Blog Entry #5- Test Prep

Blog #5- Test Prep

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

 I used my textbook to understand that the Supreme Court demonstrates a willingness to change public policy and can alter judicial precedent is engaging in judicial activism because it is a philosophy of judicial decision making that argues judges should use their power broadly to further justice, especially in the areas of equality and personal liberty. If the Supreme Court demonstrates the willingness to change public policy shows that they are willing to change the areas of public policy in areas such as equality and personal liberty. 

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

With the use of my textbook, it explains that with a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court indicates that the Court is requesting an order up of the records from a lower court to review the case. A writ of certiorari is another way of saying "to be informed".

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 admiralty and maritime laws
With my textbook, the Supreme Court holds original jurisdictions in all types of cases except in controversies in criminal law between a citizen and a state because the jurisdiction of courts that hear a case first, usually in a trial. These courts usually determine the facts of a case.

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
When looking at the constitution within my textbook, the Constitution goes over the term length for federal judgeships, the State of the Union address, rules of impeachment and the national census; except the Constitution does not go over the judicial review. Judicial review is part of the Supreme Court, not 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.

Federal and State Judiciaries are both autonomous even though federal courts may rule on the constitutionality of state court decisions, with the my textbook; both judiciaries are not entirely autonomous. Neither do the judiciaries hears cases that originated in the other. Also, the State judiciary and the Federal judiciary are not correctly represented as courts within the context of the question.

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
With the use of my textbook it states that the Miranda v Arizona case, was about the incorporation of the fifth amendment in which requires  the notion of law reinforcement and the privilege to oneself that they have the right to an attorney with the addition to remain silent for questioning.

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
Selective Incorporation is applying most of the Bill of Rights to state laws which is explained in the textbook.

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 case Mapp v Ohio is best explained in the textbook to explain that this case extends the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures to the states.

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.
In the textbook, it explains that court cases when suing one private party to another must be tried in civil court.

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 textbook states that the federal court system is best described as the number of federal courts if fixed by the Constitution that cannot be changed.

Blog Entry #4- Three Court Cases

Blog 4

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 position on abortion.)

1). Marbury v Madison ( 1803)

Context: A case in which the Court first asserted the power of judicial review in finding that a congressional statue extending the Court's original jurisdiction was unconstitutional.
The holding of the Marbury v Madison case of 1803 is where the court formed the judicial review in the United States. The holding was important because it helped made a line between the executive and judicial power branches of the United States. The majority opinion was delivered by Marshall, joined by Paterson, Chase and Washington. With the Judiciary Act of 1789 is unconstitutional and to enlarge judicial jurisdiction in the Supreme Court. The decision was a 4-0. The judicial philosophy reflected in this case was the branch of judicial power itself and its ancient roots that came into play with this particular case. The concept of judicial review was originated with Marbury because it was the first case to exercise the power. My position on this case is understanding the basis behind the judicial review and jurisdiction as well.

2). Miranda v Arizona (1966)

Context: The fifth amendment requires that individuals arrested for a crime that must be advised of their right to remain silent and to have counsel present.

 The holding of the Miranda v Arizona case in 1996, is where the fifth amendment comes into play because of the privilege against self incrimination. The holding is where the law is required to have enforcement is responsible to explain to the suspect that during the interrogation must remain silent and have the right to obtain a lawyer. The Supreme Court of Arizona reversed and remanded. The majority opinion delivered to the by Warren whom was joined by Black, Douglas, Breannan and Fortas; Court is that a suspect must remain silent prior to interrogation. A majority opinionated that once suspects were told and knew they had to remain silent prior to interrogation would have a need and/or demand of a lawyer which was believed to create bigger problems. The judicial philosophy behind the Miranda v Arizona case is Miranda who was prosecuted and retried for a case and for this time they used witnesses instead of confession. That is how the Miranda warning was started because the Miranda case was tied in with three other defendants. The basis behind the case is the judicial restraint used with judicial policy or when the United States was compelled with the Miranda warnings. The position I carry with the context and decision of this court case is where the suspect must remain silent and told about their rights, before I wanted to enter law and become part of a Crime Scene Investigator scene where they would interrogate the suspects to understand more of the situation. I would've had the context behind the Miranda v Arizona case to know why I was telling suspects about their rights prior to an interrogation.

3). Planned Parenthood v Casey (1992)
Context: This case was an unsuccessful attempt to challenge Pennsylvania's restrictive abortion regulations.
The holding of the Planned Parenthood v Casey case in 1992 was in Pennsylvania made a law that required that a spouse to be aware of an abortion which was invalid under the Fourteenth amendment. Basically the Planned parent hood case is where there was a needed consent of an abortion at least 24 hours before it were to occur and a constitutional right to an abortion. The ruling was under provisions. With a vote of 5-4, the majority plurality was delivered by O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter. The Court had a plurality opinion that upheld the constitutional right to have an abortion or not. Also the opinion to uphold the right for analyzing restrictions ; there was a invalid single regulation but upholding the other four. Behind the case, the opinions explained that Roe should not be overturned only if there is a special reason behind the case. The judicial philosophy behind the activist case is where the judicial imperialism falls behind the majority actions. The stare decisis is used behind this case which shows the judicial philosophy and was used to address cases that were not fully developed. My stance behind the case is where I understand that the rights behind abortion because the rights were developed for women who want or may need an abortion for any other reason. I personally understand if a woman were to be raped and has an unwanted child even though every child deserves a right to live.

Cartoon Explanation

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.

In the cartoon, three judges look at each other and state "Do you ever have one of those days when everything seems unconstitutional?" . Basically the cartoon is stating that the court make bad calls on court cases that are filed to the Supreme Court. I believe the cartoonists point of view is going against the Supreme court because the expression on the judges face seem as if they don't care much or can even be frustrated with the fact that some cases may be ruled unconstitutional. The Cartoonist expresses the frustration with the Supreme Court because he/she believes that there are days where everything seems unconstitutional.

I particularly agree with the cartoonists point of view because there can be a situation in which a case or many cases are not filed correctly with the Supreme Court. I understand the cartoonist argument through the cartoon because they believe that there are times where the everything seems unconstitutional meaning; not in accordance to the constitution. There are some court cases in which it was ruled unconstitutional, for example Engel v. Vitale (1962); this court case was where the Court ruled that the recitation in public classrooms of a non-denominational prayer was unconstitutional and a violation of the establishment clause. This court case rules accordingly to the cartoonists argument since this court case was ruled unconstitutional and it aligns with the statement that the judges state in the cartoon which again is "Do you ever have one of those days when everything seems unconstitutional?". This case was ruled unconstitutional because of praying in public classrooms which connects to the idea of "...those days when everything seems unconstitutional...".

Blog Entry #2- Judicial Powers

Blog entry #2; What are the judicial powers of the US Supreme Court and where does this power come from (specific documents)? (reference Reading)

The judicial powers of the US Supreme Court is stated Article III, Section II. Within the constitution, it states that cases that arise are under the Constitution, and laws and or treaties are under the United States. There are many other powers within Article III, Section II such as jurisdiction of controversies between two or more states, citizens of different states, citizens of the same state claiming land under other states and also between a state, or the citizens of the foreign state. This section of the constitution also specifies in any federal crimes in which it shall be trial by jury. The checks on judicial power is witihin the constitution in which it grants authority to Congress to alter any Courts' jurisdiction.

All About Me

I am Alexandra Miranda, and I am a senior at Hillsdale High School. Crew member at Trader Joe's. I'm a coffee addict. I play basketball, sing and dance almost all the time. I've never really had a blog before, but hey there is nothing wrong with trying new things right?