Question

iv. civil liberties and rights

1. free speech limitation (schenck v. u.s.): what specific condition was used by the supreme cqurt to justify limiting charles schencks free speech rights in 1919?
2. fourth amendment and incorporation (mapp v. ohio):

○ explain the role of the incorporation doctrine in this ruling.
○ give a concrete, hypothetical example of inadmissible evidence under this ruling.

1. original jurisdiction for state disputes: identify the specific court that would have original jurisdiction (the first and only court to hear the case) in a dispute between the state of arizona and the state of california over a water dispute.

Explanation:

1. In Schenck v. U.S. (1919), the Supreme Court used the "clear and present danger" test. This test stated that speech could be limited if it presented a clear and present danger, like Schenck's anti - draft leaflets during WWI which could potentially disrupt the war effort.

2.

• In Mapp v. Ohio, the incorporation doctrine (applying Bill of Rights protections to states via 14th Amendment) meant the exclusionary rule (evidence obtained illegally is inadmissible) was applied to states. Before, it was only for federal cases.
• Hypothetical example: Police enter a suspect's home in Ohio without a valid warrant and find drugs. Under Mapp v. Ohio, the drugs (evidence) would be inadmissible in a state court trial because the search violated the 4th Amendment (incorporated to states).

1. The U.S. Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in disputes between states. Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution gives the Supreme Court this power.

Answer:

1. The "clear and present danger" test.

2.

• The incorporation doctrine applied the exclusionary rule (from the 4th Amendment) to states.
• If police in Ohio search a home without a warrant and find drugs, the drugs are inadmissible.

1. The U.S. Supreme Court.