Chapter 5 - Civil Liberties Quiz #2

Reviewed by Editorial Team
The ProProfs editorial team is comprised of experienced subject matter experts. They've collectively created over 10,000 quizzes and lessons, serving over 100 million users. Our team includes in-house content moderators and subject matter experts, as well as a global network of rigorously trained contributors. All adhere to our comprehensive editorial guidelines, ensuring the delivery of high-quality content.
Learn about Our Editorial Process
| By Catherine Halcomb
Catherine Halcomb
Community Contributor
Quizzes Created: 1443 | Total Attempts: 6,686,485
| Attempts: 270
SettingsSettings
Please wait...
  • 1/10 Questions

    The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of flag burning in the case of

    • Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire.
    • Miller v. California.
    • Texas v. Johnson.
    • Reno v. Johnson.
    • Schenck v. United States.
Please wait...
About This Quiz

Explore key decisions in American civil liberties with this Chapter 5 quiz. Covering landmark Supreme Court cases, it assesses understanding of constitutional rights, from flag burning to religious freedoms in schools. Ideal for AP Government students enhancing their knowledge on civil liberties.

Civil Liberties Quizzes & Trivia

Quiz Preview

  • 2. 

    The Supreme Court demanded that the evidence obtained in Mapp v. Ohio be excluded because the police

    • Had not obtained a search warrant.

    • Questioned Mapp in an impolite manner.

    • Used unncecessary force.

    • Refused to let Mapp contact her lawyer.

    • Spied on Mapp with binoculars.

    Correct Answer
    A. Had not obtained a search warrant.
    Explanation
    The Supreme Court demanded that the evidence obtained in Mapp v. Ohio be excluded because the police had not obtained a search warrant. This is because the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and generally requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant based on probable cause before conducting a search. In the Mapp case, the police entered Mapp's home without a search warrant, which violated her Fourth Amendment rights. Therefore, any evidence obtained as a result of that unlawful search was deemed inadmissible in court.

    Rate this question:

  • 3. 

    The exclusionary rule holds that

    • Double jeopardy cannot occur.

    • Defendants who have had their rights violated can plea bargain.

    • Police officers must be disciplined.

    • Evidence gathered in violation of the Constitution cannot be used in a trial.

    • States must prohibit religious displays in court.

    Correct Answer
    A. Evidence gathered in violation of the Constitution cannot be used in a trial.
    Explanation
    The exclusionary rule states that any evidence obtained by the government in violation of the Constitution, such as through an illegal search or seizure, cannot be used against the defendant in a trial. This rule is based on the Fourth Amendment, which protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. It aims to deter law enforcement from violating constitutional rights and ensures that the legal system upholds the principles of fairness and justice. By excluding unlawfully obtained evidence, the rule helps to safeguard the rights of defendants and maintain the integrity of the criminal justice system.

    Rate this question:

  • 4. 

    The landmark case on involuntary confession was that of

    • Mapp v. Ohio.

    • Miranda v. Arizona.

    • Gideon v. Wainwright.

    • Brown v. Board of Education.

    • Gitlow v. New York.

    Correct Answer
    A. Miranda v. Arizona.
    Explanation
    Miranda v. Arizona is the correct answer because it was a landmark case that established the requirement for law enforcement to inform individuals of their constitutional rights before questioning them in police custody. This case led to the creation of the Miranda warning, which includes the right to remain silent and the right to have an attorney present during questioning. The decision in Miranda v. Arizona greatly impacted the protection of individual rights during interrogations and has since become a fundamental aspect of criminal procedure in the United States.

    Rate this question:

  • 5. 

    In the _______________________ case, the Supreme Court ruled that the part of the McCain-Feingold law that denied corporations and labor unions the right to run ads violated their rights to free speech under the Constitution.

    • McConnell v. Federal Election Commission

    • Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

    • New York Times v. Sullivan

    • Miller v. California

    • Reno v. ACLU

    Correct Answer
    A. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
    Explanation
    In the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case, the Supreme Court ruled that the part of the McCain-Feingold law that denied corporations and labor unions the right to run ads violated their rights to free speech under the Constitution. This decision established that political spending by corporations and unions is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and therefore cannot be restricted by the government. The ruling had significant implications for campaign finance laws and opened the door for increased political spending by corporations and unions.

    Rate this question:

  • 6. 

    The purpose of the exclusionary rule, according to the Supreme Court, is to

    • Limit illegal immigration.

    • Prevent crime by addressing its root causes.

    • Limit the power of courts.

    • Exclude religious activities by government employees.

    • Control the behavior of the police.

    Correct Answer
    A. Control the behavior of the police.
    Explanation
    The exclusionary rule is a legal principle that prohibits evidence obtained illegally or in violation of constitutional rights from being used in court. The purpose of this rule, according to the Supreme Court, is to control the behavior of the police. By excluding illegally obtained evidence, the rule serves as a deterrent and encourages law enforcement officers to abide by the law and respect individuals' constitutional rights. It ensures that police officers are held accountable for their actions and prevents them from engaging in unlawful or unconstitutional practices.

    Rate this question:

  • 7. 

    In the ___________________ decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the establishment clause forbids prayer, even a nondenominational one, in public schools.

    • Everson v. Board of Education

    • Engel v. Vitale

    • Lemon v. Kurtzman

    • Zelman v. Simmons-Harris

    • Lee v. Weisman

    Correct Answer
    A. Engel v. Vitale
    Explanation
    Engel v. Vitale is the correct answer because in this landmark case, the Supreme Court ruled that prayer, even if it is nondenominational, is prohibited in public schools. The court determined that the inclusion of prayer in the school's activities violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from endorsing or promoting any religion. This decision set an important precedent for the separation of church and state in public schools.

    Rate this question:

  • 8. 

    The main provisions of the U.S.A. Patriot Act cover all of the following EXCEPT 

    • Airport security.

    • Telephone taps.

    • Internet taps.

    • Voice mail.

    • Money laundering.

    Correct Answer
    A. Airport security.
    Explanation
    The main provisions of the U.S.A. Patriot Act cover telephone taps, Internet taps, voice mail, and money laundering. However, airport security is not specifically mentioned as one of the main provisions of the act. Therefore, the correct answer is airport security.

    Rate this question:

  • 9. 

    In an important recent decision, the Supreme Court upheld a voucher program for students attending religious and other private schools in Cleveland, Ohio, because

    • The schools promised to teach no course involving religion.

    • The aid was not given to particular schools but to the families who chose the schools.

    • The schools removed all religious symbols and artifacts.

    • The aid was given directly in the particular schools.

    • The teachers were certified by the state.

    Correct Answer
    A. The schools promised to teach no course involving religion.
    Explanation
    The Supreme Court upheld the voucher program because the schools promised not to teach any courses involving religion. This suggests that the Court believed that the program did not violate the separation of church and state, as the schools were not using public funds to promote or teach religious content. Instead, the aid was given to families who chose the schools, and the schools themselves removed all religious symbols and artifacts. Additionally, the fact that the teachers were certified by the state may have also played a role in the Court's decision, as it ensured that the schools met certain educational standards.

    Rate this question:

  • 10. 

    The historical reference to a "wall of separation" between religion and the state can be found in

    • The Bill of Rights.

    • A series of debates in the First Congress.

    • The writings of Thomas Jefferson.

    • Twentieth-century Supreme Court decisions.

    • The Federalist papers.

    Correct Answer
    A. The writings of Thomas Jefferson.
    Explanation
    The correct answer is the writings of Thomas Jefferson. This is because Thomas Jefferson, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States and the principal author of the Declaration of Independence, used the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" in a letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. This letter is often cited as a key historical reference to the concept of separation of religion and the state in the United States.

    Rate this question:

Quiz Review Timeline (Updated): Mar 21, 2023 +

Our quizzes are rigorously reviewed, monitored and continuously updated by our expert board to maintain accuracy, relevance, and timeliness.

  • Current Version
  • Mar 21, 2023
    Quiz Edited by
    ProProfs Editorial Team
  • Apr 12, 2016
    Quiz Created by
    Catherine Halcomb
Back to Top Back to top
Advertisement
×

Wait!
Here's an interesting quiz for you.

We have other quizzes matching your interest.