3495824
Description
Mind Map by Isra Catori, updated more than 1 year ago
|
Created by Isra Catori
over 8 years ago
|
|
AP Gov Cases (Unit 3)
- Barrons V. Baltimore (1833)
- Barron sued city, claiming that
property had been damaged.
Argued 5th Amend.
- Ruling: Bill of Rights does not
apply to states, Only restricted
the National Government.
- Barron sued city, claiming that
property had been damaged.
Argued 5th Amend.
- Gibbons V. Ogden (1824)
- Question on who should regulate after
monopoly was granted to a private company.
- National Government wins, Has power to regulate
interstate commerce.
- Interpreted the commerce clause for the first time,
dramatically increased national power over the states.
- Question on who should regulate after
monopoly was granted to a private company.
- Gitlow V. New York (1925)
- Gitlow argued that state law was in
violation of the free speech clause of the
1st Amendment
- Decided Bill of Rights did apply to states,
Due Process clause of 14th Amendment
guarantees application to the states.
- States were not free to violate these rights.
- States were not free to violate these rights.
- Gitlow argued that state law was in
violation of the free speech clause of the
1st Amendment
- Heart of Atlanta Motel V. United States
- Hotel owner refused to accept african american
customers at hotel on the grounds that his business was
intrastate.
- Business served interstate travels, therefore was
subject to conditions of Civil Rights Act of 1964.
- Used the commerce clause to force private businesses to
abide by the Civil RIghts Act.
- Used the commerce clause to force private businesses to
abide by the Civil RIghts Act.
- Hotel owner refused to accept african american
customers at hotel on the grounds that his business was
intrastate.
- McCulloch V. Maryland (1819)
- State of Maryland argued that power to
create bank was not among the delegated
powers of Congress.
- Dismissed charges, bank was constitutional due to implied
power ('collect taxes, borrow money and regulate commerce')
- Affirmed the Supremacy Clause- expanded power of the
National Government.
- Affirmed the Supremacy Clause- expanded power of the
National Government.
- State of Maryland argued that power to
create bank was not among the delegated
powers of Congress.
- United States V. Lopez (1995)
- Convicted of violating the GFSZA, argued that
congress did not have power to adopt GFSZA
in the first place.
- Supreme Court ruled that GFSZA was
unconstitutional and overturned Lopez's
conviction.
- Case begins to restrict power of the
National Gov't.
- Convicted of violating the GFSZA, argued that
congress did not have power to adopt GFSZA
in the first place.
Want to create your own Mind Maps for free with GoConqr? Learn more.