Multiple Choice
Suppose a city passed a law banning demonstrations that target a specific private residence while allowing them on public sidewalks in general.Based on the Frisby v.Schultz case,such a law would be:
A) okay-not an unconstitutional restriction on freedom of expression.
B) a violation of the First Amendment.
C) a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment "due process" clause.
D) both choices b and c.
E) Frisby v.Schultz had nothing to do with demonstrations in residential areas.
Correct Answer:
Verified
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q23: The Supreme Court allowed a city to
Q24: In 2007,the California Supreme Court reaffirmed that
Q25: In the "Pentagon Papers" case (New York
Q26: In U.S.v.Alvarez,the Court overturned what law,saying that
Q27: In the "Pentagon Papers" case the position
Q29: The Supreme Court held that the federal
Q30: In the case of Texas v.Johnson,the Supreme
Q31: The Supreme Court first clearly held that
Q32: In a 1994 decision,the Supreme Court upheld
Q33: The Supreme Court held that a state