Law and Society Exam 2
Law and Society Exam 2 soc 355
Popular in Law and Society
verified elite notetaker
Popular in Sociology
verified elite notetaker
This 3 page Study Guide was uploaded by Rebecca Spohr on Monday October 5, 2015. The Study Guide belongs to soc 355 at Brigham Young University - Idaho taught by Stephan Stokes in Summer 2015. Since its upload, it has received 41 views. For similar materials see Law and Society in Sociology at Brigham Young University - Idaho.
Reviews for Law and Society Exam 2
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 10/05/15
LAW AND SOCIETY TEST 2 STOKES Rights Grant power to government we retain rights When we grant power to government we retain which are protected entitlements from the government Power The ability for one person to make another person to do something they wouldn39t normally do Authority weber Power has different sources 1Force 2 Influence 3 AuthorityTraditional Charismatic Legal 1 Legalrational authority 2 charismatic 3 traditional ldea came from Weber It is legitimate power through traditions of government Symbolic or substantial Symbolic Rights that are sitting on the constitution Substantial Made substantial by the court How a symbolic right becomes substantial right 1 Court interpretation 2 Criminal justice official application How they apply it 1 knowledge 2 professionalism act as a professional and acknowledge rights substantive criminal law Criminal law that states what rights and behavior will be protected procedural criminal law Guides the steps for prosecution Separation of powers States deal with most criminal cases state has criminal law federal and state have different 14th amendment Citizenship state due process applies bill of rights to states All born in the US are citizens and guaranteed equal protection of laws due process must be followed by states Incorporation The doctrine of applying the Bill of rights 1 O amendments through the 14th amendment attach other rights to the 14th amendment attacks rights to other court cases Warren court Activist court Incorporation using 1st amendment into the 14th amendment made huge changes in moving symbolic rights to substantive rights Earl Warren rounded up the Japanese and put them in relocation camps and was thought to be good for the position Ambiguous wording Unreasonable excessive cruel and unusual infamous speedy trial compelled Right to privacy The right to a private personal life free from the intrusion of government Griswold v Connecticut 1965 restricts government and private party action that threatens privacy of individuals 9th amendment the rights not namedlisted does not mean we do not have them Courts of last resort The Supreme Court Highest court that you can go to There is not higher that you can go unless they overturn themselves There is no appeal after this court Logic of justice 1 What is best for society 2 Create positive court image 3 Constitution interpretation 4 Interaction between justices lnterpretists Applies to modern times Interprets constitution in our time Archibald Cox and Lawrence Tribe Broad or Narrow InterpretationWilliam Brennan and Thurgood Marshall ruling should not become too specific Originalism What did the founding fathers believed opposite of interpretists Source of Origin Intent 1 Madison39s notes 2 Federalists papers 3 State ratification debates 4 The debate over the Bill of Rights 5 Rule of Stuart v Laird Activists Different interpretation They should be active and making changesPush court to new areas that it has not been before Restraintists Approach were you hold courts power in check Court should check its power behavior Barron v Baltimore 1833 Barron was owner of a profitable wharf in the harbor As the city expanded sand accumulated in the harbor and deprived Barron of deep waters essential to his business so he demands compensation from the state Amendment 14th No state shall deprive any citizen of life liberty or property without due process Unanimous ruling Protection of private property due processes this is a state case so it does not apply to federal government Slaughter House Cases Butchers were pouring their waste into local rivers state said they had to move their business away form the river butchers sued claiming their forced relocation violated their 14th A rights to earn a living and work where they want Supreme Court ruled in favor of the State saying the 14th Amendment did not over ride State Police Powers These cases limited the 14th Amendment and equal protection clause The constitution 14th amendment says there has to be a due process Gitlow v NY 1925 The first case to recognize that the 1st amendment protections applied to the states Giltow arrested under the sedition act for advocating the overthrowing of the government It said that If the sedition act is unconstitutional on the federal level than it should be unconstitutional on the state level too first case that the court would havemakes states follow 14th amendment Texas v Johnson 1889 Decision by supreme court that invalidated prohibition on desecrating the american flag enforced in 48 states decision by supreme court that invalidated prohibition on desecrating the american flag enforced in 48 states Adderly v Florida 1966 group of students that demonstrated against racial segregation and were arrested group of students that demonstrated against racial segregation and were arrested Griswold v Connecticut 1965 case in which supreme court ruled constitution protected rights to privacy Planned Parenthood case in which supreme court ruled constitution protected rights to privacy Bowers v Hardwick 1986 homosexual man caught in consensual sodomy in his home decision that upheld the constitutionality of a Georgia sodomy law that criminalized oral and anal sex in private between consenting adults1 when applied to homosexuals Sodomy cases one over turned another Lawrence v Texas 2003 Policemen entering a private home to follow through with a weapon tip discovered two men Lawrence and Garner engaging in consensual sex According to the Homosexual Conduct law the two men were placed under arrest for engaging in homosexual relations Result The Texas law violates both of the men39s 14th A rights to engage in private conduct without intervention from the government violates the 14th and 4th A no legit state interest Sodomy cases one over turned another NY v Quarles 1984 Miranda rights Men asked where is his weapon Criminalizing question Procedural case or procedural criminal law Case about Miranda rights Rummel V Estelle 1980 Man given life in prison for committing three crimes 8th amendment Cruel an unusual punishment Three strikes
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'