1. The Constitution grants to Congress implied powers
for implementing the Constitution's express powers, in order to create a
functional national government.
2. State action
may not impede valid constitutional exercises of power by the Federal
Barron v Baltimore
The case was particularly important in terms of american government because it stated that the freedoms guaranteed by the bill of rights did not restrict the state gov. Has been overturned.
Baker v. Carr
courts decided that reappointment (attempts to change the way voting districts are delineated), is a "political question" and hence not a question that may be resolved by federal courts.
Marbury v Madison
formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the US under article III of the constitution.
Griswold v Connecticut
the SC ruled that the constitution protected a right to privacy. The case involved a law that prohibited the use of contraceptives. By a vote of 7-2, the SC invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the right to martial privacy.
Roe v Wade
the US of the issue of abortion. the court held that the constitutional right to privacy extends to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests for regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting the mother's health.
Frontiero v Richardson
equal protection case, the SC decided that benefits given by the US military to the family of service members cannot be given out differently because of gender.
Brown v Broad Education
US SC declared state laws establishing seperate public schools for black and white students unconstitutional. The decision overturned Plessy v Ferguson decision of 1896 which allowed state-sponsored segregation.
Plessy v Ferguson
decision of 1896 which allowed state-sponsored segregation.
Gideon v Wainwright
the SC unanimously ruled that state courts are required under the sixth amendment of the constitution to provide counsel in criminal cases for defendants who are unable to afford their own attorneys.
Escobedo v Illinois
US SC case holding that criminal suspects have a right to counsel during police interrogation under the sixth amendment.
Miranda v Arizona
the court held that both inculpatory and exculpatory statements made in response to interrogation by a defendant in police custody will be admissible at trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning and of the right against self-incrimination prior to questioning by police, and that the defendant not only understood these rights, but voluntarily waived them.
Mapp v Ohio
in criminal procedure, in which the US SC decided that evidence obstained in violation of the fourth amendment, which protects against unreasonable searchess and seizure, may not be used in criminal prosecutions in state courts, as well as federal courts.