Con law Flashcards

Question

Takings Clause

Answer 1

5th Amendment Gov has the power take private property for public use in exchange for reasonable compensation What is public use? Anything the gov reasonably believes will benefit the public So any reason A temporary taking is not a taking. Must be permanent You can bring an action claiming a taking even if the regulations existed at the time you bought the property

Answer 2

Grandma johnson was living in her house dedicating her life to knitting the government rolled in and took her house while she was still in it and fully condemned the thing for public use They blew uo her house while she was still in it and gave it to Amazon to build a warehouse If the gov reasons that an Amazon warehouse is beneficial to the community ... public use

Answer 3

Fair market value

Answer 4

(1) Possessory Regardless of how small the taking is, it's a taking AS LONG AS IT IS PERMANENT Permanent taking - easement for tourists Think of the government installing a power line on your roof...taking (2) Regulatory The government can use their police power to regulate land with things like zoning without having to pay anyone shit as long as it is for the health, safety, and welfare of the community However, it is a regulatory taking if they go too far and destroy all the value in your property 2 ways to prove: (1) taking leaves no reasonable economic use of your property or FULL BLOW ECONOMIC WIPEOUT (2) unreasonably interferes with distinct investment backed expectations you had to the property 3 part test to #2 - Economic Impact of the Ordinance - Investment back expectation - Character of government action REMEMBER TRAIN STATION EXAMPLE

Answer 5

A STATE LAW that substantially impairs pre-existing contracts is unconstitutional UNLESS state establishes that the law is a reasonable way to achieve a significant and legitimate public purpose

Answer 6

A state of federal law that inflicts punishment on SPECIFCALLY NAMED PERSON that is easily idenitifiable without them going to trial If it's a group of people like CEOs, probably doesn't violate

Answer 7

ONLY APPLYS TO CRIMINAL CASES 2 ways to violate (1) Retroactively increasing the penalty of a crime is not allowed (2) You cannot make some shit that was legal when it done ...illegal later on...then punish someone for it

Answer 8

Free exercise clause: Gove can't interfere with your practice of religion BUT they can fuck with your religion, so long as it is a neutral facing law that kind of...accidentally fucks with the religion "Incidental burden on their religion" HOWEVER ------ if the law targets religious practices specifically IT IS NOT ALLOWED Gov can not say you are not killed to kill buffalo for Native American religious ceremony That will be a direct target on religion and is motivated by a desire to suppress religion IF THE LAW IS (1) NOT NEUTRAL AND (2) MOTIVATED BY A DESIRE TO DISCRIMINATE STRICT SCRUTINY!! If it's neutral -----> rational basis ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE: forbids the gov from forcing people to observe religious practices and prevents the gov from unduly benefitting religion TEST: Whether the gov actions violate the EC by reference to historical practices and traditions

Answer 9

No The gov can give money to a defined class of people without mention of religion or using any religious criteria...if they happen to use it for religious shit....that's fine It can not be used to DIRECTLY fund religious instruction AND if they give money to a group...religious and non-religious group must have EQUAL ACESS to any facilities or spaces built with that money

Answer 10

Maybe. Prior restraints Judicial order to stop speech before it even occurs Met with strict scrutiny and the government has to show SPECIAL SOCIETAL HARM will occur if the speech is not stopped at the outside Example: Details about ongoing military operations could cause special societal harm, sea. judge may order a prior restraint for this - Highly confidential trade secrets about a biz - Publicizing information bout a contagious disease outbreak could cause a societal panic ...may be suppressed You can NOT have a gag order on the press to prevent bad pretrial publicity Valid gag order: - Be reasonable, narrowly drawn, and definite; - There must be an injunction given by the court AND There has to be a final determination by a court of the validity of the restraint

Answer 11

The gov can require a license for speech, such as a parade, but there must be an important reason for the licensing AND there must be very little discretion vested in the licensing board FAIR PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS Must be subject to review by the courts

Answer 12

A law about speech can be void for vagueness IF a reasonable person of common intelligence would not able to determine what's prohibited by the law Example: A law prohibiting material that is harmful to minors will be found to be too vague A law prohibiting annoying language or cursing

Answer 13

A law is considered OVERBROAD if it regulates what more speech that necessary If it prohibits (1) protected and (2) unprotected speech Example: Prohibiting all live entertainment in the city just to stop a few strip clubs

Answer 14

Example: Public parks Can regulate as long as: (1) The regulation is a time, place, or manner restriction that serves an important gov purpose and leaves open alternative places for communication

Answer 15

SM neutral: it bans all topics regardless of a particular viewpoint. REGARDLESS of message conveyed ... it is banned Viewpoint: Does not favor on viewpoint over another within a particular topic

Answer 16

These are government properties the government COULD close to speech if they wanted ... but they choose to open them to speech Can regulate as long as (1) The regulation is a time, place, or manner restriction that serves an important gov purpose and leaves open alternative places for communication Different from public bc it can regulate some speech May be able to limit off topic speech by subject matter discriminating if you open up the forum for a specific reason

Answer 17

Strict scrutiny

Answer 18

Example: Jail, courthouses, post officers, airports These are gov properties which the government can fully close to speech The gov can regulate here as long as the regulation time place and manner is: - Reasonable (rational basis) and - Viewpoint neutral

Answer 19

There is not a free speech protection for private property There is no protection at the mail

Answer 20

Advertising on a bus is a designated public forum because the gov chooses to open up the side of their bus for advertising So remember... no content based restrictions on the side of buses If the church can advertise on the side of the bus, the satanic goat cult can also advertise Advertising INSIDE a city bus is a non public forum

Answer 21

The Gove can regulate conduct that communicates if: (1) There is an important unrelated interest to the suppression of speech; and (2) the restraint on speech is no greater than necessary Yes you can burn flags But you can't burn them in the lobby of a courthouse if it's in violation of a fire code law You can burna cross or write a swastika somewhere and it's protected

Answer 22

If you burn a cross with the intent to threaten a specific person ... that is a true threat and is not protected Getting a bigger sentence for purposefully targeting a certain race for violence is constitutional Speech that is harmful to religious or racial minorities can also be regulated

Answer 23

Imminent risk of violence by hostile audience Anytime the speech is directed at imminent incitement of illegal activity ... it is unprotected 2 ways they test: (1) The statute is banning fighting words in general ----- Answer? overbroad

Answer 24

2 types: (1) Speech in the course of official duties: not protected (2) Water cooler talk: We have 2 tests to determine if speech UNRELATED to your official duties will be allowed (1) The speech doesn't involve a matter of public concern and is not in the course of your official duties (u are just talking shit with ur friends) .....you can be punished or fired if disruptive to work environment (2) If this speech does involve a matter of public concern and is NOT in the course of your official duties (you are a mail clerk who doesn't have a public facing job and you are just talking shit about the gov) there is a balancing test which balances out your right as a citizen to comment on matters of public concern against the governments interest in the efficient performance of their workplace environment THE GARDENER AT THE WHITE HOUSE CANT BE FIRED FOR NOT LIKING JOE BIDEN AND TALKING ABOUT HIM... AS LONG AS HE DOESN'T MAKE THE WORKPLACE INEFFICENT

Con law Flashcards

(48 cards)