Transcript for:
Civic Literacy Workshop Overview and Cases

hello welcome to civic literacy workshop number two at florida atlantic university my name is dr jennifer biebergel and i am the associate dean for retention and academic support here at florida atlantic university i want to preface this workshop by saying i am not an attorney i am not a constitutional lawyer i do not know a significant amount of material about the constitutional supreme landmark supreme court cases that we're about to cover however i am competent to be able to present these cases in a way that you can learn them to pass a civic literacy exam so let's go ahead and get started so we're going to start today we have about an hour together we're going to review the civic literacy requirement get a little bit of what you already know then we're going to review 22 landmark supreme court cases that you are very likely to see on your civic literacy test then you have an opportunity to take a practice test and we'll see how you do and then we'll give a reminder about our final workshop and how to sign up for the test so just briefly the civic literacy requirement is something that is across all of the florida state universities and state colleges in order to earn an associative arts or a bachelor's degree there are multiple ways that you can earn this you can take our government of the u.s pos 2041 or u.s history since 1877 mh 2020 course if you were when you were in high school you could have passed sufficient scores on the ap test we also have a clep test which is a college level examination for proficiency uh which is about a hundred dollars on us government and if you pass that you you satisfy the requirement but the quickest and easiest and free way to complete this requirement is by taking the free civic literacy test offered through the fau office for testing and evaluation it is a 100 question exam you only need to get 60 correct so 60 questions out of 100 in order to satisfy this requirement and the workshops that you are currently participating in were designed to help you pass that test and satisfy this graduation requirement the test is free to take like i said you go to the fau testing website fau.edu testing and click on register for your exam the test is offered monday through friday every day that we are open uh every hour from nine to two it you do get two hours to take the test however you can leave as soon as you are finished and most students finish it in well under one hour and you do get your scores as soon as you are done so let's jump right into these 22 landmark supreme court cases so i'm going to ask you to take a minute and look at your screen or if you've printed out the handouts already to take a look and see how many of these two 22 cases you already know maybe there are some that you've heard of but you don't really know many details about maybe there's some that you do are familiar with so kind of get a number in your head if you're familiar with fewer than about 15 of these you are in the right place to listen to this workshop so within the next hour you will feel confident that you know the majority of these 22 cases so before we begin if you have not already on the canvas site for this civic literacy practice course you can download the practice test as well as you can download this powerpoint if you want to print out this powerpoint and take notes on it as we're going through the cases that might be most helpful for you so you feel free to pause this recording and come back when you have printed uh the cases if you would like to do so so we're going to go through these cases when we think about what the supreme court can rule on remember the supreme court is one of the three branches of our government and the supreme court only looks at cases to determine whether or not they are in violation of the constitution so it might be a concept within the constitution or it may be questioning whether something violates an amendment to the constitution so we are going i've aligned these slides based on the cases based on the amendments that they follow the concepts that they're following and at the end we'll have a review by amendment and concept so the first case we're going to talk about is dred scott versus sanford and this was in the 1800s just before the civil war so dred scott was a slave he was a slave in a slave state the in 1820 there was something called the missouri compromise this you might find on the exam as well the missouri compromise basically declared where free states were and where slave states were so anything south of a certain point was considered a slave state anything west of a certain point it determined whether or not you were going to be in a free or a slave area um so in the 1800s dred scott was a slave and his family his owners moved to what present-day minnesota which was a free slate free state subsequently his owner passed away and he said oh my owner died i'm in a free state i'm a free man the owner's widow was moving back to a slave state and he says i'm not going i'm not a slave so he petitioned the court and the court found against him found for the widow that he was still a slave this went to the supreme court and when we say when we're looking at these cases most of the cases start at a lower court and it is only through an appeals process by losing and then appealing and losing and appealing that you get to the supreme court there are a few exceptions or it goes directly to the supreme court and we'll talk about those cases but in this case it went to the supreme court and the supreme court refused to even rule on this case and it is because they said that this slave dred scott was not even considered a person he was not a citizen of the state he was not considered a he was property not a citizen so they could not rule because you rule on behalf of people and they could not make a ruling for dred scott i like to remember this i think in modern standards we think this is what is considered a dreadful ruling to say that because this person was african-american because he was a slave he was not even considered a citizen or a person when you see questions on the civic literacy test about this case they might ask you about which case nullified the missouri compromise or declared it unconstitutional because this is basically saying the court the court is saying that congress did not have the power to ban slavery at this time so it nullified the missouri compromise saying that that wasn't constitutional and it said that dred scott was not considered a citizen staying on this theme of slavery and race relations we're going to move to plessy versus ferguson plessy versus ferguson is the first of several 14th amendment cases we're going to look at so if we remember in the 14th amendment we talked about this concept called uh equal protection so it is saying that the law is equally protecting all people no matter what their background is so in this case race right so in plessy versus ferguson homer plessy this was in 1890 homer plussy was one-eighth african-american at the time in louisiana they had what they called the louisiana separate railcar act which required that white passengers rode in the white car and non-white passengers rode in a non-white car being 1 8 white 1 8 black plessy uh sorry homer plessy decided that he was going to purchase a first-class ticket in the white rail car he got on the white rail car and was told no he cannot ride in that car he had to move to another car for non-white passengers he refused to move and he was arrested and fined and placed in jail he um fought his arrest and his case was when he lost his case it went up through appeal to the supreme court and the supreme court looked at his case and said that homer plessy did not have the right to ride in a white rail car that the law was upheld and racial segregation is constitutional under the separate but equal doctrine of the constitution so basically separate but equal says so it's not like we said you can't ride in the rail car you just had to go into a separate rail car that they considered to be equivalent to the white rail car so plessy versus ferguson in 1890 upheld racial segregation and said separate but equal is constitutional do you know which case overturned this idea of separate but equal it's probably a case you may have heard of many of you may have heard of it brown versus board of education so this was in the 1950s in topeka kansas and linda brown and her sister were young children uh black african-american children and they had to go past a white school through across railroad tracks through a bad neighborhood in order to get to their quote separate but equal school so the brown family sued and petitioned the court to say we want linda and her sister to go to this local school that was designated for white children court said no separate but equal you have your own school that you can go to so this case went all the way to the supreme court and the court decided that state laws requiring separate but equal violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment because really was a separate but equal it was more dangerous for them to get there it was further for them to get there it was not really necessary so the brown versus board of education is a landmark supreme court case that overturned plessy versus ferguson it said separate is n but equal is not okay separate but equal is unconstitutional and it began the desegregation process of our schools the next case that we're looking at also deals with 14th amendment but it is what we would some some folks would say is considered reverse discrimination so in the regions of the university of california versus bucky um this was in the 1970s in california and alan bucky was a white male who was applying to a medical school program at the university of california system he was denied admission and he petitioned the court saying i had equal if not better test scores gpas academic credentials than these minority students that they are admitting and the university of california davis did admit that they were considering race as they were trying to offer more spots make a more diverse school like more diverse medical school to provide more diverse opportunities for doctors and in that they ended up um denying admission for an otherwise qualified individual so in this case alan bakke was denied admission he petitioned the court and the case went all the way to the supreme court the supreme court ruled in favor of baki and this is something in higher education we look at this case very frequently it says that in the process of admissions or in hiring practices that the use of strict racial quotas is not allowed it doesn't say we can't use race at all race can be considered one of many factors in determining whether or not a candidate is admissible or is the correct candidate to hire for a position so it said racial quotas is not okay okay the next case that we have even even more recent bush versus gore so this is dealing with the election in 2000 and this is dealing with right here in florida even in palm beach county so in the election during 2000 um the count in florida the count in the country for who would become our next president whether it was george bush or al gore was extremely close on election night usually they can determine who is going to have the most electoral votes and who is going to become our next president however we went to bed on election night this year at this point and did not know who was going to be the next president and they said it's going to come down to florida and whoever wins florida is going to win the election so when it came down to the votes and if you think of the millions of vote just votes just in the state of florida the millions upon millions of votes in the country the difference in votes about who would become president came to under 2 000 votes in the state of florida so florida statute requires a mandatory recount of votes if it is less than 0.5 percent of a difference between the candidates so it went to a recount so the problem here was the recount process was different in each county so in some counties they were going they were able to machine feed the votes for account and some they were hand counting to determine whether or not a person actually meant to vote for that person so bush took this and this is one of those cases that goes directly to the supreme court right we don't want to wait to find out who's going to become president by going to lower level courts and it is a federal issue so this went directly to the supreme court and the supreme court decided that because in florida we were counting votes differently the use of different standards to count votes violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment so a note about the case bush versus gore this was a case that wasn't in the original study guides that i had looked at um however when folks have taken the test it is often one of the options in the test i have not seen this when i've taken the test and i've taken it multiple times as the correct answer i have seen it as one of the answers but i wanted you to have a sense of what the case is about in case you see it and you can either decide that maybe it is the right answer for the test version you have or that you can rule it out by knowing more about the case so that sums up our 14th amendment cases so we started with dred scott which wasn't even dealing with 14th amendment because they didn't even rule on dred scott because he wasn't a citizen and it reversed the missouri compromise then we went into our first 14th amendment case which was plessy versus ferguson which said separate but equal was okay he could ride in the other rail car because it was separate but equal then brown versus bird of education overturned plessy versus ferguson and said separate but equal is not okay and it desegregated the schools and then we looked at uh regions of university of california versus bockey which said race can be considered a decision a deciding factor in admissions or hiring practices but it has to be one of many factors and you cannot have racial quotas and then we looked at bush versus gore in the election and that the counting of votes needed to be done equivalently in order to protect 14th amendment equal protection rights so we're still on the theme of voting but we're going to a new case and we're moving into our first amendment cases first amendment has the most cases i believe there are six out of the 22 cases that deal with first amendment that first case we're looking at is citizens united versus the federal election commission so this is even more of a recent case only 10 years ago in 2010 and it is a court a case about campaign finance and showing of a video so in this case uh hillary clinton was ready to be in the democratic primary in 2009 just before the primary election with clinton and barack obama and at the time this interest group called citizens united wanted to show a film and advertise that film just before the democratic primary election that was very derogatory towards hillary clinton so as you can imagine hillary clinton's people and the democratic party felt that it would be very harmful for this to be shown so they tried to stop it so they called on some old law that said you can't show a film um too close to a an election period so and the other piece they were looking at was who was funding this so citizens united was funded by unions by super wealthy people and they were saying that who was funding the video and just the showing of the video both were a violation so this case went directly to the supreme court because it is dealing with a federal issue and the court held that two things one is freedom of speech they can show the broadcast they can air this critical film of hillary clinton that they can't stop that just because it's too close to an election it would be harmful to the candidate and also they said that um who contributes to a campaign or where campaign finance dollars come from is protected speech you as an individual myself as an individual or corporation or an organization has the right to put their federal uh their sorry their uh spending money however they want their campaign finance money however they want political spending is a form of protected speech under the first amendment so citizens united versus federal election commission you may hear it citizens united versus fec which stands for federal election commission deals with first amendment you can spend your political spending however you want and they can't stop you from airing things during a political period the next two cases we're going to deal with deal with prayer so you see and you'll see this in many of our slides there's a little red kind of hint at the top of that slide so i'm going to have you take your two hands and make an upside down v and hopefully they look to you sort of like prayer hands now i understand we are at a public university and we are not allowed to pray but i am teaching you tricks to help you pass the civic literacy test so in this case engel versus vital we have a v in vital and it deals with freedom of religion the two cases that have these in them both deal with something related to prayer so if you remember from your amendments the first amendment deals with the free exercise clause which is that everyone has the right to practice any of their role any religion they want or none at all so in this case in the 1960s in the new york schools public schools the school started with a non-denominational which means non-religious space not for specific religion prayer each day that was referencing god so engel was a student at the school and did not want to participate in this prayer felt it was a violation of the first amendment so this case made it all the way up to the supreme court and the supreme court agreed that school-initiated prayer in the public school system is a violation of the first amendment we cannot require people to pray in our public arenas in their public schools so when i have taken the test and i've taken the civic literacy test a number of times this is probably the number one court case that comes up in the multiple choice responses so knowing engel versus vital is really important if you remember that upside down v means prayer hopefully you'll remember this case has something to do with freedom of religion the second case we have west virginia so there's rv in virginia west virginia state board of education versus barnett in this case this was in the 1940s the barnetts were jehovah's witnesses jehovah's witnesses typically do not follow traditional religious beliefs they are not going to be praying saying one nation under god even saluting a flag would be considered we don't have a flag in here do we i usually do this presentation in a room with a flag so i can point out the flag but they did not have to salute the flag and um but in the school at the time the barnetts were told you will say the pledge of allegiance or you will be expelled they refused to do this were being expelled for it and the family took this case to court after losing they appealed and the course the case went to the supreme court and the courts agreed that the free speech clause of the first amendment protects students from being forced to say the to pledge a flag or to say anything about god so again although this is dealing with the pledge of allegiance it is the religious belief and the you know the symbolic symbolism behind praying to a flag so v we've got engel versus fatal and west virginia state board of education versus barnett they both deal with prayer the next two cases you see are going to have a t so i encourage you to take your hands just like we made prayer hands for ingle versus vital in west virginia versus the barnett's t is our symbol and we're dealing with symbolic speech so in texas versus johnson uh gregory lee gregory lee johnson this was back in the 80s under the reagan administration during the republican national convention in um in texas gregory gregory lee johnson did not agree with the things that were being said there and he protested by taking an american flag dowsing it with kerosene and setting it on fire so no one was hurt this would have changed if someone was injured in this but no one was hurt this was just his way of expressing his displeasure with what was going on in the country and what was being proposed through this political uh republican national convention there was a law in the state of texas that said you cannot burn a flag so johnson was arrested and charged with desecration of a venerated object in violation of texas law so the supreme court this went all the way he he was in court he fought he lost it went to the supreme court and the supreme court said that johnson's actions were considered symbolic speech and has protected speech under the first amendment so we remember t for texas and that is our symbol we will keep that t symbol when we go to our next case tinker versus sorry tinker versus des moines in this case the tinkers were students during the vietnam war era so the vietnam war era vietnam war was a very unpopular war the tinkers were in high school and to show their displeasure of the war they wore black armbands that was their symbol just like in texas versus johnson the symbol was the us flag in this case the black armband was a symbol of protest so imagine being in a school and there are people protesting the war wearing black armbands and such and then there are students there who maybe their older brother just got killed in war or a teacher whose child just got sent off to war there was a lot going on there so the administration said nope you cannot wear anything to protest the war in school and they refused to not wear these armbands in protest and they were subsequently suspended so this case went all the way to the supreme court and the tinkers said i have a right to wear these armbands and the court agreed with them and they said that these armbands are considered symbolic speech in protest of the war remember our t symbol and no one expects students to shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate so this is really interesting so i highlighted this quote here because we are going to look at a couple of cases where limits in the school system are a little bit less protected than in other areas but here in these two cases so both in the two prayer cases the two ones with the v angle versus vital and west virginia versus barnett remember it said nope we can't make them pray in schools and in these two cases texas versus johnson tinker versus des moines said symbolic speech is protected speech now we're going to move to a different case so this is hazel wood versus coal miner i put two h's at the top hopefully to remember to help you remember hazelwood high school hazelwood is the name of the high school the principal of hazelwood east high school is the person who was in question here so in this case there was in this high school there was a student-run newspaper and the students published content for the paper the before it went to press the school administration reviewed the content and felt that there were things in it that they did not feel were appropriate to be printed so they tried to pull the content and the students in the school said oh first amendment freedom of the press we can put what we want in here so the school went all the way to the supreme court with this the principal um said this is we don't this is too important we don't want this information going out there so the supreme court agreed with the school principal and said that in a school setting that there are for legitimate pedagogical which means educational concerns there are the ability to limit speech in that way to limit what goes out in press so basically they are trying to protect the greater needs of the school over the rights of the individual so protecting the values of the school protecting what minor other minors in the school would be reading was more important than the right for that person to publish what they want now in a higher education setting in a university setting where we're not dealing with minors or out in the real world there are very few limits to freedom of speech again as long as it's not hurting others right you can't publish anything if it's going to be liable so in this case hazelwood versus colemire if you remember hazelwood high in this case it limited their freedom of speech that they could not put anything they wanted in the paper the school administration had a right to censor some of that okay that's it that was six first amendment cases we are now moving on to second amendment there's only one case dealing with second amendment hopefully you can remember that because dc has two letters and we're dealing with second amendment dc versus heller so in this landmark supreme court case um heller was a citizen in the district of columbia where they had a handgun van and they restricted what when you did have arms what arms you could have right no handguns and how you could store them so you could have a rifle or a shotgun but it had to be kept unloaded and disassembled or bound with a trigger lock so imagine if the purpose of the second amendment was for the protection right it's the right to bear to bear arms if it was for the protection of the individual imagine someone breaks into my home and i say oh excuse me a minute well i go and unlock my gun safe take out my my firearm and assemble it before we have a confrontation not practical so heller took this all the way to the supreme court and the supreme court did decide that this was not allowing for the second amendment right that the right to bear arms is not unlimited that they will continue to regulate gun gun use and gun ownership but it did say that the individual's right to possess a firearm said that they could have it where it would be accessible to them so it did fine for heller we're moving now to fourth amendment so we have two cases dealing with fourth amendment if you remember fourth amendment deals with things like unusual search and seizure uh and having search warrants so in this case we're hopefully going to remember map has four letters the way that the woman's name is spelled m-a-p-p ohio has four letters and we're dealing with fourth amendment illegal search and seizure so in this case they got a t the police got a tip that mrs matt might be holding a person that was suspected in a bombing so they went to mrs mapp's home and said we'd like to come in and search your home she said show me your search warrant i said we don't have a search warrant they said come back later when you have a warrant so they left and they came back later pretending they had a search warrant they kind of waved a paper in her face they went into her home during their search that was being conducted illegally because they did not have a proper search warrant they actually found some pornographic materials not relevant to even what they were looking for anyway but they found a case with some pornographic materials ohio law was uh was against having possession of obscene materials she was subsequently charged and convicted of a crime so her attorney said well you should not be able to use the materials that you found because it was an illegal search so you should not be able to use that to convict her so this went all the way to the supreme court and the supreme court agreed with the attorney that evidence obtained through a search that was in violation of the fourth amendment right they went into her home without a proper search warrant isn't it inadmissible so they threw out the evidence and she was um subsequently not found guilty her case was dismissed the second case dealing with fourth amendment um is new jersey versus tlo so i put a little tip up there that initials is going to equal a minor so this is the only one of the 22 landmark supreme court cases that deals with initials it is not the only case that deals with a minor however when someone sues someone else it's either the name of the location so in this example new jersey or the person who is suing or being sued your full name will be used in that case with the exception if if a minor is involved they have the right to redact the name and only use the initials they didn't do that brown versus board of education we know was linda brown was the miner in west virginia versus barnett we knew the barnett i'm confusing my cases or we knew that they were minors they doesn't matter we don't have to redact the names but in this case new jersey versus tlo they made the up they took the option to use the initials so we know it's a minor in this case it's fourth amendment in new jersey versus tlo it is dealing with school privacy now i don't want you to get confused we did t dealt with symbolic speech that is when the t is at the beginning of the case texas versus johnson and tinker vs des moines in here new jersey versus tlo we are not dealing with first amendment we're dealing with fourth amendment so tlo was a minor in her school and she was accused of or suspected of smoking in the school bathroom the school vice principal came up to her and said we think you were smoking the bathroom i want to search your backpack she said show me your search warrant he says i don't have to show you my search warrant show me your backpack he searched her backpack against her will and did find marijuana and some other cigarettes and other materials so her family took this to court and it went all the way to the supreme court saying they were saying they don't have a right they couldn't use this evidence they found against me because it was an illegal search and different from that versus ohio where they said the evidence was thrown out because it was an illegal search they said in this case that in a school setting that it did not violate violate the constitution there are more lenient standards for reasonableness in school searches so for some of you who may have come here from florida or high schools in the united states you probably know that your school administration has the right to search your backpack and your locker that those things are you know when you're on school property they have the right to do those things so we now have two cases and only two cases where student rights are a little bit more limited where they're limiting our our bill of rights and our amendment uh rights so that was in the first amendment when we were dealing with hazelwood versus kohlmeyer where the school had the ability to censor what was in a school newspaper and for fourth amendment new jersey versus tlo where the school has a right to do a search of a student's property okay the next two cases are fun we're going to make an up an m here for miranda miranda versus arizona so have you ever heard your miranda rights hopefully never in person hopefully only because you watch lots of law and order and other crime shows like i do so if you are familiar with your miranda rights you know you have the right to remain silent anything you say can and will be used against you you have the right to an attorney that came from this case miranda versus arizona so this deals with both fifth and sixth amendment fifth amendment for self-incrimination that's the part you have the right to remain silent you don't have to incriminate yourself you don't have to say anything that can make you seem guilty or sixth amendment you have the right to an attorney so in this case miranda versus arizona ernesto miranda was arrested for as a suspect in a crime they brought him into the police department and they started questioning him they never told him any of his rights they didn't tell him that he didn't have to talk they didn't tell me had the right to an attorney so he got in there the police started asking questions and he started spilling his guts and telling everything to the police officers he admitted to the crime so later when he did get an attorney the attorney probably did one of those oh god what did you do ernesto and then said um he went and said you should not be able to use anything that my client said because he wasn't told his rights he was later convicted of the crime and because he confessed to it and it went to the supreme court the supreme court agreed that the police had not taken the proper steps to make sure miranda was aware of his rights so that is why the miranda law came into account right but we're going to take it one step further so we have this m for miranda we're going to turn that m upside down to our second case which completes the miranda right warning so wainwright so in gideon versus wainwright and really the person's name was gideon but we're going to cheat a little and use the w in wainwright because it co it's much cooler m to w than m to g so in gideon versus wayne wright this is another very common case that you'll see when you're doing the supreme court case cases on the civic literacy test in this case again gideon was arrested um and he was told his rights he was told you have the right to remain silent and you have the right to an attorney and he said okay i want an attorney but he was poor and was unable to afford an attorney he said well what is good is my right to an attorney if i can have you know have one because i'm poor right that's not equal protection that is a total violation it's saying that only the wealthy people can have this protection of the constitution so gideon had no choice at the time so he had to serve as his own lawyer and he did terrible job of it and he ended up going to prison while he was in prison he hand wrote a petition to the court to the and it went to this u.s supreme court and they agreed to hear his case the court unanimously agreed and ruled in gideon's favor saying the sixth amendment which has a right to counsel or right to an attorney requires courts provide attorneys for criminal defendants who cannot otherwise afford that attorney so that's why when you hear and this is from miranda you have the right to remain silent anything you say can and will be used against you you have the right to an attorney that's all for miranda if you cannot afford one one will be provided for you comes from gideon versus wainwright that's this case the way you maybe see this on a test is also asking about the public defender's office so because of this case which said that any criminal defendant who cannot afford an attorney one must be provided for them where are we going to get these attorneys so this was the start of the public defender's offices so pretty much all counties across the united states now have a division an area within their court system of public defenders and these are paid through the state to serve as council for people who cannot otherwise afford them so you if you see public defenders you know you tie that to gideon versus wainwright so those are the cases that really deal with issues related to the amendments um now we're going to get into concepts so roe versus wade many of you may have heard of roe v wade so jane rowe was an unmarried woman she was this was back in 1970 she lived in texas and became pregnant um texas law said it was illegal it was a felony to have an abortion unless it was medically necessary so at the time this was in the late 60s in the early 70s when abortion was illegal except for medical medically necessary reasons throughout most of the country people were going into back rooms and having abortions and it was really not safe for them so roe felt that this was unfair that she had the right to decide what to do and this went probably one of the most controversial cases to date um this went to the supreme court and the supreme court so what it did is it said no it didn't legalize abortion which is how some people said it they basically said that no state can prohibit first trimester abortion so that means in the the first trimester which is the first uh i'm thinking about my math right now the first 12 weeks of president of your pregnancy 12 to 13 weeks of pregnancy that they cannot prevent abortions no state can create a law that is superseding the federal law so it by all intents and purposes made abortion in their first trimester legal in every state no state could go against the federal law okay next case korematsu vs united states hopefully you'll remember this because hopefully korematsu sounds like an asian sounding or japanese name to you so this was in 1941 after uh in 1941 the japanese bombed pearl harbor this was the very beginning of world war ii so after pearl harbor was bombed people in the united states were in a panic mode and if someone near them looked japanese they were afraid that they would bring harm so at the time the united states created these internment camps and required that all japanese american citizens moved to these internment camps it was a way for the us to make sure we knew what they were up to and could keep our citizens safe korematsu did not want to move to an internment camp and fa and felt it was a violation of his individual rights so he refused to go and was convicted of violating an executive order so this case went to the supreme court and the government said that we needed to create these internment camps to protect the people kormatsu said this is a violation of my rights and the court actually agreed with the government and said that the need to protect the country was a greater priority than individual rights of japanese and japanese americans so again i am not a constitutional law person i am not a political scientist but to me i think that this case sets the expectation of things that are happening today in internment camps when we're separating immigrant families at the border and putting people in these camps or even um things like racial profiling that happened after 9 11 after september 11th in 2001 um anyone that looked like they could be from middle eastern descent may have been taken aside and questioned or had extra screening at an airport and i think that this is the case that probably really allows that to continue to happen today okay i think we only have four cases left so hang in there with me this case you will definitely see on your civic literacy test i can almost guarantee it it is very uh an important case and not that they all aren't um but it is one that you will come and commonly see marbury versus madison so just a quick history lesson of what was happening here so john adams was our second president and he was leaving office thomas jefferson was going to become our third president they were from two totally different political parties they did not like each other so before adams left his presidency he decided that he was going to um commission uh different about 12 different justices of the peace and other similar appointments if you remember when you make those appointments for federal offices and things like that it has to get approved by the senate so this got rushed through it was the end of adam's presidency the senate quickly approved these and most of them were sworn into office before adams left for his the end of his term but marbury was one that was not able to be sworn in before thomas jefferson was sworn in as president so jefferson's secretary of state madison needed to deliver the documentation to marbury so that he would be able to get sworn in and madison refused to do that so this went to the supreme court directly and the supreme court looked at two concepts one they said the supremacy clause remember we talked about the constitution constitution is a supreme law of the land the constitution is the law because we at this time the the united states was new we were wondering what is this constitution is it just a bunch of ideas or is it really law so in this case they said the supremacy clause this is the law of the land and you must follow it and these are the rules and we must follow these rules and this idea of judicial review which said the supreme court was created to make to rule on these decisions so it says in marbury versus madison they said you have to turn over the papers but that wasn't the important piece of it it did say that the constitution is the supreme law of the land not just a bunch of ideas and that the supreme court has the right to review and rule on these different elements of the constitution the next one i don't have great ways to remember but it is an important one that you'll see often gibbons versus ogden you might remember because gibbons has two b's and it deals with two boats so this again just a few years after the united states was formed in the constitution was ratified so now the federal government was trying to figure out how to get themselves set up but so were the state governments and so was business and trade and commerce and everything happening in the states so in new york there was a steamboat company and they were actively involved in trade within new york and there was a steamboat company in that ogden ran in new jersey so they were running in the waters between new york and new jersey so new york declared that their person had a monopoly over uh gibbons had a monopoly over trade and commerce in the steamboat business so he was ruling all the waters outside of new york well ogden came in and said well you can't decide that this water is in between our states so this went to the supreme court and the supreme court determined that within the constitution there's a clause called the commerce clause the commerce clause the constitution allows the federal government the power to determine how interstate commerce is conducted so new york can determine how trade is within their borders new jersey can determine how trade is within their borders but when it comes to anything outside of the borders of the state it falls under the auspices of the constitution and the united states government so gibbons versus ogden deals with commerce clause you can remember boats the commerce was conducted commerce's trade trade by steamboat two left yep just checking okay mcculloch versus maryland so i alluded to this case if you watch the video for the first uh workshop so in mcculloch versus maryland when we set up the constitution in 1787 our founding fathers tried to think of every scenario they could but there was no way in 1787 they could think of everything and put everything into this one document that would be the future of our country they didn't deal with technology in there right there's there was no cell phones there were no computers there were a lot of things they didn't necessarily have in there so in this case um right after the and this was uh back in the early 1800s um the us was setting up national banks they said okay in our powers in the constitution we have the power to tax and we have the power to um print money we have all of these powers but we can't do these things properly without having a place to store and securely hold our money so they were creating national banks well at the same time the states were trying to set up and do what they had to do one of those things was to collect taxes so in maryland the federal government set up a bank a federal bank in maryland to be able to collect taxes store money get money to the citizens in maryland and across the states so the people in maryland said okay we're going to or the state government maryland said we're going to tax all of the businesses on our land so they brought a tax bill to james mcculloch who was a branch employee at the federal bank so this a representative from the tax office from the state of maryland brought mcculloch a tax bill and said you need to pay taxes because you have a business in maryland he said i'm not going to pay taxes we're part of the u.s government they said well if you don't pay your taxes you can't operate in maryland so this went to the supreme court and the supreme court determined congress has what we call implied powers remember we talked about things that are necessary and proper things the elastic clause things that can stretch so things that are implied for them to do things they have to do that are necessary and proper to carry out the business that is defined in the constitution so court found that they have implied powers broad power to implement enumerated powers those are the powers that are spelled out in the constitution so they were allowed to create a national bank even though the constitution didn't explicitly say that they can create a bank but it was necessary for them to do that it was an implied power because they have the power to do other things that necessitated opening a bank and that maryland's taxing of that was unconstitutional because they couldn't cons they couldn't uh tax the federal government so mcculloch versus maryland is another one you are very likely to see on there so remembering implied powers not everything is spelled out and it deals with the bank employees the last case u.s versus nixon we also mentioned if you watch the video for the first workshop and in this case this was uh late 1960s president nixon was was obviously the president and he was involved in some scandals that were going on they found out that nixon had some tape recordings that he had uh had in the oval office and they said they asked him for the recordings he refused to give them so a subpoena was issued so if any of you ever receive a subpoena it is a court-ordered document that you must do what the subpoena says so you might get a subpoena that says you have to appear in court as a witness you have no choice you must do that so in this case nixon received a subpoena saying he had to turn over the tapes that were in his possession and he refused to do so he said that it would be bad for the country to do that so this went because again this is a dealing with the president it goes directly to the supreme court there are no lower courts that would see that and the court decided that he had to follow the subpoena he had to turn over the evidence in the subpoena no one is above the law even the president is bound by whatever is in the law executive privilege is not limitless and the tapes were released he then knew he was in trouble they were going to follow through with impeachment hearings and criminal proceedings and he ended up resigning so nixon is the only president to resign but if you see this quest if you see us versus nixon on the civic literacy test it will most likely be asked in terms of what was the major finding of it and it is no one is above the law which we also know as the rule of law all right that was 22 minutes and we are 50 minutes into this workshop sorry 22 cases i've been talking too long 22 cases in 50 minutes not bad so we're going to do a super quick review and then we're going to give you that test uh the post test to see how many of these cases you can answer correctly on a practice test so remember we said there were six cases about first amendment this is going back about a half hour ago so the first case citizens united versus the federal election commission or fec this was the uh hillary clinton during the democratic national primaries and they she did not want some really inflammatory videos about her released she tried to stop it saying it was too close to the primary and that the funding of these cases were inappropriate not the cases the funding of the video was inappropriate and the supreme court found that one it is a violation of first amendment to limit when they can show the video and who what what uh political dollars are spent is protected speech that different unions different individuals can different businesses can put their political spending however they choose that is protected space speech our next two cases you see on here both have these so hopefully you remember upside down v looks a little like prayer hands angle versus fatale that said that they could not have that non-denominational prayer in the schools and west virginia school board of education versus barnett that one said that they jehovah's witnesses they did not have to do the pledge of allegiance they're requiring individuals to pledge allegiance was a violation of first amendment um free exercise clause of the first amendment hazelwood versus coal miner that is the only first amendment case that limited speech slightly so remember hazelwood high they had a school newspaper the prince the assistant principal and principal wanted to limit what was being put out in the school paper and the students cried know that censorship and the courts ruled no the school administration because they are dealing with minors does have the right to limit the speech if there is a truly valid pedagogical reason to do so the next two cases we have rt's for symbolic speech texas versus johnson that was the flag burning said that burning a flag while it's not a great thing to do as long as it doesn't physically harm someone um it is protected symbolic speech and tinker versus des moines remember they wore the black armbands during protest in protest of the vietnam war and those black armbands were considered protected speech the next case dc two letters dc versus heller we know his second amendment that was the case where in the district of columbia they had the handgun van and said that heller or all residents could keep uh their firearm had to be locked up and disassembled or not loaded with ammunition and he said well that how is that going to protect me and the courts agreed and um although there are still limits and they can still put limits on what on gun control but it did allow them to keep their weapon as long as it was secured uh accessible fourth amendment we have two cases map four letters ohio four letters so we know that was the one where they wanted to search her home they didn't have a search warrant they came back later with a fake search warrant and the later the court decided that anything they found during that search um was found illegally and all it was all of it was thrown out new jersey versus tlo was the second case that dealt with something in the school where they limited protections for the student so this was where they searched the girl's locker or her backpack and they found marijuana and cigarettes and they said that searches in schools do not have to there are lean more lenient standards for searches in schools the schools don't have to abide by such a high level of having a warrant and probable cause and all that fifth and sixth amendment miranda versus arizona so that was the you have the right to remain silent anything you say can and will be used against you and you have the right to an attorney gideon versus wainwright added if you cannot afford one one will be provided for you and remember because they couldn't afford an attorney that created the beginning of the um public defender's office almost done 13th and 14th amendment so slaves were freed right by the 13th amendment and then the 14th amendment tried to create things to make up for slavery to make things more equal so plessy versus ferguson that was homer plessy was had to ride in a separate rail car because he was one eighth black and the court found separate but equal is okay that was overturned brown versus board of education remember the brown girls had to walk through a dangerous area past a white school to go to an all black school and the court overturned plessy versus ferguson said separate but equal is not okay that she had they browns were able to go to the white school and it ended it started the beginning of desegregation regions of the university of california versus bakke remember equal protection um dealing with race and admission so that was the one that said race can be used as one of many factors for both admissions or hiring but it cannot be used as a primary factor and some other cases that dealt with concepts not necessarily amendments um dred scott versus sander sanford remember dred scott's owner died he was a slave and he they moved to a free state he wanted to be free the court would not even rule on it it was dreadful because they said he wasn't even a citizen so they couldn't make a ruling gibbons versus ogden two bees two boats right the commerce clause so gibbons versus ogden they had the steamboats in new york and new jersey and they said the federal government said we have the right based on the commerce clause in the constitution that we can regulate trade between states korematsu vs u.s dealt with the japanese relocation after the bombing of pearl harbor and said that the japanese internment camps were legal because the protection of the whole of the u.s population was more important than the rights of the individual marbury versus madison remember adam's leaving the presidency jefferson coming into the presidency madison was holding back the papers to allow marbury to take office and it the court said one that we have the right to review this and make decisions that's called judicial review and that the con you have to abide by the constitution the constitution is the supreme law of the land mcculloch versus maryland that was the banks so because the constitution says that we can print money because the constitution says we can collect taxes in implied powers we can also create banks so the state of maryland was not able to tax us for creating a national bank in maryland roe v wade the federal government said that no state could have a contradictory um law that prohibited first trimester abortions and finally u.s versus nixon no one is above the law the rule of law all right so at this point there is a practice test i'm going to ask you i'm gonna switch over to our doc cam i'm going to ask you if you have already printed out to give yourself a few minutes to take this practice test on the landmark supreme court cases there are only 16 questions you can pause this video and come back as soon as you are done we will go over the answers sum up and uh we'll be finished with the second workshop so i'll see you in a few minutes okay hopefully you've taken your time and completed the quiz that you aren't just waiting for me to give you the answers but we'll go ahead and go over the answers to the landmark supreme court case quiz question one this case established the policy of judicial review we just spoke about that the answer is marbury versus madison so when you see these multiple choice questions if there is a case we did not go over it is very unlikely it is the correct answer so in this case you see morse versus frederick that is a true case it is not the correct answer here we did not go over it so it is unlikely if you see that case that it will be this the correct one same with the next question bethel school district versus fraser real case we didn't go over it so hopefully through process of elimination even if you're not sure you can limit the ones that you think that you know are not the right answer this case ended segregation in public schools brown versus board of education question three this case advocated free speech in the schools in the form of an anti-war protest correct answer remember t is our symbol our symbol was the black armband it's tinker versus des moines question four this case guaranteed certain rights for individuals being arrested out of the choices given d miranda versus arizona would be the correct answer if that wasn't a choice there but gideon versus wainwright was an answer that could be the correct answer question five this decision allowed for women to have abortions at least in the first trimester the answer is a roe v wade question six in plessy versus ferguson the supreme court ruled that segregation was remember plessy versus ferguson was the first one said that was the railcar act that uh segregation is legal as long as the facilities are equal that is c in which case overturned it that would be brown versus board of education that's separate but equal was not okay it's not constitutional question seven this case determined flag burning is protected by free speech so we remember again our free speech our symbol is a t my t here um texas versus johnson in texas versus johnson you burn the flag and while it's not a lovely thing to do it is protected speech question eight this case determined public prayer and bible readings in school violates the first amendment that's our prayer hands engel versus vital question eight nine sorry this case determined schools only need reasonable suspicion not a warrant to search students as a necessary step to provide a safe learning environment we remember we were dealing with minors here so we have the initials new jersey versus tlo d is the correct answer question 10 in this case the court ruled the policy of using quotas or predetermined number based on race or gender as part of affirmative action in hiring or admission practices is unconstitutional that's a regents of the university of california versus becky question 11 during world war ii the supreme court ruled that relocation of japanese-american citizens to internment camps was constitutional in which case korematsu vs u.s a question 12. this 1857 ruling declared slaves are property and not citizens and it nullified the missouri compromise of 1820. that's a dred scott versus sanford question 13 in tinker versus des moines the tinkers were suspended from school for wearing black armbands b that is their protected speech question 14 which lessons did future u.s leaders learn from 1974 supreme court case u.s versus nixon the president is accountable for obeying laws right no one is above the law yes even the president has to obey the law question 15 states must pay for public defenders as a result of which u.s supreme court case the correct answer for that idiom versus wainwright so remember you have the right to attorney if one cannot be provided it will be provided for if you cannot afford an attorney while we provided for you that created the public defender's office question 16 evidence that is illegally obtained by the state may not be used against a defendant in court based on which case so remember the illegal search and seizure that's from uh met the fourth amendment amen amendment four map has four letters ohio has four letters so the correct answer is c map v ohio all right so that is 16 questions so how did you do if you did if you got at least nine of them right you are at 60 percent and will easily pass that portion of your civic literacy test so congratulations a couple of um tips for test taking um so ways that you may see these so some of them will be straight forward it might say which amendment did this case deal with so it might show um matt v ohio and say which amendment was the primary amendment that this case dealt with and you should know that it's fourth amendment illegal search and seizure seizure or um hazel wood versus kohlmeyer what amendment did that deal with it was first amendment protected speech tinker versus des moines first amendment free speech engel versus fatal first amendment so knowing what the case is what amendment it deals with but you may also see things um i mentioned the last workshop where they'll give a synopsis of a case we didn't go over and ask you what concept it ties to what you know ideal it's tying to what amendment it's tying to so just read carefully a lot of times if you read things you'll know um they might give you an excerpt from a letter from 1746 i made that europe i don't know but a letter that was written you know from a colonist or um at the time and it might say which principle in our current government was in response to the ideas in that letter if you know the content from these workshops you can answer those questions again they're all multiple choice so you can usually narrow down a couple of incorrect answers and you should be doing great so that you have completed the first hopefully the first two workshops there is one additional workshop workshop three goes over practice tests like this goes over a little bit more in detail about the answers to some questions because if you can know them when they're not in a multiple choice format you'll know the concept so when they ask the questions differently you'll be able to more easily answer them so you certainly would want to view the third workshop the last thing i will show you is if you want if you did not watch on the last video how to sign up for the civic literacy test go to www.fau.edu slash whoops i'm typing too fast testing when you go here register for your exams online you can click it here or register for your exam here i'll click it here this time lists all the different tests you register for civic literacy test gives you some information about the test the minimum score that you need is a 60. if you get a 62 on the test you have passed your 62 does not show up anywhere it just shows as requirement satisfied so don't stress about what your score is you just need to pass worst comes to worst if for some reason you had a bad day and you didn't pass it you can take it again even as early as the next day it is still free your failing grade doesn't show up anywhere so this is really nothing to worry about but a great thing to get done and get done quickly take the test soon after you've done the workshops while this information is fresh in your head it reminds you what you should and should not bring to the test definitely bring your id you don't need much of anything else it is computer-based it is actually through canvas so you're familiar with canvas through this workshop and your other classes they will log you in you will take the test there they will not allow you to bring in a hoodie a sweater gum food drink not even a bottle of water you can't have a watch on they're very strict no cell phones click on to schedule your exam you're going to choose the exam which is the civic literacy test you get to pick it twice it gives you a description it's 120 minutes long remember you do not have to stay the full 120 minutes as soon as you're done you can leave you do want to make sure you have your id with you you pick your date once you pick what date you'd like to take it you select what time you would like to take it you put in your information your name your z number your email agree to the guidelines add it to your cart and then you are going to make sure you submit it good luck and we'll see you at the third workshop thank you um uh just hold on one second you