Supreme Court cases that have appeared on the released ap exams: mc exams 2002, 1999, 1994, 1989; frqs 1998-2008



Download 29.12 Kb.
Date conversion30.05.2016
Size29.12 Kb.
Supreme Court cases that have appeared on the released AP Exams: MC exams 2002, 1999, 1994, 1989; FRQs 1998-2008
MC Questions: Sometimes the case is the basis of the question or incorporated in the question and sometimes the cases are in the answer choices. If the case was the basis of the question or the correct answer in the choices, it is indicated with an *. Other cases were distracters in the answer.
2002 EXAM

#14, Dred Scott decision*, Plessy v. Ferguson

#30, Brown v. Board of Education

#32, Miranda v. Arizona (must be informed of your rights)

#48, Roe v. Wade (right to privacy)
1999 EXAM

#29, Brown v. Board of Education, Sweatt v. Painter ( the correct answer in this question was the Civil Rights Act of 1964)

#31 McCulloch v. Maryland (states cannot interfere with or tax legitimate activities of the federal government)

#45, “Miranda warning”

#60, Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade (right to privacy)
1994 EXAM

#6, no actual case referenced but the political cartoon is about the exclusionary rule

#55, Roe v. Wade (right to privacy)
1989 EXAM

#5, Marbury v. Madison (judicial review)

#20, United States v. Nixon (no guarantee of unqualified executive privilege)

#30, Gitlow v. New York, Munn v. Illinois, Regents of University of California v. Bakke, Gideon v. Wainwright, Miranda v. Arizona*

#44, Dred Scott v. Stanford (1857), Plessy v. Ferguson*(1896), Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company v. Sawyer (1952), Engel v. Vitale (1962), Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg County Board of Education (1971)

#59, Baker v. Carr*, Roe v. Wade, Mapp v. Ohio, Korematsu v. United States, Gideon v. Wainright


FRQs
2007 #2

1st Amendment

Establishment Clause- Engel v. Vitale (school prayer), Lemon v. Kurtzman (state funding for public schools)

Free Exercise Clause-Reynolds v. United States (polygamy), Oregon v. Smith (drug use in religious ceremonies)


2005 #3

Selective incorporation

No specific case is mentioned in the question; student must define “selective in corporation” and explain how the following have been incorporated based upon “a specific and relevant Supreme Court decision”

2002 #3


14th Amendment

Equal Protection- Brown v. Board of Education (1954), Baker v. Carr (1962), Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)

Due Process- Mapp v. Ohio (1961), Gideon v. Wainright (1963), Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
2000 #4

Obstacles to significant campaign finance reform-Buckley v. Valeo (1976)


1998 #2

Incorporation

Gitlow v. New York (1925), Wolf v. Colorado (1949), Gideon v. Wainright (1963)

 

Supreme Court Cases to know for tests and quizzes


Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

Roe v. Wade (1973)

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Engle v. Vitale (1962)

Swan v. Charlotte-Mecklenberg County School (1971)

Baker v. Carr (1962)

Texas v. Johnson (1989)

Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978)

Adarand Constructors v. Pena (1995)

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971))

Reynolds v. United States (1879)

Oregon v. Smith (1990)

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Near v. Minnesota (1931)

Barron v. Baltimore (1933)

Gitlow v. New York (1925)

Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)

Gregg v. Georgia (1976)

NAACP v. Alabama (1958)

Korematsu v. United States (1944)

Reed v. Reed (1976)

Craig v. Boren (1976)

Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)

Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

Wolf v. Colorado (1961)

Sherbert v. Verner (1963)

City of Boerne v. Flores (1997)
 

POLITICAL PARTIES


Functions of Political Parties

1.     Linkage between people and government

2.     Nominates candidates

3.     Assists with campaigns

4.     Structures the voting choice

5.     Organizes government, coordinates policymaking

6.     Articulates policy

7.     Mobilizes voters

8.     Agents of accountability

9.     Promotes national unity

10. Legitimizes decisions of government
Why a two party system in the United States

1.     Single member “winner-take-all”

2.     Republicans and Democrats automatically on the ballot

3.     Public funding for presidential campaigns favors two partes

4.     Electoral college

5.     Generally little media attention to non-major party candidates

6.     Political socialization

7.     Political self-interest of Republican and Democratic parties

8.     Basic social consensus
Impact of third or minor parties

1.     Functions as a safety valve for popular discontent, allows the discontent to express their displeasure and contribute to political dialogue

2.     Brings new groups into the electorate

3.     Effects election outcomes

4.     Influences/shapes policy of major parties, pushes major parties to include otherwise underrepresented concerns/groups

5.     Clarifies major-party candidate positions



6.     Brings new ideas/concerns to public attention
 


The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2016
send message

    Main page