1. A Supreme Court that demonstrates a willingness to change public policy and alter judicial precedent is said to be engaging in
a) judicial activism
b) due process
c) judicial restraint
d) ex post facto lawmaking
e) judicial review

The correct answer is (A) judicial activism because it means that judicial rulings are based upon the judge's personal opinion on what should happen for society (loosely interpret the Constitution).

2. A writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court indicates that the Court

a) Will review a lower decision

b) Has rendered a decision on a case

c) Has decided not to hear an appeal

d) Will recess until the end of the calendar year

e) Plans to overturn one of its previous rulings

The correct answer is (A) that the court will review a lower decision because in Latin, "certiorari" means "to be informed of, or to be made certain in regard to" and in regards to a court of law means that the Supreme Court will re-examine a court previously heard in an appellate or district court.

3. The Supreme Court holds original jurisdiction in all of the following types of cases EXCEPT

a) If the United States is a party in the case

b) In controversies in criminal law between a citizen and a state

c) In controversies under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties

d) if a case is between citizens of different states

e) If cases arise under admirality and maritime laws

The correct answer is (B) that the Supreme Court does not hold original jurisdiction in controversies in criminal law between a citizen and a state. All of the above are specifically listed powers of the US Supreme Court except for answer B.

4. All of the following are specifically mentioned in the Constitution EXCEPT

a) judicial review

b) the national census

c) rules of impeachment

d) the State of the Union address

e) length of term if federal judgeships

The correct answer is (A) judicial review because all of the other options are, in fact, listed specifically in the Constitution.

5. Which of the following correctly states the relationship between the federal and state judiciaries?

a) Federal courts are higher courts than state courts and may overturn state decisions on any grounds.

b)The two are entirely autonomous, and neither ever hears cases that originate in the other.

c) The two are generally autonomous, although federal courts may rule on the constitutionality of state court decisions.

d) State courts are trial courts; federal courts are appeals courts.

e) State courts try all cases except those that involve conflicts between two states, which are tried in federal courts.

The correct answer is (C) that the two are generally autonomous, although federal courts may rule on the constitutionality of state court decisions. This is because only federal courts have the power to try cases regarding constitutionality, state courts do not.

6. The Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona was based mainly on the

a) Constitutional prohibition of ex post facto laws

b) Incorporation of the Fifth Amendment through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

c) Eighth Amendment restriction against cruel and unusual punishment

d) Abolition of slavery by the Fourteenth Amendment

e) full faith and credit clause of the Constitution

The correct answer is (B) that the Supreme Court's decision in Miranda v. Arizona was based mainly on the incorporation of the 5th Amendment through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. The court was brought upon the basis of whether or not the police practice of interrogating individuals without notifiying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination violates the Fifth Amendment (it was found that it does violate the 5th Amendment).

7. The Supreme Court has used the practice of selective incorporation to

a) Limit the number of appeals filed by defendants in state courts

b) Extend voting rights to racial minorities and women
c) apply most Bill of Rights protections to state law

d) Hasten the integration of public schools

e) Prevent the states from calling a constitutional convention

The correct answer is (C) that the Supreme Court has used selective incorporation to apply most Bill of Rights protections to state law. Selective incorporation is a theory that means the rights guaranteed by the first 8 amendments (Bill of Rights) to the U.S. Constitution that are fundamental to and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty are incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause.

8. Which of the following cases extended the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures to the states?

a) Gideon v. Wainwright

b) Schneck v. United States
c) Miranda v. Arizona

d) Mapp v. Ohio

e) Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States

The correct answer is (D) that the court case Mapp v. Ohio extended the 4th Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures to the states. The whole case was based upon whether or not confiscated materials gathered after an illegal police search were protected by the 1st Amendment and whether evidence obtained through a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment can be admitted in a state criminal proceeding.         
                                   

9. Which of the following is true of court cases in which one private party is suing another?

A) They are tried in civil court

B) The federal court system has exclusive jurisdiction over them

C) They are tried in criminal court

D) The state court system has exclusive jurisdiction over them.

E) They are tried before a grand jury.

The correct answer is (A) that court cases in which one private party is suing another are tried in a civil court. Civil courts only try cases between two (citizen) parties, and criminal courts try cases regarding the United States as a party. 

10. Which of the following is an accurate statement about the federal court system?

a) The creation of new federal courts requires a constitutional amendment

b) The creation of new federal courts requires the unanimous consent of all 50 states

c) The Supreme Court has the sole power to create new federal courts.

d) Congress had the power to create new federal courts

e) The number of federal courts if fixed by the Constitution and cannot be changed.

The correct answer is (D) that Congress has the power to create new federal courts. There is not a fixed amount of federal courts according to the Constitution, however a new federal court needs Congressional approval.

Blog #4: Pick 3 cases from the previous list. For each case:

- Explain the holding and majority opinion (and notable dissent)

- Explain what judicial philosophy is reflected

- Evaluate the context of the decision with the framework of your own beliefs (e.g. if you select Roe v. Wade, explain your postition on abortion).

Plessy v. Ferguson
- This case established that Louisiana's law mandating racial segregation on its trains is, in fact, within constitutional boundaries based upon the separate-but-equal doctrine. As long as the two different facilities are actually equal, it satisfies the Fourteenth Amendment. This case won with a 7 to 1 vote. The one opposing vote would most likely argue that segregation in itself constitutes unlawful discrimination and that separate is not equal.
- The judges in this court case are basically "tip toeing" around the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment establishes citizen rights and equal protection of everyone's natural rights. By saying that everything is separate but equal, it technically abides by this amendment, but a lot of people would probably disagree. Does separate really allow a person life and liberty?
- Personally, I do not believe that separate is equal. Regardless of whether both sides are being offered the same opportunities, the fact that it is segregated makes it not equal. There is no reason to have different trains just based upon the color of your skin; that is inefficient and unnecessary. I'm also not sure that this really satisfies the Fourteenth Amendment very well as it was ruled in this case.

Brown v. Board I
- This case established that the segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race does deprive the minority children of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th amendment. It was widely agreed -- with a 9 to 0 unanimous vote -- that "separate but equal" is inherently unequal in the context of public education.
- The judges in this court case are strictly interpreting and following what is stated in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. Unlike in Plessy v. Ferguson, this case was (rightfully) ruled that separate but equal does not ensure equal protection of everyone's natural rights, which is what's directly stated in the Constitution. 
- Personally, I completely agree with the outcome of this case. Separate education is most certainly not equal and does get interpreted as a sign of inferiority towards the minority children. Part of what makes education today so successful is the interaction between students of different backgrounds, and without that, I believe that public education would not be nearly as effective. 

Roe v. Wade
- This case established that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The decision gave a woman total control over her pregnancy during the first trimester and defined different levels of state interest for the second and third trimesters. This case won with a 7 to 2 vote. The opposing side to this case would most likely argue that abortion is murder and no woman should be given the right to kill their own child before it even has a chance to live. They would also state that the right to abortion doesn't abide with the 14th Amendment and that there is no constitutional basis to do so.
- The judges in this court case are interpreting the Constitution pretty directly in regards to the 14th Amendment and the protection of a citizen's rights and privacy. They made a ruling not based off of personal or moral opinions, but on whether or not that right is listed in the Constitution (which it is). 
- Personally, I do agree with the outcome of this case. Although a person may be morally against the concept of abortion, you have to agree that the right to abortion most certainly satisfies the Fourteenth Amendment. Sure, it would be nice if everyone could keep their babies alive, but if the circumstances are not correct to bear a child, a women should most definitely have a choice to keep it or terminate it. 

Refer to the cartoon posted here. Identify the point of view of the cartoonist. Do you agree or disagree with it? Explain your position, using Supreme Court cases to illustrate your argument.

"Do you ever have one of those days when everything seems unconstitutional?"

The cartoonist of this picture definitely has a negative opinion on the Supreme Court's authority to declare things unconstitutional in a court of law. This cartoon is basically saying that the Supreme Court's powers and decisions are not always justified, and on any given day they can decide whatever they're feeling in regards to constitutionality. In essence, they don't necessarily follow guidelines on whether or not something is constitutional, they just go off of what they personally feel (which is not how it should be). On some levels I do agree with this cartoon, because it really does depend on how they're feeling that day, but at the same time that is their job and they were chosen to do it for a reason, so they must know what they're doing. For example, in the first court case of Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the segregation of public schools was ruled unconstitutional. In the point of view of this cartoonist, the outcome may have been different depending on how the judges were feeling that day. It could have been ruled indeed constitutional and there wouldn't have been Brown v. Board of Education II or III and not as much progress would have been made in the fight against segregation; all because the judges were feeling a certain way that day. In the future, it would definitely be reassuring to know that court decisions are not made off of personal biases so that everything has an equal chance when it comes to constitutionality, but that can never be guaranteed. 

What are the judicial powers of the US Supreme Court and where does this power come from (specific documents)?

The judicial powers of the US Supreme Court include being able to declare things unconstitutional, hear cases that involve the US as a party, cases affecting ambassadors or other public ministers, cases between different states or citizens of different states, cases of maritime or admiralty jurisdiction, cases in which citizens are claiming land that is under grants, and controversies between a state (or foreign state) and its citizens. All of the above powers are specifically listed under the Constitution in Article III, Section 2.

Hello! I'm Angelie and this is my AP Gov blog for the spring semester of 2014. Now, a little about myself... Competitive cheerleading is my LIFE, dance is pretty cool too, and I looooooove to sleep. I was actually absent when this whole blog assignment was given (I was in Palm Springs for a cheer competition and we won nbd) so I'm not completely sure as to why we're doing this... but I'll just go along with it. I think that this is an interesting assignment, but I'm not so sure that I want the general public reading my Gov homework on the daily. In the past, I've never had a real blog, I've just had a Tumblr where I simply reblogged other people's pictures; no genuine thought was actually put into it. I would hope that since this whole blog thing is a new experience, I'll be more inclined to want to do my homework everyday! I have a major case of senioritis (and I have had it since like Freshman year...) but I definitely think that doing a blog post a day is doable and something that I'll actually complete. I suppose this is all for now... Not too sure how to end this thing so I'll just say bye!