Question

1. in schenck v. u.s. (1919), under what conditions could free speech be limited?

a when it criticizes government actions
b when it presents a “clear and present danger”
c when it promotes political dissent
d when it is humorous in nature

1. korematsu v. united states (1944) upheld the constitutionality of what action?

a forced relocation and internment of japanese americans
b prohibiting japanese americans from owning property
c banning japanese americans from working in certain industries
d granting reparations to japanese americans

1. what did brown v. board (1954) declare unconstitutional?

a racial segregation in public schools
b racial segregation in public transportation
c racial segregation in the military
d racial segregation in housing

1. what did mapp v. ohio (1961) establish?

a the right to an attorney in criminal trials
b the exclusionary rule for evidence obtained illegally
c the right to remain silent during police questioning
d the right to a public trial

Explanation:

• Question 5: In Schenck v. U.S. (1919), Justice Holmes introduced the "clear and present danger" test. Free - speech can be limited when it presents such a danger. Criticizing government actions (a) is generally protected (unless it meets the "clear and present danger" standard). Promoting political dissent (c) is often a form of protected speech. Humorous speech (d) is not a basis for limiting free speech under this case.
• Question 6: Korematsu v. United States (1944) upheld the forced relocation and internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. Prohibiting property - ownership (b), banning from certain industries (c), and granting reparations (d) were not the main focus of this case. Reparations for Japanese Americans came later through other legislation.
• Question 7: Brown v. Board (1954) declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional. Racial segregation in public transportation was addressed in Browder v. Gayle (1956) and Montgomery Bus Boycott - related cases. Racial segregation in the military was desegregated by Executive Order 9981 in 1948. Racial segregation in housing was addressed by the Fair Housing Act of 1968.
• Question 8: Mapp v. Ohio (1961) incorporated the exclusionary rule (evidence obtained illegally cannot be used in state courts). The right to an attorney in criminal trials was established in Gideon v. Wainwright (1963). The right to remain silent during police questioning was from Miranda v. Arizona (1966). The right to a public trial is a more general constitutional right not specifically established by Mapp v. Ohio.

Answer:

1. B. When it presents a “clear and present danger”
2. A. Forced relocation and internment of Japanese Americans
3. A. Racial segregation in public schools
4. B. The exclusionary rule for evidence obtained illegally