New User Special Price Expires in

Let's log you in.

Sign in with Facebook


Don't have a StudySoup account? Create one here!


Create a StudySoup account

Be part of our community, it's free to join!

Sign up with Facebook


Create your account
By creating an account you agree to StudySoup's terms and conditions and privacy policy

Already have a StudySoup account? Login here


by: Dana Jacobson


Dana Jacobson
GPA 3.83

K. Mulcahy

Almost Ready


These notes were just uploaded, and will be ready to view shortly.

Purchase these notes here, or revisit this page.

Either way, we'll remind you when they're ready :)

Preview These Notes for FREE

Get a free preview of these Notes, just enter your email below.

Unlock Preview
Unlock Preview

Preview these materials now for free

Why put in your email? Get access to more of this material and other relevant free materials for your school

View Preview

About this Document

K. Mulcahy
Class Notes
25 ?




Popular in Course

Popular in Political Science

This 10 page Class Notes was uploaded by Dana Jacobson on Tuesday October 13, 2015. The Class Notes belongs to POLI 4036 at Louisiana State University taught by K. Mulcahy in Fall. Since its upload, it has received 22 views. For similar materials see /class/222757/poli-4036-louisiana-state-university in Political Science at Louisiana State University.

Similar to POLI 4036 at LSU

Popular in Political Science




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: 10/13/15
Becoming the President 0 2 step process 0 Get nomination and then win general election 0 Selected at political party national convention 0 Members of national convention are called delegates o Picked in states by primary or caucus o The number of delegates depends on population and party loyalty states pick president elect 0 Before 1968 leadersparty bosses picked president changes in Chicago convention 1968 o Humphrey phd in polis ci from lsu 1940 was nominated bc hand chosen by party boss 0 Mcgovern Frasier created to give all democrats meaningful elections of candidats I Main focus was to reduce role of the part bosses I Women and minorities now represented I Abolishment of winner take all for dems repubs vary I Led to super delegates for dems I 14 of delegates reserved for party bosses I Repubs don t regulated delegates as much as dems 0 Has winner take all and proportional o Primaries o ntrapartyLike general election voting some states allow independents to vote here 0 Caucus open meeting to discuss candidates 0 Iowa first test of strength lots of media 0 Iowa not typical America 95 white and few participate 0 Few can participate due to shift work kids elderly time consuming o Turnout is extra low in caucus compared to primaries I Caucuses favor the young and educated the enthusiasts of party firm ideologues and flexible work schedules 0 Party convention still important I Forms parites rules and regs I Draftsa platform I Unifies and launches campaign I Nominates the VP at party too 0 Conventions are giant infomercials from aug 25 to aug 28 I Gives the party a platform to express ideas and present candidates I Typically viewers are convinced party members I Big viewership when candidate accepts nomination and introduces himself and his vision for the nation 0 Electoral college 0 Most important is that not direct election EC is constitutionally created institution 0 Elections are two party fight since 1860 has been bw dems and repubs 0 Total 538 435 house 100 senator 3 for DC Need 270 to win Only happened once since 1824 o If no one wins majority Gore v bush ben Harrison v Cleveland it goes to house to decide I Happened twice Burr v Hamilton and Jackson v 3 candidates I Every state gets one vote through house deciding together 0 Constitutional convention 0 Several methods proposed I Congress would choose I State legislatures choose I Popular vote I College of cardinals most educated and enlightened choose 0 Structure I Every state has distinct of electors 2 for senate and 1 per congressional district I Almost all are winner take all 0 Besides Nebraska 5 and Maine 4 o Whoever wins plurality gets 2 electors and the rest is proportioned 0 Maine Delaware goes dem and rest repub poor white old 0 NebraskaOmaha I Candidate with most state votes gets 2 senators but congress is proportioned to congressional district winners I Although the results are known on the first Monday of November the official election is in January when VPsenate leader counts electors o Electoral college reforms o Proportional no amd needed bc constitution doesn t state how to proportion I No winner take all what if no marojority wins electors o Congressionaldistrict I Popular vote winner gets all atlarge electors I Remaining electors decide by congressional districts 0 National popular vote interstate compact I Agreement bw states regarding allocation of electors I Doesn t go into effect until it has been joined by majority of electoral votes After that point all electoral votes of states would be cast for winner of national vote I Mimics a direct election wo constitution amd o Proportional plan I Doesn t need a constitutional amd I Increases chance of larger number of candidates and elections decided by house 0 Congressional district plan I No amd needed I Balances winner take all and proportionality I Gives impetus for minority parties to campaign in their state o The electoral college is o Archaic o Defies democratic notions o Leads to contentious outcomes 0 Reflects the federal nature a nation of states 0 Popular vote winner has prevailed in all but 1824 1876 2000 0 Direct election would need constitutional amd o Impossible bc small states would lose a lot with change 0 The proportional and congressional district could be adopted on state to state basis 0 Increases likelihood of house deciding o The electoral college stays bc we of llthe evils we knowquot are calculable compared to llevil we don t knowquot 2000 election bush v gore 0 Not since 1888 has a candidate won popular vote but lost electoral gore had 400000 more 0 54 decision florida electors awarded to bush 0 Divisive many americans weren t even aware of electoral college Democrats selection process 0 Obama v Clinton 0 One of greatest of all times 0 Longest unprecedented nomination struggle in history Lasted from iowa to june 3 with Montanas Dakota primaries o Longest most expensive of all primary battles 0 Unusual bc black and a woman but both lawyers elite schools same views I Pro health care I Opposed to Iraq continutation I Pro civil rights I Pro labor I Represented significant change 0 Outcome of delgates I Obama 1763 Clinton1640 0 Neither had majority of delegates I The 825 super delegates could have went Clinton but party wanted popular vote winner to take it o Obamas success 0 Rheotoric of hope for unhappy party 0 Went hard for caucuses too a delegate is a delegate is a delegate 0 Clinton success 0 Won industrialized states 0 Represented traditional constituency 0 Was affiliated with husbands strife and partisan infighting 0 Obama won southern bc of large black dem membership 0 Outsider got youth vote on promise of change 0 Obama focused on future not influenced on past same old The campaign 0 tactics 0 Strategy I Plan for developing targeting and tracking campaign resources 0 Basic appeal I Reason to vote for or against candidates Partisan appeals O I Tool used by dems as the llmajority partyquot 0 Image presents as strong leader and commander in chief o Dem appeal 0 Increased social security 0 Health care reform 0 Economic issues I Common folk high minimum wage low unemployment labor unions 0 Rep appeals 0 National defense 0 Evangelical beliefs 0 Economic I Middle and upper class I Antiinflation I Party of businesses 0 Independents 0 Make up 40 of reg voters I Dems 33 I Repubs 28 0 Cannot win wonly your party 0 Must appeal to unaffiliated voter o Gernerally I Younger least liely to vote least informed least consistent I Considered least qualified voter 0 Most volatile electorat with independents shifts party a lot I More candidate voting and less issue voting I Persuaded by media and image I Media advertising mostly aimed at independents 0 Most money is spent on tv in swing state Fundraising o Dem party 961 mill 0 Rep party 920 mill 0 DNC 260 mill 0 Rnc 427 mill 0 Total 17 billion Turnout 0 Big increase in 2008 over 25 years ago 0 More black and young 0 Enthusiastic support from primaries to general were young 0 Obamamccain 0 Internet donation Obama lsttime 0 Small donation not interest groups Obamas success 0 Youthful manner oratorical skill inspiring rheotoric war in Iraq economic downturn poor repub campaign 0 Obama 53 mccain 46 lit Amd speech and protest limits on speech libel obscenity Texas v Johnson1989 ls 14m texas desecration lawflag burning in protest to Reagan s policies arrested due to Texas desecration law Court rules this is speech and the texas law did violate 151 amd Congress responds by passing the flag protection act making it a federal crime to burn the flag which is then declared unconstitutional the following year Wisconsin v Mitchell199315114lh Wisconsin hate crime law Mitchell and other blacks attack white guy and are given extra time for being a hate crime Hate crime laws are constitutional bc sentencing judges can take in many factors such as motive especially when it causes greater individual and societal harm Morse v Frederick200715114 h Bong hits 4 Jesus at school parade off school grounds Rules schools can limit speech if it undermines the schools mission to discourage drug use Provides that students speech rights aren t as extensive as adults and Tinker wouldn t always apply Snyder v Phelps201115 Snyder killed in combat war protesters at funeral sued by dad dad awarded 5 million court of appeals overrules SC upholds bc the church members have right to protest Citizen United v US201015 bipartisan campaign reform act Rules the BCRA in part is unconstitutional corporations are ppl and have right to speech Dissent to this is that corporations aren t people and arent entitled to rights of individuals govt needs to curb campaign spending lit amd Freedom of Press Near v Minnesota19311 14lh stopped publishing of defamatory comments about the local officials implicated with gangsters prior restraint rules that prior restraint is only limited in exceptional cases such as in wars And the press is protected from restraint also protected from censorship at moment of publication NY times v US197115 govt tries to stop times from publishing pentagon papers classified Rules that prior restraint must meet heavy criteria and here it doesn t meet said burden Brazenburg v Hayes1972lslpress branzburg interviews 2 druggies wont give identity at trial SC rules that this doesn t violate free speech and the govt has a compelling interest and did not use prior restraint The avg citizen often has to testify in court and so do reporters when criminal content involved Hazelwood SD v Kuhlmeier1988ls school stops spectrum school paper from publishing 2 articles and the student writers brought it to court Rules high school papers not protected by l amd best interest through high standards set by school Dissent is that school promoted free speech then inhibited it I z lsl Amd Libel tort involving written that causes damage to NY Times v Sullivan197l151 whole page article in times about Sullivan and his arrests made in bama the ad was inaccurate Rules that ad s are protected and that false statements are inevitable and protected too Creates the llactual malice testquot pubic official cannot collect damages for defamatory falsehoods unless he can prove statements are made with actual malice ie with knowledge it was false or reckless disregard for the truth Times didn t act with malice Declares sedition act of 1789 unconstitutional 151 amd protects seditious libel whether true or false Gertz v Welch19741 Gertz sued John Birch Society for story claiming he was communist and hurt his career Rules that he was not a public figure until the defamation and due to this was entitled more protection as an ordinary citizen Hustler v Falwell19881s ad for Campari liquer fake interview about him and mom falwell sues for libel Rules that public officials weren t protected from libelous speech without proving that the publication contained falsehood with actual malice also said free speech trumps state interest of protecting public figures as long as speech cannot be reasonably construed as true very hard to prove Protects satire poli cartoons and parodies 154 Amd Obscenity Roth v US1957151 federal obscenity lawRoth promotes business by mailing porn in mail arrested rules that obscenity was always assumed unprotected 1712MASS outlawed profanity Roth testobscene material average person with contemporary community standards deems inappropriate and obscene Miller v California197315t obscenity lawmass mailings of adult material Rules that this is not a right cannot send unsolicited porn and states can determine what is obscene in their state cannot create a federal obscene standard miller replace roth Miller Test 1 roth test 2 depiction of sexual conduct specifically defined by state law 3 whether the work lacks serious literary artistic political or scientific value Can you define obscenity US v Williams20081 14 h protect act offered to trade his kids pics for others pics never got pics arrested challenges bc he never got pics and says its simply pandering Rules protect act constitutional exactly the type of speech that is not protected Brown v Entertainment merchants association2011 1 14 h California bill 1179 violent video games and entertainment are protected and 1179 is unconstitutional since there was no compelling state interests and the video game producers already regulate sales to minors Dissent is SC doesn t understand technology and games are interactive ln dellm Amd search and seizure Operative Clause llthe militia in colonial America consisted of those who were male able bodied and with a certain age range Reading the 2nd Amd as protecting only right to keep and bear arms in an organized militia fits poorly with the operative clauses description of the holder of that right as the people Prefatory Clause the militia included all males physically capable of acting in concert with the common defense not just the actual organized militia DC v Heller20082nd DC handgun law DC trying to control crime pass a law that individuals must have permit for handgun Heller turned down for permit Rules that the operative clause fits with the preface and the individual unconnected with militia has right to bear arms inherent right of selfdefense and cannot regulate guns in home inoperable bc it defeats the purpose of having a gun for defense McDonald v Chicago2010 2quotd 14m Chicago hangun law Chicago regulating guns like DC however 2nd amd wasn t for states at this time Rules that 2nd amd is fundamental and applies to states doesn t state if law is unconstitutional and remands back to lower court INCORPORATES 2ND Katz v US19674 h amd creates reasonable expectation of privacy standard Katz running illegal lottery across country uses phone booth for calls police wiretap outside booth Rules that listening from outside the booth is a search and it is the person that is protected not the location Also rules that the search was unconstitutional due to no judicial oversight and as such is unreasonable Outcome is people have right to privacy under 4 h amd and phone calls are private states that the 4 h amd can be violated even without entry to home Dissent is that wiretapping is simply eavesdropping thru technology and the founders didn t say anything about that Terry v Ohio19684 h 14m police stops individuals for suspicious activity and stops and frisks them finding a gun arrests for concealed weapon Rules that patting someone down is a seizure also that officers can search someone while investigating criminal activity for their own safety Police can search engaged suspects without a warrant Am amd search and seizure Not testAguilarSpinelli Test 1 the tip from informant must llreveal adequately their llbasis of knowledge 2 tip must provide facts sufficiently to prove reliability Illinois v Gates19834 h14 h anonymous letter about Gates and wife trafficking drugs from Florida said whenwherehow and police investigated and all was true got warrant and found 350 lbs marijuana court throws out evidence due to aguilarspinelli test goes to SC Rules that aguilarspinelli test is part of process abandons the test and moves to totalityof circumstance test meaning ifjudge feels they have probably cause they can issue warrant if substantial basis law enforcement must show substantial basis of probable cause to obtain warrant Legal searches 1There is a warrant police search only the authorized area 2the items seized are those specified in warrant 3or ones in which possession is a crime 4and the warrant is ordered and executed in a timely fashion Exceptions to warrant rule 1Searches incident to a valid arrest 2prevent loss of evidence 3searches based on consent 4searches to ensure the safety of the law enforcement official 5searches done in llhot pursuit 6and searches conducted under plain view Kyllo v USZOOl4 h suspect kyllo of growing marijuana in home use thermal technology to see heat emanating plus high electricity bill police obtain warrant and find 100 marijuana plants he pleads guilty but says the technology was illegal form of search Rules that thermal devices are searches using Katz standard of reasonable privacy thus the search was unconstitutional bc the device isn t a general public used item and previously this knowledge would ve only been attainable through a physical search thus need warrant for thermal search Board of Education v Earls20024 h14 hmandatory student drug tests Tecumseh school any student in extracurricular must take drug tests students sue under 4 h amd due to know problem of drug use Rules that urine samples are a search but the school doesn t have to show probable cause in school setting bc it cause would interfere with swift disciplinary actions so the search is constitutional bc this is reasonable to prevent and deter student drug use students have limited expectation of privacy only consequence of failing drug test was getting kicked off team or group Safford Unified School District v Redding20094 h14 h Redding accused by another student of having ibuprofen knives and markers Redding denied and the school strip searched her Rules that schools only have to show llreasonable suspicion and dependent upon their age and sex with regards to the infraction also don t need reliable knowledge to justify searches but this search in particular was unconstitutional bc no sufficient justification to search Redding school violated her reasonable expectation of privacy also unreasonable due to her age and nature of infraction no reason to believe she had anything in her underwear Am Amd Exclusionary rule Mapp v Ohio19614 h14 hexclusionary rule police watching mapps house for illegal activity they think she is harboring fugitive she refuses the search they come back with fake warrant don t find a fugitive but find a box of porn which is against Ohio obscene material law Rules that all evidence obtained via illegal search and seizure is inadmissible in court since 4 h s right to privacy is incorporated so is the exclusionary rule INCORPORATES ER Exclusionary Rule judicial remedy related to 4th rational is law enfocement is deterred from illegal search bc evidence will be inadmissible anyway US v Leon19844 h Exclusionary Rule police got non credible tip surveyed house 2nd informant warrant issued and 4 arrested Ruled that even with a defective warrant if the officer gets a warrant but fault of the Judge and is acting on lgood faith then the evidence seized is admissible says the ER is not a fundamental right merely a judicial tool to halt illegal police activity Hudson v Michigan20064 hknock and announce ER police didn t knock and announce when implementing warrant find guns and drugs Rules that discovery was inevitable anyway and that the two rules are different ER halt govt encroachment and knock and announce time to gather yourself and right to privacy Herring v US20094 h good faith rule man arrested for warrant that was recalled but wasn t taken off the books due to administrative error when the police execute warrant they find gun and drugs Rules that lerroneous search is admissible bc the police were acting in good faith that warrant was good and the ER doesn t apply this is simply an isolated incident


Buy Material

Are you sure you want to buy this material for

25 Karma

Buy Material

BOOM! Enjoy Your Free Notes!

We've added these Notes to your profile, click here to view them now.


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'

Why people love StudySoup

Bentley McCaw University of Florida

"I was shooting for a perfect 4.0 GPA this semester. Having StudySoup as a study aid was critical to helping me achieve my goal...and I nailed it!"

Janice Dongeun University of Washington

"I used the money I made selling my notes & study guides to pay for spring break in Olympia, Washington...which was Sweet!"

Steve Martinelli UC Los Angeles

"There's no way I would have passed my Organic Chemistry class this semester without the notes and study guides I got from StudySoup."


"Their 'Elite Notetakers' are making over $1,200/month in sales by creating high quality content that helps their classmates in a time of need."

Become an Elite Notetaker and start selling your notes online!

Refund Policy


All subscriptions to StudySoup are paid in full at the time of subscribing. To change your credit card information or to cancel your subscription, go to "Edit Settings". All credit card information will be available there. If you should decide to cancel your subscription, it will continue to be valid until the next payment period, as all payments for the current period were made in advance. For special circumstances, please email


StudySoup has more than 1 million course-specific study resources to help students study smarter. If you’re having trouble finding what you’re looking for, our customer support team can help you find what you need! Feel free to contact them here:

Recurring Subscriptions: If you have canceled your recurring subscription on the day of renewal and have not downloaded any documents, you may request a refund by submitting an email to

Satisfaction Guarantee: If you’re not satisfied with your subscription, you can contact us for further help. Contact must be made within 3 business days of your subscription purchase and your refund request will be subject for review.

Please Note: Refunds can never be provided more than 30 days after the initial purchase date regardless of your activity on the site.