YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → FAU Civic Literacy Test Prep # 2

FAU Civic Literacy Test Prep # 2 — Transcript

by Doggington · 11,728 words · 1,853 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:05Hello. Welcome to Civic Literacy
0:07Workshop number two at Florida Atlantic
0:09University.
0:11My name is Dr. Jennifer Beivergal, and I
0:14am the Associate Dean for Retention and
0:16Academic Support here at Florida
0:18Atlantic University.
0:20I want to preface this workshop by
0:21saying I am not an attorney. I'm not a
0:24constitutional lawyer. I do not know
0:27um
0:28a significant amount of material about
0:30the constitutional Supreme landmark
0:32Supreme Court cases that we are about to
0:33cover. However, I am
0:36competent to be able to present these
0:38cases in a way that you can learn them
0:40to pass Civic Literacy exam. So, let's
0:42go ahead and get started.
0:44So, we're going to start today. Um we
0:46have about an hour together. We're going
0:48to review the Civic Literacy
0:49requirement, get a little bit of what
0:51you already know.
0:52Then we're going to review 22 landmark
0:55Supreme Court cases that you are very
0:57likely to see on your Civic Literacy
0:59test. Then you'll have an opportunity to
1:01take a practice test, and we'll see how
1:03you do.
1:04And then we'll give a reminder about our
1:06final workshop and how to sign up for
1:08the test.
1:11So, just briefly, the Civic Literacy
1:13requirement is something that is across
1:15all of the Florida State Universities
1:17and State Colleges in order to earn an
1:20Associate of Arts or a Bachelor's
1:21degree. There are multiple ways that you
1:24can earn this. Um you can take our
1:26Government of the US POS 2041 or US
1:29History since 1877
1:31AMH 2020 course.
1:33If you were uh when you were in high
1:35school, you could have passed sufficient
1:37scores on the AP test. We also have a
1:39club test, which is a college level
1:41examination for proficiency, uh which is
1:44about $100 on US Government. And if you
1:46pass that, you you satisfy the
1:48requirement. But the quickest and
1:50easiest and free way to complete this
1:53requirement is by taking the free Civic
1:56Literacy test offered through the FAU
1:58office for testing and evaluation. It is
2:00a 100 question exam.
2:03You only need to get 60% correct, so 60
2:05questions out of 100 in order to satisfy
2:08this requirement. And the workshops that
2:10you are currently participating in were
2:13designed to help you pass that test and
2:15satisfy this graduation requirement.
2:18The test is free to take like I said.
2:20You go to the FAU testing website
2:22fau.edu
2:24/testing and click on register for your
2:26exam. The test is offered Monday through
2:29Friday, every day that we are open,
2:32every hour from 9:00 to 2:00.
2:34It you do get 2 hours to take the test.
2:37However, you can leave as soon as you
2:38are finished and most students finish it
2:41in well under 1 hour.
2:43And you do get your scores as soon as
2:45you are done. So let's jump right into
2:47these 22 landmark Supreme Court cases.
2:50So I'm going to ask you to take a minute
2:52and look at your screen or if you've
2:53printed out the handouts already to take
2:56a look and see how many of these two 22
2:58cases you already know.
3:01Maybe there's some that you've heard of
3:03but you don't really know many details
3:05about.
3:06Maybe there's some that you do are
3:08familiar with.
3:10So kind of get a number in your head.
3:13If you're familiar with fewer than about
3:1615 of these, you are in the right place
3:17to listen to this workshop. So within
3:20the next hour, you will feel confident
3:23that you know the majority of these 22
3:25cases.
3:27So before we begin, if you have not
3:30already on the canvas site for this
3:33civic literacy practice course, you can
3:35download the practice test as well as
3:38you can download this PowerPoint. If you
3:40want to print out this PowerPoint and
3:42take notes on it as we're going through
3:44the cases, that might be most helpful
3:46for you. So you feel free to pause this
3:49recording and come back when you have
3:50printed uh the cases if you would like
3:52to do so.
3:54So, we're going to go through these
3:56cases. When we think about what the
3:58Supreme Court can rule on, remember the
4:00Supreme Court is one of the three uh
4:03branches of our government, and the
4:05Supreme Court only looks at cases to
4:07determine whether or not they are in
4:09violation of the Constitution. So, it
4:12might be a concept within the
4:14Constitution, or it may be questioning
4:17whether something violates an amendment
4:19to the Constitution.
4:21So, we are going I've aligned these
4:23slides based on the cases, based on the
4:26amendments that they follow, the
4:28concepts that they're following, and at
4:30the end we'll have a review by amendment
4:33and concept. So, the first case we're
4:35going to talk about is Dred Scott versus
4:37Sanford, and this was in the 1800s just
4:40before the Civil War. So, Dred Scott was
4:43a slave. He was a slave in a slave
4:46state.
4:47Um the in 1820, there was something
4:50called the Missouri Compromise. This you
4:52might find on the exam as well. The
4:54Missouri Compromise basically declared
4:56where free states were and where slave
4:58states were. So, anything south of a
5:00certain point was considered a slave
5:02state, anything west of a certain point,
5:05it determined whether or not you were
5:07going to be a in a free or slave area.
5:11Um so, in the 1800s,
5:15uh Dred Scott was a slave and his family
5:17his owners moved to
5:20uh what present-day Minnesota, which was
5:23a free slave.
5:24free state.
5:26Subsequently, his owner passed away,
5:28and he said, "Oh, my owner died. I'm in
5:31a free state.
5:33I'm a free man."
5:35The owner's widow
5:37uh was moving back to a slave state, and
5:40he says, "I'm not going. I'm not a
5:42slave." So, he petitioned the court, and
5:45the court found against him, found for
5:47the widow, that he was still a slave.
5:49This went to the Supreme Court. And when
5:51we say when we're looking at these
5:53cases, most of the cases start at a
5:55lower court, and it is only through an
5:57appeals process, by losing and then
5:59appealing and losing and appealing, that
6:01you get to the Supreme Court. There are
6:02a few exceptions, where it goes directly
6:04to the Supreme Court, and we'll talk
6:05about those cases. But in this case, it
6:07went to the Supreme Court. And the
6:10Supreme Court refused to even rule on
6:13this case.
6:15And it is because they said that
6:18this slave, Dred Scott, was not even
6:20considered a person. He was not a
6:22citizen of the state. He was not
6:24considered a He was property, not a
6:27citizen. So, they could not rule,
6:30because you rule on behalf of people,
6:32and they could not make a ruling for
6:33Dred Scott.
6:34I like to remember this, I think in
6:36modern standards, we think this is what
6:38is considered a dreadful ruling, to say
6:41that because this person was
6:42African-American, because he was a
6:44slave, he was not even considered a
6:46citizen or a person.
6:49When you see questions on the civic
6:50literacy test about this case, they
6:52might ask you about which case nullified
6:55the Missouri Compromise, or declared it
6:57unconstitutional,
6:59because this is basically saying the
7:01court the court is saying that Congress
7:03did not have the power to ban slavery at
7:06this time. So, it nullified the Missouri
7:09Compromise, saying
7:11that that wasn't constitutional, and it
7:13said that Dred Scott was not considered
7:15a citizen.
7:18Staying on this theme of slavery and
7:21race relations, we're going to move to
7:22Plessy versus Ferguson. Plessy versus
7:25Ferguson is the first of several 14th
7:27Amendment cases we're going to look at.
7:29So, if we remember in the 14th
7:30Amendment, we talked about this concept
7:33called uh equal protection. So, it is
7:36saying that the law is is equally
7:39protecting all people,
7:41no matter what their background is. So,
7:43in this case, race, right? So, in Plessy
7:46versus Ferguson, Homer Plessy, this was
7:48in 1890,
7:50Homer Plessy was 1/8 African-American.
7:55At the time in Louisiana, they had what
7:57they called the Louisiana Separate
7:59Railcar Act, which required that white
8:01passengers rode in the white car and
8:04non-white passengers rode in a non-white
8:07car.
8:08Being 1/8 white 1/8 black, Plessy uh
8:13uh
8:14sorry, Homer Plessy decided that he was
8:16going to purchase a first-class ticket
8:18in the white railcar.
8:19He got on the white railcar and was told
8:21no, he cannot ride in that car. He had
8:23to move to another car
8:25for non-white passengers. He refused to
8:28move and he was arrested and fined and
8:31placed in jail.
8:32He
8:33um
8:34fought his arrest and uh his case was
8:39when he lost his case, it went up
8:41through appeal to the Supreme Court. And
8:44the Supreme Court looked at his case and
8:46said that Homer Plessy did not have the
8:49right to ride in a white railcar, that
8:52the law was upheld, and racial
8:54segregation is constitutional
8:57under the separate but equal doctrine of
8:59the Constitution. So, basically,
9:01separate but equal says, "So, it's not
9:03like we said you can't ride in the
9:05railcar, you just had to go into a
9:07separate railcar that they considered to
9:09be equivalent to the white railcar." So,
9:12Plessy versus Ferguson in the 1890
9:15upheld racial segregation and said
9:17separate but equal is constitutional.
9:21Do you know which case overturned this
9:23idea of separate but equal?
9:27It's probably a case you may have heard
9:29of. Many of you may may have heard of
9:30it. Brown versus Board of Education. So,
9:33this was in the 1950s in Topeka, Kansas,
9:36and Linda Brown and her sister were
9:38young children, Uh black
9:40African-American children, and they had
9:42to go
9:43past a white school,
9:45through across railroad tracks, through
9:47a bad neighborhood, in order to get to
9:50their quote separate but equal school.
9:54So,
9:55the Brown family
9:57sued and petitioned the court to say,
9:59"We want Linda
10:01and her sister to go to this local
10:03school that was designated for white
10:05children."
10:06Court said, "No, separate but equal. You
10:09have your own school that you can go
10:11to." So, this case went all the way to
10:13the Supreme Court, and the court decided
10:16that state laws requiring separate but
10:18equal
10:19violated the equal protection clause of
10:21the 14th Amendment. Because really was
10:23it separate but equal? It was more
10:25dangerous for them to get there. It was
10:27further for them to get there. It was
10:29not really necessary.
10:31So, the Brown versus Board of Education
10:34is a landmark Supreme Court case that
10:36overturned Plessy versus Ferguson. It
10:39said separate is but equal is not okay.
10:41Separate but equal is unconstitutional,
10:44and it began the desegregation process
10:46of our schools.
10:49The next case that we're looking at also
10:51deals with 14th Amendment, but it is
10:53what we would
10:55some folks would say it was considered
10:56reverse discrimination. So, in the
10:59Regents of the University of California
11:01versus Bakke,
11:02um
11:04this was in the 1970s in California, and
11:07Allan Bakke was a white male who was
11:09applying to a medical school program at
11:12the University of California system.
11:14He was denied admission, and he
11:17petitioned the court saying, "I had
11:20equal, if not better, test scores, GPAs,
11:23academic credentials than these minority
11:26students that they are admitting."
11:28And the University of California, Davis
11:30did admit that they were considering
11:33race as they were trying to
11:35um offer more spots, make a more diverse
11:38school, make a more diverse medical
11:40school to provide more diverse
11:42opportunities for doctors, and in that
11:45they ended up
11:47um
11:48denying admission for an otherwise
11:51qualified individual. So, in this case,
11:54Allan Bakke was denied admission. He
11:56petitioned the court, and the case went
11:59all the way to the Supreme Court. The
12:01Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bakke,
12:04and this is something in higher
12:05education we look at this case very
12:07frequently.
12:08It says that in the process of
12:10admissions or in hiring practices that
12:14the use of strict racial quotas is not
12:17allowed.
12:18It doesn't say we can't use race at all.
12:20Race can be considered one of many
12:23factors in determining whether or not a
12:25candidate is admissible or is the
12:28correct candidate uh to hire for a
12:30position.
12:32So, it said racial quotas is not okay.
12:37Okay, the next case that we have, even
12:40even more recent, Bush versus Gore. So,
12:42this is dealing with the election in
12:442000, and this is dealing with right
12:46here in Florida, even in Palm Beach
12:48County. So, in the election during 2000,
12:53um the count in Florida the count in the
12:55country for who would become our next
12:57president, whether it was George Bush or
12:59Al Gore, was extremely close. On
13:02election night, usually they can
13:05determine who is going to have the most
13:07electoral votes and who is going to
13:08become our next president. However, we
13:10went to bed on election night this year
13:13at at this point and did not know who
13:15was going to be the next president. And
13:17they said, "It's going to come down to
13:18Florida, and whoever wins Florida is
13:20going to win the election."
13:23So,
13:25when it came down to the votes, and if
13:26you think of the millions of votes just
13:30votes just in the state of Florida, the
13:32millions upon millions of votes in the
13:34country, the difference in votes about
13:36who would become president came to under
13:392,000 votes in the state of Florida. So,
13:42Florida statute requires a mandatory
13:44recount of votes if it is less than 0.5%
13:48of a difference between the candidates.
13:50So, it went to a
13:51recount. So, the problem here was the
13:53recount process was different in each
13:56county. So, in some counties they were
13:59going they were able to machine feed the
14:01votes for account, in some they were
14:02hand counting to determine whether or
14:04not a person actually meant to vote for
14:06that person. So, Bush took this, and
14:09this is one of those cases that goes
14:11directly to the Supreme Court, right? We
14:13don't want to wait to define out who's
14:15going to come president by going to
14:16lower level courts, and it is a federal
14:19issue. So, this went directly to the
14:21Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court
14:24decided that because in Florida we were
14:26counting votes differently, the use of
14:28different standards to count votes
14:30violates the equal protection clause of
14:32the 14th Amendment. So, a note about the
14:35case Bush versus Gore. Um, this was a
14:37case that wasn't in the original study
14:39guides that I had looked at. Um,
14:42however, when folks have taken the test,
14:44it is often one of the options in the
14:47test. I have not seen this when I've
14:50taken the test, and I've taken it
14:51multiple times, as the correct answer. I
14:55have seen it as one of the answers, but
14:56I wanted you to have a sense of what the
14:58case is about in case you see it, and
15:00you can either decide that maybe it is
15:02the right answer for the test version
15:04you have, or that you can rule it out by
15:06knowing more about the case.
15:09So, that sums up our 14th Amendment
15:11cases. So, we started with Dred Scott,
15:13which wasn't even dealing with 14th
15:14Amendment because they didn't even rule
15:16on Dred Scott because he wasn't a
15:18citizen, and it reversed the Missouri
15:20Compromise. Then we went into our first
15:2214th Amendment case, which was Plessy
15:25versus Ferguson, which said separate but
15:27equal was okay. He can ride in the other
15:29rail car cuz it was separate but equal.
15:31Then Brown versus Board of Education
15:33overturned Plessy versus Ferguson and
15:36said separate but equal is not okay and
15:38it desegregated the schools. And then we
15:40looked at
15:42Regents of University of California
15:43versus Bakke, which said race can be
15:46considered in a decision a deciding
15:48factor in admissions or hiring
15:50practices, but it has to be one of many
15:52factors and you cannot have racial
15:54quotas. And then we looked at Bush
15:56versus Gore in the election and that the
15:59counting of votes needed to be done
16:01equivalently in order to protect 14th
16:04Amendment equal protection rights.
16:07So we're still on the theme of voting,
16:08but we're going to a new case and we're
16:10moving into our First Amendment cases.
16:12First Amendment has the most cases. I
16:14believe there are six out of the 22
16:15cases that deal with First Amendment.
16:18That first case we're looking at is
16:21Citizens United versus the Federal
16:23Election Commission. So this is even
16:25more of a recent case, only 10 years
16:27ago. In 2010, and it is a court case
16:30about campaign finance and showing of a
16:33video.
16:35So in this case,
16:37Hillary Clinton was ready to be in the
16:40Democratic primary in 2009, just before
16:43the primary election with Clinton and
16:45Barack Obama.
16:47And at the time, this interest group
16:50called Citizens United wanted to show a
16:52film and advertise that film just before
16:55the Democratic primary election that was
16:58very derogatory towards Hillary Clinton.
17:00So as you can imagine,
17:02Hillary Clinton's people and the
17:04Democratic Party felt that it would be
17:05very harmful for this to be shown. So
17:08they tried to stop it. So they called on
17:10some old law that said you can't show a
17:14film
17:15um
17:16too too close to a an election period.
17:20So, and the other piece they were
17:21looking at was who was funding this. So,
17:23Citizens United was funded by unions, by
17:27super wealthy people, and they were
17:29saying that who was funding the video
17:31and just the showing of the video both
17:33were a violation. So, this case went
17:35directly to the Supreme Court because it
17:37is dealing with a federal issue, and the
17:40court held that two things. One is
17:43freedom of speech, they can show the
17:45broadcast, they can air this critical
17:47film of Hillary Clinton, that they can't
17:50stop that just because it's too close to
17:52an election and would be harmful to the
17:53candidate. And also they said that
17:57um who contributes to a campaign or
17:59where campaign finance dollars come from
18:02is protected speech. You as an
18:04individual, myself as an individual, or
18:06corporation, or an organization has the
18:08right to put their federal uh their
18:10sorry their
18:12uh spending money however they want
18:14their campaign finance money however
18:16they want.
18:17Political spending is a form of
18:19protected speech under the First
18:20Amendment. So, Citizens United versus
18:23Federal Election Commission, you may
18:24hear it Citizens United versus FEC,
18:27which stands for Federal Election
18:28Commission, deals with First Amendment.
18:31You can spend your political spending
18:32however you want and they can't stop you
18:34from airing things during a political
18:36period.
18:38The next two cases we're going to deal
18:40with deal with prayer. So, you see and
18:43you'll see this in many of our slides,
18:45there's a little red kind of hint at the
18:47top of that slide. So, I'm going to have
18:50you take your two hands and make an
18:51upside down V.
18:54And hopefully they look to you sort of
18:55like prayer hands. Now, I understand we
18:57are in a public university and we are
18:59not allowed to pray, but I am teaching
19:01you tricks to help you pass the civic
19:03literacy test. So, this case Engel
19:06versus Vitale, we have a V in Vitale,
19:09and it deals with freedom of religion.
19:10The two cases that have these in them
19:13both deal with something related to
19:15prayer.
19:17So, if you remember from your
19:18amendments, the First Amendment deals
19:21with the free exercise clause, which is
19:24that everyone has the right to practice
19:26any they any religion they want or not
19:29at all.
19:30So, in this case in the 1960s in the New
19:32York schools, public schools, the school
19:35started with a non-denominational, which
19:36means non-religious based, not for a
19:38specific religion,
19:39prayer each day that was referencing
19:42God.
19:43So, Engel was a student at the school
19:47and did not want to participate in this
19:49prayer, felt it was a violation of the
19:50First Amendment. So, this case made it
19:53all the way up to the Supreme Court and
19:55the Supreme Court agreed that
19:57school-initiated prayer in the public
19:58school system is a violation of the
20:00First Amendment. We cannot require
20:02people to pray in our public arenas and
20:06in our public schools.
20:07So, when I have taken the test and I've
20:09taken the civic literacy test a number
20:11of times, this is probably the number
20:13one court case that comes up in the
20:15multiple choice responses. So, knowing
20:18Engel versus Vitale is really important.
20:20If you remember that upside-down V means
20:21prayer. Hopefully, you'll remember this
20:23case has something to do with freedom of
20:25religion.
20:27The second case, we have West Virginia.
20:30So, there's our V in Virginia. West
20:31Virginia State Board of Education versus
20:34Barnett. In this case, this was in the
20:361940s, the Barnetts were Jehovah's
20:39Witnesses. Jehovah's Witnesses typically
20:42do not um follow traditional religious
20:46beliefs. They are not going to be
20:48praying saying one nation under God,
20:51even saluting a flag would be considered
20:53We don't have a flag in here, do we? I
20:55usually do this presentation in a room
20:56with a flag, so I can point out the
20:57flag. But, they did not have to
21:00uh salute the flag and um but in the
21:03school
21:04at the time, the Barnetts were told,
21:06"You will say the Pledge of Allegiance,
21:07or you will be expelled. They refused to
21:10do this, were were being expelled for
21:12it, and the family took this case to
21:14court. After losing, they appealed, and
21:17the court the case went to the Supreme
21:20Court. And the courts agreed that the
21:23free speech clause of the First
21:24Amendment protect students from being
21:26forced to say the to pledge the flag, or
21:30to um say anything about God. So again,
21:33although this is dealing with the Pledge
21:35of Allegiance, it is the religious
21:36belief and the you know, um
21:38the symbolic symbolism behind praying to
21:41a flag.
21:42So V, we've got Engel versus Vitale and
21:45West Virginia State Board of Education
21:47versus Barnett. They both deal with
21:49prayer.
21:50The next two cases you see are going to
21:52have a T, so I encourage you to take
21:54your hands, just like we made prayer
21:56hands for Engel versus Vitale and West
21:58Virginia versus
21:59uh the Barnetts.
22:01T is our symbol, and we're dealing with
22:04symbolic speech. So in Texas versus
22:07Johnson, uh
22:09Gregory Lee Gregory Lee Johnson, this
22:11was back in the '80s under the Reagan
22:13administration during the Republican
22:15National Convention in um
22:18in Texas,
22:19uh Gregory Lee Gregory Lee Johnson did
22:22not agree with the things that were
22:24being said there, and he protested by
22:27taking an American flag, dousing it with
22:29kerosene, and setting it on fire.
22:31So no one was hurt. This would have
22:32changed if someone was injured in this,
22:34but no one was hurt. This was just his
22:36way of expressing his displeasure with
22:39what was going on in the country and
22:41what was being proposed through this
22:43political uh Republican National
22:45Convention.
22:46There was a law in
22:49uh the state of Texas that said you
22:50cannot burn a flag.
22:52So Johnson was arrested and charged with
22:55desecration of a venerated object in
22:57violation of Texas law.
22:59So the Supreme Court, this went all the
23:01way he he was in court, he fought, he
23:04lost, it went to the Supreme Court, and
23:06the Supreme Court said that Johnson's
23:08actions were considered symbolic speech,
23:11and is protected speech under the First
23:13Amendment. So, we remember T for Texas,
23:16and that is our symbol. We will keep
23:18that T symbol when we go to our next
23:20case, Tinker versus Demoin
23:23Sorry, Tinker versus Demoin. In this
23:25case, the Tinkers were students during
23:27the Vietnam War era.
23:29So, the Vietnam War era, Vietnam War was
23:31a very unpopular war. The Tinkers were
23:34in high school, and to show their
23:35displeasure of the war, they wore black
23:37armbands. That was their symbol. Just
23:39like in Texas versus Johnson, the symbol
23:41was the US flag, in this case, the black
23:44armband was a symbol of protest. So,
23:46imagine being in a school, and there are
23:48people protesting the war, wearing black
23:51armbands and such, and then there are
23:53students there who maybe their older
23:55brother just got killed in war, or
23:56teacher whose child just got sent off to
23:59war.
24:00It was a lot going on there. So, the
24:02administration said, "Nope, you cannot
24:04wear anything to protest the war in
24:06school."
24:07And they refused to not wear these
24:09armbands in protest, and they were
24:11subsequently suspended. So, this case
24:13went all the way to the Supreme Court,
24:15and the Tinkers said, "I have a right to
24:17wear these armbands." And the court
24:19agreed with them, and they said that
24:21these armbands are considered symbolic
24:23speech in protest of the war.
24:26Remember our T symbol? And no one
24:28expects students to shed their
24:29constitutional rights to freedom of
24:31speech or expression at the schoolhouse
24:33gate.
24:34So, this is really interesting. So, I
24:36highlighted this quote here, because we
24:38are going to look at a couple of cases
24:40where limits in the school system are a
24:43little bit less protected than in other
24:45areas. But here, in these two cases, so
24:49both in the two prayer cases, the two
24:51ones with the V angle versus Vitale, and
24:54West Virginia versus Barnett, remember
24:56it said, "Nope, we can't make them pray
24:58in schools." And in these two cases,
25:00Texas versus Johnson, Tinker versus Des
25:02Moines said, "Symbolic speech is
25:04protected speech."
25:06Now, we're going to move to a different
25:08case. So, this is Hazelwood versus
25:10Kuhlmeier. I put two H's at the top,
25:12hopefully to remember to help you
25:13remember Hazelwood High School.
25:16Hazelwood is the name of the high
25:17school. The principal of Hazelwood High
25:20School is the person who is in question
25:22here. So,
25:24in this case, there was in this high
25:26school, there was a student-run
25:27newspaper, and the students published
25:29content for the paper. The before it
25:32went to press, the school administration
25:35reviewed the content and felt that there
25:36were things in it that they did not feel
25:38were appropriate to be printed. So, they
25:40tried to pull the content, and the
25:42students in the school said, "Ho-ho,
25:44First Amendment, freedom of the press.
25:47We can put what we want in here."
25:49So, the school went all the way to the
25:52Supreme Court with this. The principals
25:55um
25:55said, "This is We don't This is too
25:57important. We don't want this
25:58information going out there."
26:00So, the Supreme Court agreed with the
26:03school principal and said that in a
26:05school setting, that there are for
26:08legitimate pedagogical, which means
26:11educational, concerns, there are
26:14the ability to limit speech in that way,
26:17to limit what goes out in press. So,
26:20basically, they were trying to protect
26:21the greater needs of the school over the
26:24rights of the individual. So, protecting
26:27the values of the school, protecting
26:29what minor other minors in the school
26:31would be reading, was more important
26:33than the right for that person to
26:35publish what they want. Now, in a higher
26:37education setting, in a university
26:38setting, where we're not dealing with
26:39minors, or out in the real world, there
26:42are very few limits to freedom of
26:44speech. Again, as long as it's not
26:46hurting others, right? You can't publish
26:47anything if it's going to be libel. So,
26:49in this case, Hazelwood versus
26:51Kuhlmeier, if you remember, Hazelwood
26:52High. In this case, it limited their
26:55freedom of speech that they could not
26:58put anything they wanted in the paper.
27:00The school administration had a right to
27:02censor some of that.
27:05Okay, that's it. That was six First
27:07Amendment cases. We are now moving on to
27:09Second Amendment. There's only one case
27:11dealing with Second Amendment.
27:12Hopefully, you can remember that because
27:14DC has two letters and we're dealing
27:16with Second Amendment. DC versus Heller.
27:19So, in this landmark Supreme Court case,
27:21um Heller was a citizen in the District
27:24of Columbia where they had a handgun ban
27:27and they restricted what when you did
27:30have arms, what arms you could have,
27:32right? No handguns. And how you could
27:35store them. So, you could have a rifle
27:37or a shotgun, but it had to be kept
27:39unloaded and disassembled or bound with
27:42a trigger lock. So, imagine if the
27:44purpose of the Second Amendment was for
27:47the protection, right? It's the right to
27:48bear to bear arms. If it was for the
27:51protection of the individual, imagine
27:53someone breaks into my home and I say,
27:55"Oh, excuse me a minute while I go and
27:58unlock my gun safe, take out my my
28:01firearm and assemble it before we have a
28:04confrontation."
28:05Not practical.
28:07So, Heller took this all the way to the
28:09Supreme Court and the Supreme Court did
28:12decide that this was not allowing for
28:15the Second Amendment right.
28:17That um the right to bear arms is not
28:20unlimited.
28:21That they will continue to regulate guns
28:24um gun use and gun ownership, but it did
28:27say that the individual's right to
28:29possess an a firearm said that they
28:31could have it where it would be
28:33accessible to them. So, it did find for
28:36Heller.
28:38We're moving now to Fourth Amendment.
28:39So, we have two cases dealing with
28:41Fourth Amendment. If you remember,
28:42Fourth Amendment deals with things like
28:44unusual search and seizure uh and
28:48having search warrants. So, in this
28:50case, we're hopefully going to remember
28:52Mapp has four letters, the way that the
28:54woman's name is spelled, M A P P. Ohio
28:57has four letters, and we're dealing with
28:59Fourth Amendment illegal search and
29:00seizure.
29:01So, in this case, they got a tip the
29:03police got a tip that Mrs. Mapp might be
29:06holding a person that was suspected in a
29:08bombing. So, they went to Mrs. Mapp's
29:09home and said, "We'd like to come in and
29:11search your home." She said, "Show me
29:13your search warrant." They said, "We
29:14don't have a search warrant." They said,
29:16"Come back later when you have a
29:17warrant."
29:18So, they left and they came back later.
29:20Pretending they had a search warrant,
29:22they kind of waved a paper in her face,
29:24they went into her home.
29:26During their search that was being
29:28conducted illegally because they did not
29:30have a proper search warrant, they
29:31actually found some pornographic
29:33materials, not relevant to even what
29:35they were looking for anyway,
29:37but they found a case with some
29:38pornographic materials. Ohio law
29:41was
29:42was against having possession of obscene
29:44materials. She was subsequently charged
29:47and convicted of a crime.
29:50So, her attorney said, "Well, you should
29:53not be able to use the materials that
29:54you found because it was an illegal
29:56search. So, you should not be able to
29:58use that to convict her."
29:59So, this went all the way to the Supreme
30:01Court, and the Supreme Court agreed with
30:03the attorney that evidence obtained
30:05through a search that was in violation
30:07of the Fourth Amendment, right? They
30:08went into her home without a proper
30:10search warrant, is inadmissable.
30:13So, they threw out the evidence, and she
30:15was subsequently not found guilty.
30:19Or her case was dismissed.
30:20The second case dealing with Fourth
30:22Amendment is New Jersey versus TLO. So,
30:26I put a little tip up there that
30:27initials is going to equal a minor. So,
30:29this is the only one of the 22 landmark
30:31Supreme Court cases that deals with
30:33initials. It is not the only case that
30:35deals with a minor. However, when
30:38someone sues someone else, it's either
30:40the name of the location, so in this
30:42example, New Jersey, or the person who
30:44is suing or being sued.
30:47Your full name will be used in that case
30:50with the exception if if a minor is
30:52involved, they have the right to redact
30:55the name and only use the initials. They
30:57didn't do that. Brown versus Board of
30:59Education, we know was Linda Brown was
31:00the minor. In West Virginia versus
31:03Barnett, we knew the Barnett uh I'm
31:05confusing my cases. Or we knew that they
31:08were minors. They doesn't we don't have
31:10to redact the names. But in this case,
31:12New Jersey versus TLO, they made the
31:14they took the option to use the
31:17initials, so we know it's a minor. In
31:18this case, it's Fourth Amendment. In New
31:20Jersey versus TLO, it is dealing with
31:23school privacy. Now, I don't want you to
31:24get confused. We did T dealt with
31:26symbolic speech. That is when the T is
31:28at the beginning of the case, Texas
31:30versus Johnson and Tinker versus Des
31:32Moines. In here, New Jersey versus TLO,
31:35we are not dealing with First Amendment,
31:36we're dealing with Fourth Amendment. So,
31:38TLO was a minor in her school, and she
31:41was accused of or suspected of smoking
31:45in the school bathroom.
31:47The school vice principal came up to her
31:50and said, "We think you were smoking in
31:52the bathroom. I want to search your
31:53backpack." She said, "Show me your
31:55search warrant." He says, "I don't have
31:56to show you my search warrant. Show me
31:58your backpack." He searched her backpack
32:00against her will and did find marijuana
32:03and some other cigarettes and other
32:05materials.
32:07So, her family took this to court and it
32:09went all the way to the Supreme Court
32:11saying they were saying they don't have
32:13a right, they couldn't use this evidence
32:15they found against me because it was an
32:17illegal search. And different from Mapp
32:19versus Ohio, where they said the
32:21evidence was thrown out because it was
32:22an illegal search, they said in this
32:24case that in a school setting that it
32:28did not violate violate the
32:30Constitution, there are more lenient
32:32standards for reasonableness in school
32:34searches. So, for some of you who may
32:37have come here from Florida or high
32:39schools in the United States, you
32:41probably know that your school
32:43administration has the right to search
32:45your backpack and your locker that those
32:47things are, you know, when you're on
32:50school property,
32:52they have the right to do those things.
32:54So, we now have two cases and only two
32:56cases where student rights are a little
32:59bit more limited where they're limiting
33:01our our
33:02Bill of Rights and our Amendment uh
33:04rights.
33:04So, that was in the First Amendment when
33:06we were dealing with Hazelwood versus
33:08Kuhlmeier, where the school had the
33:09ability to censor what was in the school
33:11newspaper, and for Fourth Amendment, New
33:13Jersey versus TLO, where the school has
33:15a right to do a search of a student's
33:18property.
33:20Okay, the next two cases are fun. We're
33:23going to make an up an M here for
33:25Miranda, Miranda versus Arizona. So,
33:29have you ever heard your Miranda rights?
33:31Hopefully never in person. Hopefully
33:33only cuz you watch lots of Law & Order
33:35and other crime shows like I do.
33:38So, if you are familiar with your
33:40Miranda rights, you know you have the
33:41right to remain silent, anything you say
33:44can and will be used against you, you
33:46have the right to an attorney. That came
33:48from this case, Miranda versus Arizona.
33:50So, this deals with both Fifth and Sixth
33:52Amendment. Fifth Amendment for
33:54self-incrimination, that's the part you
33:56have the right to remain silent, you
33:57don't have to incriminate yourself, you
33:59don't have to say anything that can make
34:00you seem guilty.
34:02Or Sixth Amendment, you have the right
34:03to an attorney.
34:04So, in this case, Miranda versus
34:06Arizona, Ernesto Miranda was arrested
34:09for as a suspect in a crime. They
34:12brought him into the police department
34:13and they started questioning him. They
34:15never told him any of his rights. They
34:17didn't tell him that he didn't have to
34:18talk, they didn't tell him he had the
34:20right to an attorney. So, he got in
34:22there, the police start asking him
34:23questions and he started spilling his
34:24guts and telling everything to the
34:27police officers.
34:28He admitted to the crime. So, later when
34:30he did get an attorney, the attorney
34:32probably did one of those oh god what
34:34did you do Ernesto and then said
34:37um he went and said you should not be
34:39able to use anything that my client said
34:41because he wasn't told his rights. He
34:43was later convicted of the crime and
34:47because he confessed to it and it went
34:50to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court
34:52agreed that the police had not taken the
34:54proper steps to make sure Miranda was
34:56aware of his rights. So that is why the
34:58Miranda law came into account, right?
35:01But we're going to take it one step
35:02further. So we have this M for Miranda.
35:05We're going to turn that M upside down
35:06to our second case which completes the
35:08Miranda right warning. So Wainwright. So
35:12in Gideon versus Wainwright and really
35:13the person's name was Gideon but we're
35:15going to cheat a little and use the W in
35:17Wainwright because it
35:18much cooler M to W than M to G. So in
35:21Gideon versus Wainwright, this is
35:23another very common
35:25case that you'll see when you're doing
35:27the Supreme Court case cases on the
35:30civic literacy test.
35:31In this case again, Gideon was arrested
35:36and he was told his rights. He was told
35:38you have the right to remain silent and
35:40you have the right to an attorney. And
35:42he said, "Okay, I want an attorney." But
35:44he was poor and was unable to afford an
35:46attorney. He said, "Well, what is what
35:49is my right to an attorney if I can't
35:52have you know have one cuz I'm poor,
35:53right? That's not equal protection. That
35:56is a total violation. It's saying that
35:58only the wealthy people can have this
36:00protection of the Constitution."
36:02So
36:04Gideon had no choice at the time so he
36:06had to service his own lawyer and he did
36:07a terrible job of it and he ended up
36:09going to prison. While he was in prison,
36:12he handwrote a petition to the court to
36:14the and it went to the US Supreme Court
36:17and they agreed to hear his case. The
36:19court unanimously agreed and ruled in
36:21Gideon's favor saying the Sixth
36:23Amendment which says a right to counsel
36:26or right to an attorney, requires courts
36:28provide attorneys for criminal
36:29defendants who cannot otherwise afford
36:31that attorney.
36:33So, that's why when you hear, and this
36:35is from Miranda, you have the right to
36:37remain silent, anything you say can and
36:38will be used against you, you have the
36:40right to an attorney. That's all from
36:42Miranda.
36:43If you cannot afford one, one will be
36:45provided for you, comes from Gideon
36:47versus Wainwright. That's this case. The
36:50way you may be see this on a
36:53test is also asking about the public
36:56defender's office. So, because of this
36:58case, which said that any criminal
37:01defendant who cannot afford an attorney,
37:03one must be provided for them, where are
37:06we going to get these attorneys? So,
37:08this was the start of the public
37:09defender's offices. So, pretty much all
37:12counties across the United States now
37:14have a division, an area within their
37:17court system of public defenders, and
37:19these are paid through the state to
37:21serve as counsel for people who cannot
37:24otherwise afford them. So, you if you
37:26see
37:27public defenders, you know you tie that
37:29to Gideon versus Wainwright.
37:32So, those are the cases that really deal
37:34with issues related to the amendments.
37:37Um now, we're going to get into
37:38concepts. So, Roe versus Wade, many of
37:41you may have heard of Roe v. Wade. So,
37:43Jane Roe was an unmarried woman. She was
37:46This was back in 1970. She lived in
37:48Texas and became pregnant.
37:50Um Texas law said it was
37:53illegal, it was a felony to have an
37:55abortion unless it was medically
37:57necessary.
37:59So, at the time, this was in the late
38:01'60s and the early '70s, when abortion
38:04was illegal except for medical medically
38:07necessary reasons throughout most of the
38:09country,
38:10people were going into back rooms and
38:12having abortions, and it was really not
38:14safe for them.
38:16So, Roe felt that this was unfair, that
38:19she had the right to decide what to do,
38:21and this went to probably one of the
38:23most controversial cases to date. Um
38:27this went to the Supreme Court, and the
38:29Supreme Court so what it did is it said
38:33no, it didn't legalize abortion, which
38:35is how some people said it. They
38:37basically said that no state can
38:40prohibit first trimester abortions. So,
38:43that means in the the first trimester,
38:45which is the first uh
38:48I'm
38:50I think you got my mouth right now. The
38:52first 12 weeks of president of your
38:54pregnancy, 12 to 13 weeks of pregnancy,
38:57that they cannot prevent abortions. No
39:00state can create a law that is
39:04superseding the federal law.
39:06So, it by all intents and purposes made
39:09abortion in the first trimester legal in
39:12every state. No state could go against
39:14the federal law.
39:16Okay, next case. Korematsu versus United
39:20States. Hopefully, you'll remember this
39:21cuz hopefully Korematsu sounds like an
39:23Asian-sounding or Japanese name to you.
39:26So, this was in 1941 after uh
39:29in 1941, the Japanese bombed Pearl
39:31Harbor.
39:32This was
39:33the very beginning of World War II.
39:36So, after Pearl Harbor was bombed,
39:38people in the United States were in
39:40panic mode, and if someone near them
39:43looked Japanese, they were afraid that
39:45they would bring harm.
39:47So, at the time, the United States
39:49created these internment camps and
39:51required that all Japanese American
39:53citizens move to these internment camps.
39:55It was a way for the US to make sure we
39:58knew what they were up to and could keep
40:00our citizens safe.
40:02Korematsu did not want to move to an
40:05internment camp and felt it was a
40:07violation of his um individual rights.
40:10So, he refused to go
40:12and was convicted of violating an
40:15executive order. So, this case went to
40:18the Supreme Court and
40:21the government said that we needed to
40:23create these internment camps to protect
40:25the people.
40:27Korematsu said this is a violation of my
40:29rights
40:30and the court actually agreed with the
40:34government and said that the need to
40:35protect the country was a greater
40:38priority than individual rights of
40:39Japanese and Japanese Americans. So,
40:41again, I am not a constitutional law
40:44person. I am not a political scientist,
40:47but to me I think that this case sets
40:49the
40:50expectation of things that are happening
40:51today in internment camps when we're
40:53separating immigrant families at the
40:55border and putting people in these camps
40:57or even
40:59things like racial profiling that
41:00happened after 9/11, after September
41:0311th in 2001, um anyone that looked like
41:06they could be from Middle Eastern
41:08descent may have been taken aside and
41:10questioned or had extra screening at an
41:12airport. And I think that this is the
41:14case that probably really allows that to
41:17continue to happen today.
41:20Okay, I think we only have four cases
41:22left, so hang in there with me.
41:24This case you will definitely see on
41:26your civic literacy test. I can almost
41:27guarantee it. It is very an important
41:30case and not that they all aren't, but
41:33it is one that you will common commonly
41:34see. Marbury versus Madison. So,
41:38just a quick history lesson of what was
41:39happening here. So, John Adams was our
41:42second president and he was leaving
41:44office. Thomas Jefferson was going to
41:45become our third president. They were
41:47from two totally different political
41:49parties.
41:50They did not like each other. So, before
41:52Adams left his presidency, he decided
41:55that he was going to um
41:57commission
41:59different about 12 different justices of
42:02the peace and other similar
42:05appointments.
42:06If you remember, when you make those
42:08appointments for federal offices and
42:09things like that, it has to get approved
42:11by the Senate. So, this got rushed
42:13through. It was the end of Adams'
42:15presidency. The Senate quickly approved
42:17these, and most of them were sworn into
42:19office before Adams left for his the end
42:22of his term. But, Marbury was one that
42:25was not able to be sworn in before
42:27Thomas Jefferson was sworn in as
42:29president.
42:30So,
42:32Jefferson's Secretary of State,
42:36Madison, needed to deliver the
42:38documentation to Marbury so that he
42:40would get sworn in. And Madison refused
42:44to do that.
42:46So, this went to the Supreme Court
42:48directly, and the Supreme Court looked
42:50at two concepts. One, they said the
42:52supremacy clause. Remember we talked
42:54about the Constitution Constitution is
42:56the supreme law of the land. The
42:58Constitution
43:00is the law because
43:02we at this time the the United States
43:05was new. We were wondering, "What is
43:06this Constitution? Is it just a bunch of
43:08ideas?"
43:09Or is it really law? So, in this case,
43:12they said the supremacy clause, this is
43:15the law of the land, and you must follow
43:17it, and these are the rules, and we must
43:18follow these rules.
43:20And this idea of judicial review, which
43:23said the Supreme Court was created to
43:26make to rule on these decisions.
43:29So, it says um in the Marbury versus
43:31Madison, they said you have to turn over
43:33the papers, but that wasn't the
43:34important piece of it. It did say that
43:36the Constitution is the supreme law of
43:38the land, not just a bunch of ideas, and
43:41that the Supreme Court has the right to
43:43review and rule on these different
43:45elements of the Constitution.
43:49The next one I don't have great ways to
43:51remember, but it is an important one
43:53that you'll see often, Gibbons versus
43:55Ogden. You might remember cuz Gibbons
43:58has two Bs, and it deals with two boats.
44:01So, this again, just a few years after
44:04the United States was formed and the
44:06Constitution was ratified.
44:09So now the federal government was trying
44:11to figure out how to get themselves set
44:12up, but so were the state governments
44:13and so was business and trade and
44:15commerce and everything happening in the
44:17states. So in New York, there was a
44:19steamboat company and they were actively
44:22involved in trade within New York and
44:24there was a steamboat company in that
44:26Ogden ran in New Jersey.
44:29So they were running in the waters
44:31between New York and New Jersey. So New
44:33York declared that their person had a
44:35monopoly
44:37over
44:38uh Gibbons had a monopoly over trade and
44:41commerce
44:42in the steamboat business.
44:44So he was ruling all the waters outside
44:46of New York. Well, Ogden came in and
44:48said, "Well, you can't decide that. This
44:50water is in between our states."
44:52So this went to the Supreme Court and
44:54the Supreme Court determined that within
44:57the Constitution there's a clause called
44:59the Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause
45:01of the Constitution allows the federal
45:03government the power to determine how
45:05interstate commerce is conducted. So New
45:08York can determine how trade is within
45:10their borders. New Jersey can determine
45:12how trade is within their borders, but
45:14when it comes to anything outside of the
45:16borders of the state, it falls under the
45:18auspices of the Constitution and the
45:21United States government. So Gibbons
45:24versus Ogden deals with Commerce Clause.
45:26You can remember boats. The commerce was
45:28conducted Commerce is trade trade by
45:30steamboat.
45:33Two left.
45:34Yep. Just checking. Okay, McCulloch
45:37versus Maryland. So I alluded to this
45:39case if you watched the video for the
45:40first uh workshop. So in McCulloch
45:43versus Maryland, when we set up the
45:45Constitution in 1787,
45:49our founding fathers tried to think of
45:51every scenario they could, but there was
45:53no way in 1787 they could think of
45:55everything and put everything into this
45:57one document that would be the future of
45:59our country. They didn't deal with
46:01technology in there, right? There's
46:03there was no
46:04cell phones, there were no computers,
46:07there were a lot of things they didn't
46:09necessarily have in there.
46:10So, in this case
46:13um right after the and this was
46:16uh back in the early 1800s
46:19um the US was setting up national banks.
46:21They said, "Okay, in our powers in the
46:24Constitution, we have the power to tax
46:27and we have the power to
46:29um
46:30print money.
46:32We have all of these powers, but we
46:33can't do these things properly without
46:35having a place to store and securely
46:38hold our money."
46:39So, they were creating national banks.
46:42Well, at the same time the states were
46:43trying to set up and do what they had to
46:45do. One of those things was to collect
46:47taxes.
46:48So, in Maryland, the federal government
46:51set up a bank, a federal bank in
46:53Maryland to be able to collect taxes,
46:55store money, get money to the citizens
46:58in Maryland and across the state.
47:01So, the people in Maryland said, "Okay,
47:03we're going to or the state government
47:04in Maryland said, "We're going to tax
47:06all of the businesses on our land."
47:08So, they brought a tax bill
47:11to James McCulloch, who was a branch
47:14employee at the federal bank.
47:16So, this a representative from the tax
47:18office from the state of Maryland
47:20brought McCulloch a tax bill and said,
47:21"You need to pay taxes cuz you have a
47:23business in Maryland." He said, "I'm not
47:26going to pay taxes. We're part of the US
47:28government."
47:29And they said, "Well, if you don't pay
47:30your taxes, you can't operate in
47:32Maryland." So, this went to the Supreme
47:34Court and the Supreme Court determined
47:36Congress has what we call implied
47:38powers. Remember we talked about things
47:40that are necessary and proper? Things
47:43the elastic clause, things that can
47:44stretch. So, things that are implied for
47:47them to do, things they have to do that
47:49are necessary and proper to carry out
47:50the business that is defined in the
47:52Constitution.
47:53So, court found that they have implied
47:55powers, broad power to implement the
47:58enumerated powers. Those are the powers
48:00that are spelled out in the
48:02Constitution. So, they were allowed to
48:04create a national bank even though the
48:06Constitution didn't explicitly say that
48:08they can create a bank, but it was
48:10necessary for them to do that. It was an
48:12implied power because they have the
48:14power to do other things that
48:16necessitated opening a bank. And that
48:19Maryland's taxing of that was
48:21unconstitutional cuz they couldn't cons-
48:23they couldn't uh tax the federal
48:25government.
48:27So, McCulloch versus Maryland is another
48:28one you are very likely to see on there.
48:30So, remembering implied powers. Not
48:33everything is spelled out and it deals
48:34with the bank employees.
48:36The last case, US versus Nixon, we also
48:38mentioned if you watched the video for
48:40the first workshop. And in this case,
48:43this was uh late 1960s, President Nixon
48:47was was obviously the president, and he
48:49was involved in some scandals that were
48:51going on. They found out that Nixon had
48:53some tape recordings that he had uh had
48:56in the Oval Office. And a sub- they
48:58asked him for the recordings. He refused
49:00to give them. So, a subpoena was issued.
49:02So, if any of you ever receive a
49:04subpoena, it is a court-ordered document
49:06that you must do what the subpoena says.
49:08So, you might get a subpoena that says
49:09you have to appear in court as a
49:11witness. You have no choice. You must do
49:13that. So, in this case, Nixon received a
49:15subpoena saying he had to turn over the
49:16tapes that were in his possession. And
49:19he refused to do so. He said that it
49:21would be bad for the country to do that.
49:23So, this went because again, this is a
49:26dealing with a president, it goes
49:27directly to the Supreme Court. There are
49:29no lower courts that would see that. And
49:31the court decided that he had to follow
49:34the subpoena. He had to turn over the
49:37evidence in the subpoena. No one is
49:39above the law. Even the president is
49:41bound by whatever is in the law.
49:44Executive privilege is not limitless.
49:46And the tapes were released. He then
49:48knew he was in trouble. They were going
49:50to follow through with impeachment
49:52hearings and criminal proceedings and he
49:54ended up resigning. So Nixon is the only
49:56president to resign. But if you see this
49:59question if you see US versus Nixon on
50:01the civic literacy test, it will most
50:03likely be asked in terms of what was the
50:05major finding of it and it is no one is
50:07above the law, which we also know as
50:10the rule of law.
50:13All right, that was 22 minutes and we
50:15are 50 minutes into this workshop.
50:17Sorry, 22 cases.
50:19I've been talking too long. 22 cases in
50:2150 minutes, not bad. So we're going to
50:23do a super quick review and then we're
50:25going to give you that test the post
50:27test to see how many of these cases you
50:29can answer correctly on a practice test.
50:33So remember we said there were six cases
50:35about First Amendment. This is going
50:36back about a half hour ago. So the first
50:38case Citizens United versus the Federal
50:41Election Commission or FEC. This was the
50:45Hillary Clinton during the Democratic
50:48National primaries and they she did not
50:50want some really inflammatory videos
50:53about her released. She tried to stop it
50:56saying it was too close to the primary
50:57and that the funding of these cases were
51:00inappropriate. Not that the cases the
51:02funding of the video was inappropriate.
51:04And the Supreme Court found that one, it
51:07is a violation of First Amendment to
51:09limit when they can show the video and
51:12who what what
51:14political dollars are spent is protected
51:17speech. That different unions, different
51:20individuals can different businesses can
51:22put their political spending however
51:24they choose. That is
51:25protected speech.
51:27Our next two cases you see on here both
51:29have V's. So hopefully you remember
51:31upside down V looks a little like prayer
51:33hands. Engel versus Vitale that said
51:36that they could not have that
51:37non-denominational prayer in the schools
51:40and West Virginia School Board of
51:42Education versus Barnett. That one said
51:44that they Jehovah's Witnesses they did
51:46not have to do the pledge of allegiance.
51:48They're requiring individuals to pledge
51:50allegiance was a violation of First
51:52Amendment um free exercise clause of the
51:56First Amendment.
51:57Hazelwood versus Kuhlmeier, that is the
51:59only First Amendment case that limited
52:01speech slightly. So, remember Hazelwood
52:03High,
52:04they had a school newspaper, the prince
52:06the assistant principal and principal
52:08wanted to limit what was being put out
52:10in the school paper, and the students
52:11cried, "No, that's censorship." And the
52:14courts ruled, "Nope, the school
52:15administration, because they're dealing
52:17with minors, does have the right to
52:19limit the speech if there is a truly
52:23valid pedagogical reason to do so."
52:26The next two cases we have are T's for
52:28symbolic speech, Texas versus Johnson.
52:31That was the flag burning, said that
52:33burning a flag, while it's not a great
52:34thing to do, as long as it doesn't
52:36physically harm someone, um it is
52:39protected symbolic speech. And Tinker
52:41versus Des Moines, remember they wore
52:43the black armbands during prote in
52:45protest of the Vietnam War, and those
52:48black armbands were considered protected
52:50speech.
52:52The next case,
52:54DC, two letters, DC versus Heller, we
52:56know is Second Amendment. That was the
52:58case where in the District of Columbia
53:00they had a handgun ban and said that
53:03Heller, or all residents, could keep uh
53:07their a firearm had to be locked up and
53:09disassembled or not loaded with
53:12ammunition. And he said, "Well, that
53:13how's that going to protect me?" And the
53:15courts agreed. And um although there are
53:18still limits, and they can still put
53:20limits on what on gun control, but it
53:23did allow them to keep their weapon as
53:25long as it was secured uh accessible.
53:29Fourth Amendment, we have two cases.
53:31Mapp, four letters, Ohio, four letters,
53:33so we know that was the one where they
53:35wanted to search her home. They didn't
53:36have a search warrant, they came back
53:38later with a fake search warrant, and
53:40the the later the court decided that
53:41anything they found during that search
53:44um was found illegally and all it was
53:46all of it was thrown out. New Jersey
53:48versus TLO was the second case that
53:50dealt with something in the school where
53:52they limited protections for the
53:54student. So this was where they searched
53:56the girl's locker or her backpack and
53:58they found marijuana and cigarettes. Um
54:01and they said that searches in schools
54:03do not have to they're lenient more
54:05lenient standards for searches in
54:06schools. The schools don't have to abide
54:08by such a high level of having a warrant
54:11and probable cause and all that.
54:14Fifth and Sixth Amendment, Miranda
54:16versus Arizona. So that was the you have
54:19the right to remain silent, anything you
54:20say can and will be used against you,
54:22and you have the right to an attorney.
54:24Gideon versus Wainwright added, if you
54:26cannot afford one, one will be provided
54:28for you. And remember because they
54:30couldn't afford an attorney, that
54:32created the beginning of the
54:34um
54:35public defender's office.
54:38I'm almost done. 13th and 14th
54:40Amendment. So slaves were freed, right,
54:43by the 13th Amendment, and then the 14th
54:45Amendment tried to create things to make
54:47up for slavery, to make things more
54:50equal. So Plessy versus Ferguson, that
54:52was Homer Plessy was had to ride in a
54:54separate rail car cuz he was 1/8 black.
54:57And the court found separate but equal
54:59is okay. That was overturned Brown
55:01versus Board of Education. Remember the
55:03brown girls had to walk through a
55:05dangerous area past a white school to go
55:07to an all black school. And the court
55:10overturned Plessy versus Ferguson said
55:12separate but equal is not okay. That she
55:15they Browns were able to go to the white
55:17school and it ended it started the
55:20beginning of desegregation. Regents of
55:22the University of California versus
55:24Bakke, remember equal protection um
55:28dealing with race and admissions. So
55:29that was the one that said race can be
55:31used as one of many factors for both
55:34admissions or hiring, but it cannot be
55:36used as a primary factor.
55:39And some other cases that dealt with
55:40concepts, not necessarily amendments,
55:42um Dred Scott versus Sandford Sandford,
55:45remember
55:46uh Dred Scott's owner died, he was a
55:48slave and he they moved to a free slave
55:50state, he wanted to be free. The court
55:52would not even rule on it. It was
55:53dreadful because they said he wasn't
55:56even a citizen, so they couldn't make a
55:57ruling.
55:59Gibbons versus Ogden, two Bs, two boats,
56:02right? The Commerce Clause. So, Gibbons
56:04versus Ogden, they had the steamboats in
56:06New York and New Jersey and they said
56:08the federal government said, "We have
56:10the right based on the Commerce Clause
56:11in the Constitution that we can regulate
56:14trade between states."
56:16Korematsu versus US dealt with the
56:17Japanese relocation after the bombing of
56:20Pearl Harbor and said that the Japanese
56:22internment camps were uh legal because
56:25the protection of the whole of the US
56:27population was more important than the
56:29rights of the individual.
56:31Marbury versus Madison, remember Adams
56:33leaving the presidency, Jefferson coming
56:35into the presidency, Madison was holding
56:37back the papers to allow Marbury to uh
56:40take office.
56:42And it the court said one, that we have
56:44the right to review this and make
56:45decisions, that's called judicial
56:47review, and that the con- you have to
56:49abide by the Constitution, the
56:50Constitution is the supreme law of the
56:52land.
56:53McCulloch versus Maryland, that was the
56:56banks. So, because the Constitution says
56:59that we can print money, because the
57:01Constitution says we can collect taxes,
57:03an implied power is we can also create
57:05banks. So, the state of Maryland was not
57:07able to tax us for creating a national
57:10bank in Maryland.
57:12Roe v. Wade, the federal government said
57:15that no state could have a contradictory
57:19um law that prohibited first-trimester
57:22abortions. And finally, US versus Nixon,
57:25no one is above the law, the rule of
57:27law.
57:28All right. So, So this point, there is a
57:31practice test. I'm going to ask you
57:34I'm going to switch over to our doc cam.
57:37I'm going to ask you if you have already
57:39printed out um to
57:42give yourself a few minutes to take this
57:44practice test on the landmark Supreme
57:45Court cases. There are only 16
57:47questions. You can pause this video and
57:50come back. As soon as you are done, we
57:52will go over the answers, sum up, and uh
57:56we'll be finished with the second
57:57workshop. So I'll see you in a few
57:58minutes.
58:02Okay, hopefully you've taken your time
58:05and completed the quiz that you aren't
58:07just waiting for me to give you the
58:08answers.
58:09But we'll go ahead and go over the
58:10answers to the landmark Supreme Court
58:12case quiz.
58:13Question one. This case established the
58:15policy of judicial review.
58:17We just spoke about that. The answer is
58:20Marbury versus Madison. So when you see
58:22these multiple choice questions, if
58:25there is a case we did not go over, it
58:28is very unlikely it is the correct
58:30answer. So in this case you see Morse
58:32versus Frederick, that is a true case.
58:34It is not the correct answer here. We
58:36did not go over it, so it is unlikely if
58:38you see that case that it will be this
58:40the correct one. Same with the next
58:42question, Bethel School District versus
58:43Fraser,
58:44real case, we didn't go over it. So
58:46hopefully through process of
58:47elimination, even if you're not sure,
58:49you can eliminate the ones that you
58:50think that you know are not the right
58:52answer.
58:53This case ended segregation in public
58:55schools.
58:57Brown versus Board of Education.
59:00Question three. This case advocated free
59:02speech in the schools in the form of an
59:03anti-war protest. Correct answer,
59:06remember T is our symbol. Our symbol was
59:09the black armband. It's Tinker versus
59:11Des Moines.
59:13Question four. This case guaranteed
59:15certain rights for individuals being
59:17arrested. Out of the choices given, D,
59:20Miranda versus Arizona would be the
59:21correct answer. If that wasn't a choice
59:25there, but Gideon versus Wainwright was
59:27an answer. That could be the correct
59:28answer.
59:30Question five, this decision allowed for
59:32women to have abortions at least in the
59:34first trimester. Answer is A, Roe v.
59:37Wade.
59:39Question six, in Plessy versus Ferguson,
59:41the Supreme Court ruled that segregation
59:44was Remember Plessy versus Ferguson was
59:46the first one said that was the rail car
59:48act that
59:50that segregation is legal as long as the
59:53facilities are equal. That is C. In
59:56which case overturned it?
59:58That would be Brown versus Board of
1:00:00Education that separate but equal was
1:00:02not okay. It's not constitutional.
1:00:05Question seven, this case determined
1:00:06flag burning is protected by free
1:00:08speech. So we remember again our free
1:00:10speech, our symbol is a T.
1:00:13My T here.
1:00:14Um Texas versus Johnson. In Texas versus
1:00:17Johnson
1:00:18he burned the flag and while it's not a
1:00:20lovely thing to do, it is protected
1:00:22speech.
1:00:23Question eight, this case determined
1:00:25public prayer and Bible readings in
1:00:27school violates the first amendment.
1:00:30That's our prayer hands, Engel versus
1:00:32Vitale.
1:00:36Question eight. Oh, nine, sorry.
1:00:40This case determined schools only need
1:00:42reasonable suspicion, not a warrant to
1:00:44search students as a necessary step to
1:00:46provide a safe learning environment. We
1:00:48remember we were dealing with minors
1:00:49here, so we have the initials New Jersey
1:00:51versus TLO. D is the correct answer.
1:00:54Question 10, this case the court ruled
1:00:56the policy of using quotas or
1:00:58predetermined number based on race or
1:01:00gender as part of affirmative action in
1:01:02hiring or admission practices is
1:01:04unconstitutional. That's A, Regents of
1:01:07the University of California versus
1:01:08Bakke.
1:01:10Question 11, during World War II, the
1:01:12Supreme Court ruled that relocation of
1:01:14Japanese-American citizens to internment
1:01:16camps was constitutional.
1:01:18In which case? Korematsu versus USA.
1:01:23Question 12. This 1857 ruling declared
1:01:26slaves are property and not citizens and
1:01:28it nullified the Missouri Compromise of
1:01:301820. That's A, Dred Scott versus
1:01:33Sanford.
1:01:34Question 13. In Tinker versus Des
1:01:36Moines, the Tinkers were suspended from
1:01:38school for wearing black armbands. B,
1:01:41that is their protected speech.
1:01:44Question 14. Which lessons did future US
1:01:47leaders learn from 1974 Supreme Court
1:01:50case US versus Nixon?
1:01:52The president is accountable for obeying
1:01:55laws, right? No one is above the law.
1:01:58Yes, even the president has to obey the
1:02:00law.
1:02:01Question 15. States must pay for public
1:02:04defenders as a result of which US
1:02:06Supreme Court case?
1:02:07The correct answer for that, Gideon
1:02:09versus Wainwright. So, remember
1:02:12you have the right to attorney if one
1:02:13cannot be provided, it will be provided
1:02:15for if you cannot afford attorney, it
1:02:16will be provided for you.
1:02:18Uh that created the public defenders
1:02:20office.
1:02:21Question 16. Evidence that is illegally
1:02:24obtained by the state may not be used
1:02:25against a defendant in court based on
1:02:28which case?
1:02:30So, remember the illegal search and
1:02:32seizure? That's from
1:02:34uh a met the fourth amendment, amend
1:02:37amendment four. Mapp has four letters,
1:02:40Ohio has four letters. So, the correct
1:02:42answer is C, Mapp v. Ohio.
1:02:44All right, so that is 16 questions. So,
1:02:46how did you do?
1:02:48If you did
1:02:50If you got at least
1:02:52uh nine of them right, you are at 60%
1:02:55and will easily pass
1:02:56that portion of your civic literacy
1:02:58test. So, congratulations. Couple of um
1:03:02tips for test taking. Um so, ways that
1:03:05you may see these So, some of them will
1:03:07be straightforward. It might say, "Which
1:03:10amendment did this case deal with?" So,
1:03:12it might show
1:03:14um
1:03:15Mapp v. Ohio and say, "Which amendment
1:03:18was the primary amendment that this case
1:03:19dealt with and you should know that it's
1:03:20Fourth Amendment illegal search and
1:03:22seizure seizure. Or um
1:03:26Hazelwood versus Kuhlmeier, what
1:03:28amendment did that deal with? It was
1:03:29First Amendment protected speech. Tinker
1:03:31versus Des Moines, First Amendment free
1:03:33speech. Engel versus Vitale, First
1:03:35Amendment. So, knowing what the case is,
1:03:38what amendment it deals with, but you
1:03:40may also see things um I mentioned the
1:03:42last workshop where they'll give a
1:03:44synopsis of the case we didn't go over
1:03:46and ask you what concept it ties to,
1:03:49what, you know, ideal it's tying to,
1:03:52what amendment it's tying to. So, just
1:03:54read carefully. A lot of times if you
1:03:55read things, you'll know.
1:03:58Um they might give you an excerpt from a
1:04:00letter from 1746.
1:04:03I made that year up, I don't know. But,
1:04:05a letter that was written, you know,
1:04:07from a a colonist or um at the time. And
1:04:12it might say which principle in our
1:04:14current government was in response to
1:04:16the ideas in that letter. If you know
1:04:19the content from these workshops, you
1:04:20can answer those questions. Again,
1:04:22they're all multiple choice, so you can
1:04:24usually narrow down a couple of
1:04:25incorrect answers and you should be
1:04:27doing great.
1:04:28So, that you have completed the first
1:04:31hopefully first two workshops. There is
1:04:32one additional workshop, workshop three,
1:04:34goes over practice tests like this, goes
1:04:37over a little bit more in detail about
1:04:39the answers to some questions. Because
1:04:41if you can know them when they're not in
1:04:43a multiple choice format, you'll know
1:04:45the concepts, so when they ask the
1:04:46questions differently, you'll be able to
1:04:48more easily answer them.
1:04:51Um so, you certainly would want to view
1:04:53the third workshop. The last thing I
1:04:55will show you is if you want if you did
1:04:57not watch on the last video, how to sign
1:04:59up for the Civic Literacy Test. Go to
1:05:01www.fau.edu/
1:05:04whoops, I'm
1:05:06typing too fast, testing. When you go
1:05:08here,
1:05:10register for your exams online, you can
1:05:11click it here or register for your exam
1:05:14here. I'll click it here this time.
1:05:17Lists all the different tests. You
1:05:19register for civic literacy test.
1:05:22Gives you some information about the
1:05:23test. The minimum score that you need is
1:05:25a 60. If you get a 62 on the test, you
1:05:28have passed. Your 62 does not show up
1:05:30anywhere. It just shows as requirement
1:05:33satisfied. So, don't stress about what
1:05:36your score is. You just need to pass.
1:05:38Worse comes to worse, if for some reason
1:05:40you had a bad day and you didn't pass
1:05:42it, you can take it again even as early
1:05:44as the next day. It is still free. Your
1:05:46failing grade doesn't show up anywhere.
1:05:49So, this is really nothing to worry
1:05:51about, but a great thing to get done and
1:05:52get done quickly. Take the test soon
1:05:55after you've done the workshops while
1:05:57this information is fresh fresh in your
1:05:59head. It reminds you what you should and
1:06:01should not bring to the test. Definitely
1:06:03bring your ID. You don't need much of
1:06:05anything else. It is computer-based. It
1:06:07is actually through Canvas, so you're
1:06:08familiar with Canvas through this
1:06:10workshop and your other classes. They
1:06:12will log you in. You will take the test
1:06:14there. They will not allow you to bring
1:06:16in a hoodie, a sweater, gum, food,
1:06:19drink, not even a bottle of water. You
1:06:21can't have a watch on. They're very
1:06:23strict. No cellphones.
1:06:25Click on to schedule your exam. You're
1:06:28going to choose the exam, which is the
1:06:30civic literacy test. You get to pick it
1:06:32twice.
1:06:33It gives you a description. It's 120
1:06:35minutes long. Remember, you do not have
1:06:36to stay the full 120 minutes. As soon as
1:06:38you're done, you can leave.
1:06:40You do want to make sure you have your
1:06:42ID with you. You pick your date.
1:06:45Once you pick what date you'd like to
1:06:46take it, you select what time you would
1:06:48like to take it. You put in your
1:06:50information, your name, your Z number,
1:06:51your email. Agree to the guidelines.
1:06:56Add it to your cart, and then you are
1:06:58going to make sure you submit it.
1:07:00Good luck, and we'll see you at the
1:07:01third workshop. Thank you.
1:07:47Hello.
1:07:50Who is this calling?
1:07:54Yes, can you uh just hold on 1 second.
1:10:04Mhm.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of FAU Civic Literacy Test Prep # 2 by Doggington, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 11,728 words across 1,853 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.