Study Guide Political Science Final Exam PDF

Preview

Summary

Instructions: the following is a guide to what will be tested on the third exam. It also represents yourongoing homework assignment. For this assignment, provide answers to the following questions andkey concepts, and write detailed outlines for the essays. You can abbreviate, and you don’t have tou...

Description

Instructions: the following is a guide to what will be tested on the third exam. It also represents your ongoing homework assignment. For this assignment, provide answers to the following questions and key concepts, and write detailed outlines for the essays. You can abbreviate, and you don’t have to use complete sentences to get full credit (20 points), but this must be typed. I recommend downloading this study guide and typing your answers in between the questions. Complete this a couple questions at a time, each day, as you watch each lecture video. The Judicial System and Criminal Justice: Terms: Plaintiff- The injured party in a civil case suing another person for injury who has to prove to a jury it’s more likely than not that the defendant is guilty Prosecutor- A representative of government (ex:District Attorney) who prosecutes defendants in criminal cases for violating some law Defendant- the person being accused/prosecuted in a criminal case or the person being accused for injuring plaintiff in civil case punitive damages- judges or jury may award extra damages and force you to pay something extra as punishment which is intended to send a message to the rest of society that this kind of behavior is inappropriate & people should think twice about doing the same thing. Punitive damages have become controversial in the past few decades bc they can often far exceed the actual cost of any accident or any harm or injury stare decisis- Latin for “let the decision stand”. The reason courts are reluctant to overturn a precedent bc they like to maintain & respect precedents and not overturn them unless absolutely necessary. There is a balancing act in politics of the court wanting stability in the law and not wanting to be seen as arbitrary that changes laws on a whim and the fact that we need to change older bad precedents. Precedent- a prior ruling that serves as a guide for all future cases about that same issue, application of principles from an old case to a new case. Ex: Brown vs Board overturned a precedent that was 60+ years old (Plessy vs Ferguson) which upheld separate but equal segregation policies. It took so long to overturn this precedent bc of stare decisis the Miranda warning- The typical warning states: You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions. Anything you say may be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future. Briefly explain the major differences between civil and criminal cases that we discussed in class. In a criminal case the state (gov’t) prosecutes you bc you’ve been accused of violating some law. The prosecutor is a representative of the gov’t (District Attorney) who has to prove to the jury that the defendant committed a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. If you lose you could go to jail, pay a fine, or both. In a civil case people sue each other, doesn’t have to involve breaking the law, and the state is not prosecuting anyone. People sue for injury, whether that is physical injury, injury to your reputation, or some other type of harm that another person or company or gov’t has caused you, and you sue them to win some type of reparation (repayment for injury you suffered). The plaintiff (injured party) has to prove to a jury it’s more likely than not that the defendant is guilty. If you lose you must pay back damages, no jail time.

How do the following sources of law differ: statutory, common, constitutional, & administrative (i.e. executive orders and policies)? Which ones are easier/harder to change? Statutory law includes any law passed by a legislature. In order to get rid of or change a statute you have to pass a new law by getting a majority of the house & senate, plus president to sign the bill. Easier than amending the constitution, but still not easy. Common law (judge-made law): made by precedent. When a court issues a significant ruling such as (brown vs board or roe vs wade) that ruling becomes a precedent that serves as a guide for all future cases about that same issue. Harder to change bc courts are reluctant to overturn a precedent because they like to maintain “stare decisis”- let the decision stand. The U.S. constitution: hardest to change, ratified only 17x in 220 years. ⅔ vote in both branches of congress just to propose an amendment and ¾ of all states must vote to get ratified. Administrative law: federal departments and agencies can implement laws because congress and the president could never pass laws detailed enough to deal with every aspect of their administrations. The main purpose of administrative law is to implement the laws in the most efficient and effective way possible. For example, an agriculture dept. Rule tells meat and poultry processors how to handle food;a SS administration tells workers how long they must work before they are eligible for a fed. Retirement check. All regulations are subject to judicial review and can be reviewed if public opinion is not satisfied with ruling. Explain the debate between judicial activists and those who believe in judicial restraint (give examples of how a judge would exercise each philosophy). Judicial Activists call for a loose interpretation of the law (Constitution) and believe we should be flexible in order to keep laws relevant to modern times & not bound by exact wording bc the constitution/many laws were written centuries ago. Activist judges create implicit (inferred) rights and tend to use Judicial Review more frequently than other judges. Ex: Roe vs. Wade 1973: The constitution doesn't mention abortion, so an implicit right was created, which stems from the implicit right of privacy. In order to justify this right to privacy, the courts had to take a loose interpretation of several diff. Amendments in the Bill of Rights. Since TX law banned abortion except for cases of rape + incest, they found that law to violate these implicit rights to privacy + abortion, so the supreme court overturned that TX law (judicial reveiw). Judicial Restraint calls for literal interpretation of the law. If the Constitution doesn’t directly state abortion then judges should NOT create implicit rights. They believe only legislatures of Congress should create laws, judges should be neutral umpires and not create any laws. Also, judges should uphold laws passed by Congress and there should be no judicial review unless it clearly violates the language of the constitution. Ex: Assisted suicide case: people sued OR for passing a law that allows assisted suicide and said it is unconstitutional and violate due process of the law; ppl have the right to life, liberty, etc. The Supreme court said that a legislature created this right to assisted suicide and the right does not literally conflict with anything said in the constitution (literal interpretation), therefore they held up legislation. Briefly summarize the major differences between California and Federal court systems, including terms of office, and how they get their jobs. Also, when can a California decision be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court?

CA Court System 1st Level: Superior Courts: judge + jury trial; only courts that hear evidence/facts. If the jury says you're guilty you can appeal the verdict. In order to be a Superior Courts judge you have to be a lawyer or judge for 10 years before you run in a competitive election against other judges. 6 year term 2nd Level: CA Court of Appeals: No juries, only judges (# of judges varies). This panel of judges only wants to hear cases about errors of interpretation or error of due process/fair process. The facts of the case are not disputed, they only want to consider whether the lower courts interpreted the law correctly. If you don’t like the decision you can appeal to the CA Supreme Court. 3rd Level: CA Supreme Court: exact same function as court of appeals. No jury, only judges. They only hear cases about errors of interpretation or errors of due process. There are 7 members of CA supreme court (diverse in terms of gender & ethnicity). In order to run for Appeals or Supreme Court there is a 3 step process: you have to get nominated by the governor, screened and approved by judicial commission (3 judges), and approved by majority of voters in election. 12 year terms The CA system has much more accountability to voters, voters have direct input to decide who the judges will be and have a chance to get rid of them every 6 and 12 years. At the federal level there are 2 steps: get nominated by the president, the senate approves the presidential appointment. Life terms unless judges choose to resign, die, or get imprisoned. Federal Courts 1st Level: District Courts: same as superior courts 2nd Level: Court of Appeals (“Circuit Courts”): No jury, only judges. They only hear cases about errors of interpretation or errors of due process (13 diff appeals courts at Federal Level). If you don’t like the decision you can appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. 3rd Level: U.S Supreme Court: same function as appeals court; has 9 judges since the Civil War. Don’t need a unanimous decision, most decisions are handed out 5-to-4 A CA Supreme Court decision can be appealed to U.S. Supreme Court under 2 conditions: your state case has to involve federal law or the US Constitution. Most death penalty cases make it to the US supreme court bc convicted felons argue that the way they are going to be put to death violate the 8th Amendment (prohibits cruel & unusual punishment) or they argue that the fact that they’re being put to death is taking away life +liberty w/out due process of the law which is guaranteed by the 5th amendment. Briefly, how do liberals and conservatives differ when it comes to prison policy and capital punishment? (use Magleby ch. 10-11, Field ch. 12, and your notes on the ideological spectrum) Liberals: argue against capital punishments on the grounds of humanitarianism and equating it to murder. They have faith in the human reason that if we provide education and economic assistance then these felons will be able to lead a crime free life. The liberals would like to see american prisons be turned into rehabilitation clinics like it can create reformed citizens but that is not the case.

Conservative: Believe in authority, order, and stability and if we lessen the extent of prison policy and punishment then the bad guys will not think twice about committing crimes. They believe that “the path to hell is paved with good intentions”. Death row is intended to be punishment, the ultimate punishment for the ultimate crimes Justice is served through capital punishment because society is then rid of individuals who completely lack respect for the most fundamental of human rights. We should not care how the murderer's family, nor even the victim's family, feels about it. Government must act to protect the whole of society, not narrow interests. Civil Liberties: Terms: give ex. of selective incorporation (see text) in your own words The process by which provisions of the Bill of Rights are brought within the scope of the 14th amendments due process clause, the supreme court applied the most important of these rights to the states and local governments. The 14th amendment today imposes on the states all the provisions of the Bill of Rights the Court has deemed essential to liberty. The SC decides on a case-by-case basis which provisions of the bill of rights apply to the states Ex: McDonald vs. Chicago In 2010 the first case in which the Second Amendment “right to bear arms” was incorporated into states. Chicago had banned handguns in 1982, Mcdonald filed a lawsuit in 2008 stating he needed a handgun for self-defense. The court declared the handgun ban unconstitutional , ruling that the 2nd amendment right to bear arms for self-defense is fundamental. marketplace of ideas (how is this theory applied to hate speech): The only thing that will get rid of false ideas/ hate speech is open competition, not censorship. This theory is not universally accepted, most other democracies don’t have faith this marketplace is going to kill off racist ideas. They may say “racism, sexism, and religious discrimination have been competing with the truth for a long time, and they are still here and haven’t died out. By allowing these racist ideas you risk more hate crimes, racial and religious tensions, and violence. clear & imminent danger test- you can say whatever you want until your speech poses a clear (obvious) and imminent (immediate) danger slander vs. libel- refers to lies that are spoken (slander) or written/published (libel) that harm somebody or some organization, usually financially. actual malice- malice=evil. saying something or publishing something knowing it is false and having a reckless disregard for the truth. “chilling effect” of restrictions on speech- The fear of prosecution that leads to fewer books, jokes, movies because they may be offensive is something that could freeze speech which the courts want to avoid. If we are in fear of being prosecuted by a vague law then we just won’t do it bc wear are afraid of being prosecuted by the gov’t. viability (why is it important in abortion law?)- planned parenthood vs. Casey altered the date of viability earlier from 25-26 weeks to 20-21 weeks meaning the states would be able to ban or limit abortion earlier than they were able to in roe vs wade. Describe America’s religious identification (rank the top four). America is a much more tolerant place than every previous decade. You can walk down the street and see a church, a Jewish temple, a mosque and see all these different religions living peacefully among each other. The largest religion in America is Protestant (46.5%), the Atheist/Agnostics, those unaffiliated or

with no religion grew the fastest out of any of the groups (22.8%) and many of the court cases have been brought about by Atheist. Catholics make up( 20.8% ) and Jews & Muslims combined make up 2-3% of the population. ESSAY QUESTION (& multiple choice questions on this too): Describe how Supreme Court justices might interpret the Establishment clause of the 1st Amendment, using the Lemon test, the nonpreferential test, and the strict separation test. Apply these 3 tests to the issue of religious displays on public property. This essay will be combined with the next one on affirmative action. You’ll have to apply relevant court tests to two hypothetical laws about religion AND race. The Establishment Clause states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”, this is interpreted as since the country was founded by Pilgrims running away from a country that established a national church, we can’t do that here. Our gov’t can not establish a national religion that everybody has to swear allegiance to. A lot of Americans believe this clause does not stop gov’t from supporting all religions and we do have many diff policies that support religion like the minor policy of the words ``under god” in the pledge of allegiance & “in god we trust” on currency. Gov’t also grants exemption to property tax for many diff religious buildings. When it comes to gov’t support of religion, liberals like to use the strict separation test. Meaning there should be a strict separation, a “wall of separation” between church + state (religion + gov’t). Liberals believe this means gov’t should never support religion bc they feel like once gov’t start supporting religion, its only an amount of time before it starts showing favorites to one religion. Another reason liberals believe in strict separation test is bc they believe that if the gov’t is going to support diff religions, its impossible to make that support neutral to all diff religions especially atheism. Conservatives believe in the non-preferential test in which they believe it's okay for the gov’t to support religion as long as it dosen’t support or “prefer” one of the other. Conservatives would be okay w/ saying “under God” in the pledge of allegiance as long as atheist had the right not to participate. Conservative judges may be okay w/ giving scholarship money to students who might use that money to study Theology or Divinity, as long as the student gets to pick what religions they want to study. Liberals believe its never okay for gov’t to support religion and conservatives think its alway okay, as long as gov’t dosen’t support or prefer one over another. Most people & courts are moderat so the moderat choice is the Lemon Test which is a compromise between these two choices. It has 3 criteria for when it’s okay for gov’t to support religion. One, the gov’t supporting religion has to prove that their law has a secular purpose. Two, the effect of this law cannot promote or hurt religions. Three, these laws can not result in excessive govt involvement. In the case of religious icons on public property violating the 1st amendment we can apply these 3 test. The liberals who believe in the strict separation test would say that we should not put up religious icons on public property bc there is no way to be fair to atheist & agnostics, as well as other religious groups. If you allow any religious icons on public property it will offend non-religious people. The conservatives you believe in the non-preferential test would say its okay to have religious icons on public property as long as all religions can apply to have their icon on public property. So everyone can apply but only the ones that will be approved are religions that represent 5-10% of the community which is the minimum

level of support needed. In the Lemon test, we must look at if the laws have a secular purpose. So the statue must be aesthetically pleasing and have some sort of artistic value. You could also argue many of the statues have been there for a long time and even if they haven’t been there a long time, they symbolize a party of this country’s history so they have historical/educational significance. Then we must evaluate if these religious icons are promoting or hurting religion and by having diff religious icons together is one way to promote religious tolerance & education. Plus other religions can apply to put up iconsto. The last leg of the Lemon Test is that there must be no excessive gov’t involvement. As in the gov’t should not be paying for these monuments, private groups/charities should supply them. Placement of the monument is important it should not be inside a state capitol where you are forced to look at it everytime you walk into the capital, but instead outside on public property where a private charity maintains it. The size of the monument also matter, the bigger it is the more religion it promotes. Give examples of laws that might conflict with the Free Exercise clause (ex. The DMV case). Under what conditions will the Supreme Court uphold these laws (i.e. what criteria do they use)? The Free Exercise clause states that “Congress shall make no law prohibiting your free exercise of your religion”. The government can restrict the free exercise of religion under 2 criterias: the law must have a secular purpose, if the gov’t wants to restrict our religion they have to prove that there is a non-religious reason for doing so & law must be neutral; can’t target one religion, meaning if they are going to restrict one religion they have to restrict all of them. If you fail either one of these criterias then the whole law gets declared void & unconstitutional bc its violating the Free Exercise Clause EX: Animal Sacrifice case: The city of Hialeah passed laws prior to Ernesto moving there banning ritualistic animal sacrifice. Ernesto sued & claimed they were prohibiting his free exercise of Santeria. The city claimed the law had a secular purpose (banning animal cruelty & health + sanitation). Ernesto argued that these laws banning animal cruelty and providing for health and sanitation included a lot of exceptions for other activities where animals are killed (Hunthing, slaugher house/meat production). The court agreed the city was just going after his killing of animals & targeting his religion. Ernesto won. EX: Sultanna Freeman vs DMV: The DMV canceled her license because she refused to remove her hijab to take a new picture revealing her face. She sued them saying they were violating her...