Court Case Question Answers

Zenger v New York (Colony/British Governor), 1735 1. The amendment that later influenced this case was freedom of press which was one part of the first amendment. 2. He was famous for forming the first bank. 3. Her reports replaced Cosbys jury with a jury of Zengers peers. 4. Because this amendment gives us the right to publish our opinions and our views because their maybe no other way to get our views across to get what we believe in out.

Bethel School District v. Frasier, 1986-1st 1. Because they had to stop the kid because he was being inappropriate and because also some of the things he said were not true . 2. In the tinker case they wore armbands to express their views on the Vietnam war, but in the Fraser case it says that the first amendment cant stop the schools from determining what is appropriate and what isnt. 3. I think the court would of done the same because it is not appropriate and even though he wasnt on school grounds he still could of got in trouble because he told it to other kids and the parents could have complained. 4. The court said that adults get more freedom when it comes to the first amendment because they are opened to political speech. 5. I agree because it is inappropriate for kids to talk like that in front of an entire student body. Tinker V. Des Moines, 1969-1st 1. Wearing a armband to them somehow tells people their ideas of the war they are telling people why they are standing up to the cause. 2. Justice Fortass because he thinks that it is free speech and they should be aloud to wear them. 3. Because it really shoes people that you can go to court over anything you do I mean really its a wrist band. 4. It really gets you thinking about what people will think about what you wear and if it is a right choice to wear it or not, like will people be mad or not. 5. It wouldnt of even been that important to send to the supreme court because like I said before its just an armbeand. Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, 1988-1st 1. That educators are entitled to higher control over students expressions to assure that people learn what lessons the activity is designed to teach. 2. This case is part of the school curriculum. 3. he said that they acted like thought police 4. I would have reacted the same. I dont think it is very appropriate topic for kids to be talking about.

Texas v. Johnson, 1989-1st

1. Its the freedom to show yourself and what you believe in. The freedom to show people you. 2. He is implying that sometimes expressing your beliefs is offence to the society. And burning the flag is offensive to people. Engel v. Vitale, 1962-1st Primarily-also 14th 1. they said that letting the kids pray in school broke the boundaries between church and state. 2. I agree with justice stewart, because he as the first amendment states we have the right to religion, and also the right to free speech which should allow us to be able to pray in school or not. 3. they wernt allowed to have the prayer time at school anymore. 4. in my opinion no I do not think it does, because it has said that on our money since we first started making it and that would not be right to take it off. But also my opinion is biased because I am a Christian. 5. No, I think that we should be allowed those holidays off because those are important days in a major religion in this country. If they feel like this is unfair then we should get off for other religions holidays too. New Jersey v. T.L.O, 1985-4th 1. Unless the school knows for a fact that a person has something illegal they cant search a student without a warrant. 2. Because a police might not always be present and if they have a probable cause that the student is braking the law or school rules then they are allowed to search a students belongings 3. Yes, because he had a VERY probable cause to search because he had already seen her smoking which ment she had the cigarettes in her possession. And he was right to search her because she did end up have drugs, and proof she was selling drugs. 4. No unless the school has a very good reason and good evidence she they shouldnt be allowed to search a student. Its against the 4th amendment. 5. No, my opinion is that they should be aloud to search with a probable cause. Katz v. U.S., 1967-4th 1. I agree with justice stewart because I believe that you should be protected my the fourth amendment when on the phone you should have the privacy you need. 2. they could have listened out side of the phone booth. 3. because he told people about it. 4. yes because they police officer just happened to be their he wasnt recording or meaning to evesdrop. 5. he reads the constitution word for word and only thinks that what was stated is in there when really we have the 10th amendment that states we have rights that arnt stated. Mapp v. Ohio, 1961- 4th Primarily -also14th 1. because they didnt have the right to search for it so it doesnt count. 2. because its against the criminals rights as a American citizen. Why should they get in trouble for braking the law when the police broke the law finding their evidence? 3. lewd and lascivious books and pictures that was a violation of an Ohio statue. 4. that they broke the laws by illegally searching her house for illegal things. 5.yes, they shouldnt be able to brake the law like that and expect us citizens to still obey it! Miranda v. Arizona, 1966-5th

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963- 6th Primarily -also 14th 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Furman v. Georgia 1972-8th 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Gregg v. Georgia, 1976-8th 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Regents of the University of California vs. Bakke 1978-14th 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. In Re Gault, 1967-14th 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896-14th 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Brown v. Board of Education, 1954-14th 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Korematsu v. US 1944-Article I Article II 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Heart of Atlanta Model, Inc. v. United States 1964-Article I 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Marbury v. Madison 1803-Article III 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819-Article I Article VI 1.

2. 3. 4. 5. Gibbons v. Ogden , 1824-Article I Section 81. 2. 3. 4. 5. State v. Mann, 1830 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Leandro Case v. State of North Carolina 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenberg, 1969 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.