political science

  1. Dennis v. United States
    • Eugene Dennis and ten other leaders of the
    • American communist party were indicted under the smith act of 1940 for
    • willfully and knowingly conspiring to teach advocate the forceful and violent
    • overthrow and destruction of government.
    • Does the free speech provision of the 1st
    • amendment. May congress prohibit the advocating, advising, teaching, printing
    • or distributing of documents that advocate the violent overthrow of government,
    • becoming a member of such a group or conspiring to do any of the above?

    • Answer-
    • YES

    • Issue-
    • free speech provision of 1st amendmen and the liberty provision of
    • the due process clause of the 5th amendment. Are sections 2 and 3 of
    • the smith act unconstitutional due to vagnance.

    Answer- NO.

    • Majority
    • opinion-
    • affirmed
    • the previously courts finding that the mere fact that the petitioners
    • activities did not result in an attempt to overthrow the government by force
    • and violence is of course no answer to the fact that there was a group that was
    • ready to make the attempt. They also stated that the clear and present danger
    • test does not mean that before government can act it must wait until plans have
    • been laid and the signal is awaited. The government is allowed to take action
    • before it gets to that point. The court held that the statue could be applied
    • where there is a clear and present danger which legislature has the right to
    • prevent.
  2. Brandenburg v. Ohio
    • Clarence brandberg was the leader of a kkk group and
    • was arrested tried and convicted under ohio criminal syndicalism statue for
    • advocating the duty, necessity or
    • propriety of crime, sabotage, violence or unlawful methods of terrorism as a
    • means of accomplishing industrial or political reform. And for voluntarily
    • assembling with any society group or assemblage or persons formed to teach or advocate
    • the doctrine of syndicalism. He was convicted appled the the appellate and then
    • to the supreme court, was denied the first time and opinion was given in per
    • curium.

    • does the ohio statue violate the 1st and
    • 14th amendment.

    • Answer-
    • no

    • Opinion- the begin the court believed that the
    • evidence shown at trial was not the best some examples of what they stated was
    • half of the stuff they said you couldn’t understand what they were saying and
    • people in thhee crowd not the speaker himself had weapons. The majority opinion
    • stated that there is a difference between advocating and inciting or producing
    • imminent lawlessness. A statute which fails to make this distinction as ohios
    • does intureds upon the freedoms guaranteed bu the 1st and 14th
    • amendment. The act can not be sustained b/c it punishes those who advocate or
    • teach violence as a means of change.
  3. Rust v. Sullivan
    • Issue- in light of the 1st amendment free
    • speech provision does a federal lae unconstitutionally discriminate on the
    • basis of viewpoint when it chooses to fund a program dedicated to advance
    • certain permissible goals if in advancing those goals it necessarily
    • discourages alternative goals?

    Answer- no

    • Issue- in light of the liberty provision of the due
    • process clause of the 5th amendment. Does a federal statue violate a
    • women’s right to choose an abortion if it prohibits funds from going to family
    • planning services that provide abortion counseling that encourage or advocate
    • abortion or if it requires that recipient programs be physically and
    • financially separate from abortion activities?

    Answer- no

    • -
    • Difference between right to abortion and
    • the right to financial assistance for abortion.

    • -
    • Prohibit counseling, performing and
    • advocacy of abortion. The advocacy of abortion is not illegal action it is
    • legal through the roe vs. wade edcision.
  4. Gitlow v. New York
    • Gitlow was arrested a tried under the new York
    • criminal anarchy act of 1902 that prohibited the advocacy of criminal anarchy. The doctrine that organized
    • governments should be overthrown by force or violence or by assassination of
    • the executive head or of any of the executive officlas of government or by any
    • unlawful means. Gotlows crime was punishing a phamflet called left wing manifesto proclaiming the
    • inevitability of a proletarian revolution. Although no evidence was shown at
    • trial that the publication had led to any unlawful action gitlow was convicted
    • and given the maximum sentence of 5 to 10 years in prison.
    • Issue: in light of the free speech provision of the
    • 1st amendment as applied to the states throught the liberty
    • provision of the 14th amendment.. may a state prohibit the
    • advocating, advising or teaching of violent overthrow of government.

    Answer- yes.

    • Extra- not only may congress, but the states may
    • also. Majority opinion belived he was advocating and urging people to overthrow
    • the government. He violated the state law and if people want to change
    • government they can go to the ballot.
  5. Cohen v. California
    • : paul Robert cohen was convicted in los angleos for
    • violating part of California penal code section 415 which prohibits maliciously
    • and willfully disturbing the peace or
    • quiet of any neighborhood or person by offensive conduct. He was given 30 days
    • imprisonment. The reason being tat on april 1968 the defendant was observed in
    • the los anglos county courthouse wearing a jacket that said fuck the
    • draft.there were women and children present around him. The defendeant did not
    • engage nor threaten to enage in nor did anyone as the result of his conduct in
    • fact commit or threaten to commit any act of violence. The defendant did not
    • make nay loud or unsual noise, nor was there any evidence that he uttered any
    • sound prioir to his arrest.

    • Issue: in light of the free speech provision of the
    • 1st amendment and the 14th amendment liberty due process
    • clause. May a state prohibit as
    • offensive conduct the public display of an offensive word on a persons
    • clothing.

    Answer- No


    • -California was punishing speech not conduct. (
    • teacher feels otherwise).

    • -Statue violats cohens ffreedom of speech. Even
    • though the word is offensive when used in a political content the word
    • empahizses his feelings towards to draft. And the word was used in an emotional
    • content.

    • -California also did not have a compelling state
    • interest, so it does not truph his 1st amendment right.
Card Set
political science
political science exam one