CYBERLAND UNIVERSITY OF NORTH AMERICA

SECTION F: DIRECT QUESTIONS (Continued)

29.  Under the U.S. Constitution, the states regulate elections
     and set voter qualifications.  The states regulate federal
     elections as well as state and local elections.  The states
     set the legal qualifications, or requirements, that must be
     met by persons before they are allowed to vote in elections
     --federal elections as well as state and local elections.
     In each state, the state legislature sets voting qualifica-
     tions for participation in elections for the state legisla-
     ture, other state elective offices, that state's Senators
     and representatives in Congress, and that state's presiden-
     tial electors.  In each state, the state legislature pre-
     scribes the times, places, and manner of holding elections 
     to fill the foregoing offices.

30.  Congress has used its superceding authority to (1) set age
     and residency requirements to vote in federal elections, (2)
     establish a uniform day for all states to hold elections for
     members of Congress and for presidential electors, and (3)
     give American citizens who reside outside the United States
     the right to vote for members of Congress and presidential
     electors in the states in which they previously lived.

31.  AMENDMENT 14:  Prohibits voting qualifications that have no
     reasonable relation to the ability to vote and thereby deny
     equal protection of the laws.

     AMENDMENT 15:  Prohibits voting qualifications based on
     race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

     AMENDMENT 19:  Prohibits voting qualifications based on sex,
     or gender.
  
     AMENDMENT 24:  Prohibits voting qualifications (for partici-
     pation in federal elections) based on failure to pay a poll
     tax or any other tax.

     AMENDMENT 26:  Prohibits denial of citizens 18 years of age
     or older the right to vote on account of age.

     Each of the foregoing federal constitutional amendments con-
     tains an Enforcement Clause granting Congress the power to
     enforce the amendment by appropriate legislation.  The En-
     forcement Clauses enhance the authority of Congress to enact
     voting rights legislation, to pass federal statutes protect-
     ing the right to vote.

32.  The "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clauses includes
     immunity from arbitrarily being thrown into jail or prison,
     without the government following proper procedures pre-
     scribed by law.  In addition, it includes the right of the
     individual to contract, engage in any of the common occupa-
     tions of life, acquire useful knowledge, marry, establish a
     home and bring up childred, worship God according to the
     dictates of his own conscience, and generally enjoy those
     common law privileges long recognized as essential to the
     orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

33.  The "property" protected by the Due Process Clauses includes
     ownership of real estate, things, and money.  Also included
     are rights that may be conferred by state law, e.g., certain
     kinds of licenses, protection from being fired from some
     jobs except for just cause, and, according to certain pro-
     cedures, protection from deprivation of certain pension
     rights.

34.  Procedural due process (1) places limits on how governmental
     power may be exercised, (2) pertains to the procedures of
     the law, and (3) mainly limits the executive and judicial
     branches of government.  Substantive due process (1) places
     limits on what government may do, (2) pertains to the con-
     tent, or substance, of the law, and (3) mainly limits the
     legislative branch of government.

35.  Since 1937, the Supreme Court has largely refused to apply
     the Substantive Due Process Doctrine in reviewing laws regu-
     lating economic activity.  According to the Supreme Court,
     deciding what constitutes reasonable regulations of business
     and commercial activity is a responsibility of the legisla-
     ture, not the judiciary.  The Court will not interfere with
     congressional or state legislative regulation of economic
     activity, as long as the Court can find a conceivable con-
     nection between a law regulating business and the promotion
     of the public interest.  During recent decades, the Court
     has used the Substantive Due Process Doctrine to recognize
     and protect a right of personal privacy.

36.  In the U.S. Constitution, there is no mention of the right
     to personal privacy.  However, the Supreme Court has put to-
     gether some elements from Amendments 1, 4, 5, 9, and 14.
     And, on the basis of the combination of these elements, the
     Court has recognized the right of privacy as one of the
     civil liberties protected by the Federal Constitution.

37.  In a 1986 decision, the Supreme Court refused to extend the
     right of privacy to relations between homosexuals.  The
     Court refused to invalidate a Georgia law that made con-
     sensual sodomy, as practiced by homosexuals, a crime.  Ac-
     cording to the Court, the fact that homosexual conduct oc-
     curred in the privacy of the home did not affect the result.

     However, the Supreme Court invalidated a provision of the
     Colorado Constitution which prohibited any legislative,
     executive, or judicial action at any level of state or local
     government designed to protect homosexuals.  GROUNDS:  The
     Colorado state constitutional provision violates the Equal
     Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  The provi-
     sion identifies persons by a single trait and then denies
     them across-the-board protection.

38.  The police may arrest a person without a warrant in a public
     place, provided there is probable cause--i.e., a fair proba-
     bility that the person has committed a crime or is about to
     commit a crime.  No later than two days after making the ar-
     rest, the police must take the arrested person to a magis-
     trate (a low-level judge) so that the judge, not just the
     police, can decide whether probable cause existed to justify
     the warrantless arrest.

39.  It is unconstitutional to shoot an apparently unarmed, flee-
     ing, suspected felon unless the police officer has probable
     cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat
     of death or serious injury to the officer or to others.
     When feasible, the police officer must first warn the sus-
     pect:  "Halt or I'll shoot."

40.  Not every time the police stop a person to ask questions
     and/or to seek that person's consent to a search of his per-
     son and/or possessions is there a seizure or detention re-
     quiring probable cause or a warrant.  When the police do so
     in a noncoercive manner, there is no seizure or detention
     requiring probable cause or a warrant.  So long as a reason-
     able person would feel free to disregard the police and go
     about his business, the encounter is consensual and no rea-
     sonable  suspicion is required.  The encounter will not
     trigger Fourth Amendment scrutiny unless it loses its con-
     sensual nature.

     The encounter becomes coercive and the Fourth Amendment
     comes into play if the person refuses to answer questions
     or consent to a search and the police, by either physical
     force or a show of authority, restrain the movement of the
     person, even though there is no arrest.  Under these circum-
     stances, the police must have some objective justification
     for the restraint and/or search beyond mere suspicion.

41.  Administrative searches do not require search warrants.
     Rules governing the conduct of such searches are more len-
     ient than the rules governing searches by police investigat-
     ing crimes.  In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court held that ad-
     ministrative searches conducted without grounds for suspi-
     cion of particular individuals are constitutional in certain
     limited circumstances.

42.  The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of (1)
     blood and urine tests of rail employees involved in train
     accidents, (2) blood and urine tests of customs officials
     who are directly involved in drug interdiction and/or who
     are required to carry firearms, and (3) random testing of
     high school students engaged in interscholastic athletic
     competions.  However, the Court invalidated a Georgia
     statute requiring candidates for designated state offices to
     certify that they had taken a drug test and that the test
     result was negative.  GROUNDS:  The State of Georgia failed
     to show why this invasion of privacy was necessary.

43.  A police search without consent is unreasonable and there-
     fore unconstitutional unless the search has been authorized
     by a valid search warrant issued by a magistrate after the
     police state under oath that they have probable cause to
     justify issuance of the warrant.  The magistrate must per-
     form this function in a neutral and detached manner and not
     serve as a rubber stamp for the police.

44.  In cases subsequent to MIRANDA V. ARIZONA (1978), the U.S.
     Supreme Court has modified the Miranda ruling in order to
     deter perjury, i.e., lying under oath.  The Court allows
     evidence obtained contrary to the Miranda guidelines to be
     used to attack the credibility of defendants who offer tes-
     timony at their trials that conflicts with their statements
     to the police.

45.  The basic requirements of procedural due process stipulated
     in the Sixth Amendment include the right of the accused to
     (1) a speedy and public trial, (2) an impartial jury, (3)
     trial in the area where the crime was committwd, (4) notice
     of the charges, (5) be confronted with witnesses against
     him, (6) use of the subpoena to obtain favorable witnesses,
     and (7) have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

46.  Federal law provides that, in a federal criminal trial, the
     petit jury must consist of 12 jurors and arrive at its deci-
     sion by unanimous vote.  The accused is allowed to waive his
     right to a jury trial.  Generally, the petit jury is the
     judge of the facts, or evidence, presented at the trial.
     The petit jury, or trial jury, decides on the guilt or inno-
     cence of the defendant.  Under the Sixth Amendment, the mem-
     bers of the trial jury must be selected from the state and
     district in which the alleged crime was committed.

47.  Incumbency is a greater advantage for U.S. Representatives
     than it is for U.S. Senators.  Incumbent Senators are more
     widely known through the media, but so are many of their
     challengers.  Since candidates for the U.S. Senate are far
     more visible than candidates for the U.S. House of Represen-
     tatives, senatorial candidates cannot easily duck tough is-
     sues.  Incumbent Senators normally face tougher competition
     than do House incumbents running for reelection, the Sena-
     tors facing challengers who often are already well known or
     who raise and spend significant amounts of political money.