AP®︎ U.S. Government & Politics: Unit 3 Practice Test

Review: EK 3.1.A.1

The U.S. Constitution includes a Bill of Rights specifically designed to protect individual liberties and rights.

Review: EK 3.1.A.2

Civil liberties are constitutionally established guarantees and freedoms that protect citizens, opinions, and property against arbitrary government interference.

Review: EK 3.1.A.3

The application of the Bill of Rights is continuously interpreted by the courts.

Review: EK 3.1.B.1

The Bill of Rights consists of the first ten Amendments to the Constitution, which enumerate the liberties and rights of individuals.

Review: EK 3.2.A.1

The interpretation and application of the First Amendment’s establishment and free exercise clauses reflect an ongoing tension between government power to make law and an individual’s right to religious freedom.

Review: EK 3.3.A.1

The Supreme Court has held that speech, including symbolic speech (nonverbal action that communicates an idea or belief), is protected by the First Amendment.

Review: EK 3.3.A.2

Efforts to balance social order and individual freedom are reflected in interpretations of the First Amendment that limit speech, including: i. Time, place, and manner regulations that impose restrictions such as limits on the time of day an event can be held, limits on where an event can be held, and limits on the noise levels at an event ii. Limitations on some obscene and offensive communication. iii. Protections against defamation (language that harms the reputation of another) including libel (written communication) and slander (oral communication). iv. Restrictions on speech that create a clear and present danger and subsequent interpretations which have refined those restrictions.

Review: EK 3.4.A.1

The Supreme Court bolstered the freedom of the press, affirming support for a heavy presumption against prior restraint even in cases involving national security.

Review: EK 3.5.A.1

The Supreme Court’s decisions on the Second Amendment rest upon its constitutional interpretation of the right to bear arms.

Review: EK 3.6.A.1

Court decisions defining cruel and unusual punishment involve interpretation of the Eighth Amendment and its application to death penalty statutes.

Review: EK 3.6.A.2

The debate about the Second and Fourth Amendments involves concerns about public safety and whether or not the government regulation of firearms or collection of digital metadata promotes or interferes with public safety and individual rights.

Review: EK 3.7.A.1

The doctrine of selective incorporation has imposed limitations on state regulation of civil liberties by extending select protections of the Bill of Rights to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Review: EK 3.8.A.1

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments include clauses which state that the government may not infringe on a person’s right to life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The due process clause in the Fifth Amendment applies to the national government and the due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment applies to states. Some government interests may justify the restriction of individual rights; for example, speech can be limited when it is shown to present a danger to public safety.

Review: EK 3.8.A.2

Procedural due process requires that government officials use methods that are not arbitrary when making and carrying out decisions affecting constitutionally protected rights. These procedural due process protections are reinforced by key protections enshrined in other provisions of the Bill of Rights and key legal doctrines established by the Supreme Court. For example, the Miranda rule requires accused persons to be informed of some procedural protections found in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments prior to interrogation. However, these procedural protections are not absolute. A public safety exception has been sanctioned by the Court that allows unwarned interrogation to stand as direct evidence in court.

Review: EK 3.8.A.3

Procedural rights of the accused and the prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures are intended to ensure that individual liberties are not eclipsed by the need for social order and security, including: i. The right to legal counsel, speedy and public trial, and an impartial jury ii. Protection against warrantless searches of cell phone data under the Fourth Amendment iii. Limitations placed on bulk collection of telecommunication metadata (Patriot and USA Freedom Acts)

Review: EK 3.8.A.4

Procedural due process also protects the rights of the accused during a trial. The Bill of Rights guarantees the right to an attorney and protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. The exclusionary rule, as decided by the Supreme Court, stipulates that evidence illegally seized by law enforcement officers in violation of the suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights (including the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures) cannot be used against that suspect in criminal prosecution.

Review: EK 3.9.A.1

Over time, the Supreme Court has recognized constitutionally protected rights that are not explicitly listed in the Bill of Rights. These unenumerated rights include the right to privacy. Justices and scholars have drawn on several arguments to defend the existence of unenumerated rights. Some argue that an unenumerated right is implied by certain amendments that assume the existence of such rights. Others argue that the Ninth Amendment, which states that individuals have protected rights beyond those listed in the first eight amendments, provides support for the existence of unenumerated rights. In a range of cases, the Supreme Court has used substantive due process to examine whether government laws and actions are arbitrary infringements of individual rights.

Review: EK 3.9.A.2

While a right to privacy is not explicitly named in the Constitution, the Supreme Court, in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), interpreted the due process clause to protect the right of privacy from government infringement. In Roe v. Wade (1973), the Supreme Court held that the application of substantive due process further extended the privacy right to abortion. The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) overturned Roe v. Wade, holding that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion, leaving decisions about the regulation of abortion to legislatures. The actions that are protected by the right to privacy and substantive due process continue to be debated.

Review: EK 3.10.A.1

Civil rights protect individuals from discrimination based on characteristics such as race, national origin, religion, and sex; these rights are guaranteed to all persons under the due process and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution, as well as acts of Congress.

Review: EK 3.10.A.2

The civil rights movement, the women’s rights movement, and advocacy for LGBTQ rights are evidence of how the equal protection clause can support and motivate social movements, as represented by: i. Dr. Martin Luther King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” and the civil rights movement of the 1960s ii. The National Organization for Women and the women’s rights movement iii. The pro-life and pro-choice movements

Review: EK 3.11.A.1

The government can respond to social movements through court rulings and/or policies. i. Supreme Court decisions which declared that race-based school segregation violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause. ii. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in public places, provides for the integration of schools and other public facilities, and makes employment discrimination illegal. iii. Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 prohibits sex discrimination in any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. iv. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits racial discrimination in voting.

Review: EK 3.12.A.1

Decisions demonstrating that minority rights have been restricted at times and protected at other times include: i. The Emancipation Proclamation freed enslaved people from the states in rebellion against the United States, and the subsequent ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment permanently abolished slavery and marked a shift toward the establishment of civil rights for the formerly enslaved ii. State laws and Supreme Court holdings based on the “separate but equal” doctrine restricting African American access to the same restaurants, hotels, schools, etc., as the majority white population iii. Court decisions declaring that race-based school segregation violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause iv. The Supreme Court upholding the rights of the majority in cases that limit and prohibit majority-minority districting

Review: EK 3.13.A.1

Affirmative action refers to policies intended to address workplace and educational disparities related to race, ethnic origin, gender, disability, and age. Supreme Court debate has focused on whether affirmative action is protected by the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.