
regulatory law
regulations, ex. FCC
common law
judge-made law, decision by decision
in order to be constitutional a law needs to specify:
-what is the act
-state of mind (if it was premeditated)
-what is the penalty
5 different ways to make a criminal case
-evidence
-catch them in the act
-suspect could turn themselves in
-someone files a complaint
-grand jury investigates returning an indictment
criminal law process
designed to protect the presumed innocent accused
criminal procedure
stop, arrest, Miranda rights, county jail, preliminary hearing, grand jury, indictment, formal
arraignments (plea bargaining), select a jury, trial
steps of a trial
prosecution opening statement
defense opening statement
prosecution presents evidence
defense cross examination
defense moves for a direct verdict (likely not granted)
defense introduces evidence
