3495824
Descrição
Mapa Mental por Isra Catori, atualizado more than 1 year ago
|
Criado por Isra Catori
mais de 9 anos atrás
|
|
AP Gov Cases (Unit 3)
- Barrons V. Baltimore (1833)
- Barron sued city, claiming that
property had been damaged.
Argued 5th Amend.
- Ruling: Bill of Rights does not
apply to states, Only restricted
the National Government.
- Barron sued city, claiming that
property had been damaged.
Argued 5th Amend.
- Gibbons V. Ogden (1824)
- Question on who should regulate after
monopoly was granted to a private company.
- National Government wins, Has power to regulate
interstate commerce.
- Interpreted the commerce clause for the first time,
dramatically increased national power over the states.
- Question on who should regulate after
monopoly was granted to a private company.
- Gitlow V. New York (1925)
- Gitlow argued that state law was in
violation of the free speech clause of the
1st Amendment
- Decided Bill of Rights did apply to states,
Due Process clause of 14th Amendment
guarantees application to the states.
- States were not free to violate these rights.
- States were not free to violate these rights.
- Gitlow argued that state law was in
violation of the free speech clause of the
1st Amendment
- Heart of Atlanta Motel V. United States
- Hotel owner refused to accept african american
customers at hotel on the grounds that his business was
intrastate.
- Business served interstate travels, therefore was
subject to conditions of Civil Rights Act of 1964.
- Used the commerce clause to force private businesses to
abide by the Civil RIghts Act.
- Used the commerce clause to force private businesses to
abide by the Civil RIghts Act.
- Hotel owner refused to accept african american
customers at hotel on the grounds that his business was
intrastate.
- McCulloch V. Maryland (1819)
- State of Maryland argued that power to
create bank was not among the delegated
powers of Congress.
- Dismissed charges, bank was constitutional due to implied
power ('collect taxes, borrow money and regulate commerce')
- Affirmed the Supremacy Clause- expanded power of the
National Government.
- Affirmed the Supremacy Clause- expanded power of the
National Government.
- State of Maryland argued that power to
create bank was not among the delegated
powers of Congress.
- United States V. Lopez (1995)
- Convicted of violating the GFSZA, argued that
congress did not have power to adopt GFSZA
in the first place.
- Supreme Court ruled that GFSZA was
unconstitutional and overturned Lopez's
conviction.
- Case begins to restrict power of the
National Gov't.
- Convicted of violating the GFSZA, argued that
congress did not have power to adopt GFSZA
in the first place.
Quer criar seus próprios Mapas Mentais gratuitos com a GoConqr? Saiba mais.