Civil Liberties Flashcards
Civil Liberties vs Civil Rights
Civil Liberties: What the government CANNOT do
Civil Rights: What the government MUST do
dual citizenship
each american citizen is a citizen of the National Government and SEPARATELY a citizen of the state they reside in
Barron v. Baltimore
-established dual citizenship
-started the process of incorporation
-city of Baltimore disposed of sand and gravel in John Barron’s wharf, he claimed that they cannot do that without compensation (5th amendment)
- SCOTUS ruled in favor of Baltimore, state constitution contained no action like the 5th amendment
Amendment I: Limits on _______
Congress
congress cannot make any law establishing a national religion, abridging freedoms of religious exercise, speech, assembly, or petition
Amendments II, III, IV: Limits on _______
the executive:
cannot infringe on the right of people to bear arms (II)
cannot take houses for the militia (III)
cannot search for/ seize evidence or arrest people without a court warrant swearing to the probable existence of a crime (IV)
Amendments V, VI, VII, VIII: Limits on ________
the judiciary:
cannot hold trials for serious offenses without a grand jury (V), a trial jury (VII), a speedy trial (VI), presentation of charges and confrontation by the accused of hostile witnesses (VI)
no property can be taken without just compensation (V)
immunity from testimony against oneself, and immunity from trial more than once for the same offense (double jeopardy) (V)
neither bail nor punishment can be excessive (VIII)
Amendments IX, X: Limits on ___________
the National Government:
the enumeration of certain rights in the constitution should not be interpreted to mean that those are the only rights the people have (IX)
any rights not enumerated are reserved to the states or the people (X)
strict scrutiny
the strictest standard of judicial review of a government’s actions, in which the government must show that the law serves a “compelling state interest”
establishment clause
says that congress shall make no law respecting on establishment of religion
Lemon Test
rule articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman; says governmental action with respect to religion is permissible if it is 1. secular in purpose, 2. it’s effect was neither to advance or inhibit religion, and 3. it did not entangle government and religious institutions in each others affairs
free exercise clause
protects the right to believe and practice whatever religion one chooses, also protects the right to be a nonbeliever
speech plus
speech accompanied by activities such as sit-ins, picketing, and demonstrations
prior restraint
an effort by a government agency to block publication of material by a newspaper/ magazine; aka censorship
libel
written statement made in “reckless disregard to the truth” and considered damaging to a victim because it is “malicious, scandalous, and defamatory”
slander
oral statement made in “reckless disregard to the truth” and considered damaging to a victim because it is “malicious, scandalous, and defamatory”
fighting words
speech that directly incites damaging conduct
due process
requirement that citizens be treated according to the law and be provided adequate protection for individual rights
exclusionary rule
requirement that courts exclude evidence obtained in violation of the 4th amendment
grand jury
a jury that determines whether sufficient evidence is available to justify a trial. does not rule on the accused guilt/ innocence
Miranda Rule
requirement derived from the supreme court ruling in Miranda v. Arizona (1966) that persons under arrest must be informed of their legal rights, including the right to counsel before undergoing police investigation
read by cops to people
only mirandized if you are in custody/ being questioned
Civil Liberties
constitutional and legal protections from government interference into citizens personal freedoms
why was the bill of rights added?
to make the anti-federalists happy and ratify the constitution
selective vs total incorporation
total: one decision incorporates all of the hill of rights
selective: one decision only incorporates the bill of rights piece by piece based off of the issue the case is about, how the bill of rights was and is being incorporated
Schenck v. US (1919)
established clear and present danger test (eminent law and action)
you cannot say things that cause clear and present danger (ex. yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre)
Gitlow v. NY (1925)
incorporated 1st amendment
fighting words
words that would cause the average person to fight- has to be direct
why can people get punished for things they say if we have freedom of speech?
freedom of speech does not equal freedom of consequence
Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)
- two siblings wanted to wear armbands to protest the vietnam war, school didn’t allow it, Tinkers went to court
- school said the distraction disrupted learning, but sided with the students, saying that they shouldn’t be punished because the admin caused the disruption
Morse v. Fredrick (2007)
banner protest happened outside of school, student got in trouble, argued it was outside of school
scotus ruled in favor of the school
Roth v US (1957)
established the roth test
man sent pornography through the mail, which is illegal, he gets arrested
he argues that it’s not obscene, and that getting arrested for it violates his first amendment rights
the roth test
average person applying contemporary standards would find the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest
Miller v. California (1973)
created the miller test
Miller Test
average person applying contemporary standards would find the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law and whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value
Cohen v. California (1971)
Cohen wears a “fuck the draft” shirt to a courthouse, California says that it’s obscene
SCOTUS rules in favor of Cohen, says it’s political speech and falls under his first amendment right
Texas v. Johnson (1989)
Johnson burns a Texas flag on states courthouse in protest to the republican convention, gets arrested
SCOTUS rules in favor of Johnson, says that Texas isn’t regulating burning the flag, but the intent behind it, says that flag burning is protected under the first amendment (political speech)
Barnes v. Glen Theater Co. (1991)
rule that dancing nude wasn’t allowed
dancers wanted more money so they wanted to be able to dance nude
SCOTUS rules that having to wear pasties and a g-string did not impede on their first amendment rights
Near v MN
near was posting an anti-semitic newspaper
scotus ruled that government can stop publication on 3 conditions
what 3 conditions can government stop the publication of a newspaper
- threatens national security
- includes fighting words
- obscene material
NY Times v. US
- involves the pentagon papers
- Daniel Ellsberg released them to the NY Times, thought that the people should know about what was written
- the government said it threatened national security
-SCOTUS sided with the NY times, it talked about things that have already happened
what defamation protections do public figures have?
public figures have less protection from defamation, and people can only get punished for things published with actual malice/ statement made with reckless disregard to the truth
Hustler v. Falwell (1988)
parody ad was published by hustler about jerry falwell
he said it was published with actual malice
hustler put that it was parody in fine print and that they never said it was true, which meant they couldn’t get in trouble
US v. Ballard (1944)
ballard claimed to be a faith healer, but he was actually a fraud
established the belief-action distinction
belief-action distinction
the freedom to believe is absolute; the freedom to act is not
Employment Division v. Smith (1990)
- 2 natives that smoke as a part of their religion took a drug test at work and got fired
- the state of oregon wouldn’t give them unemployment benefits
- they didn’t challenge getting fired, they challenge not getting employment benefits
- SCOTUS sided with the Oregon government via the belief-action distinction
Separationalist
absolute separation of church and state, government can never be involved in religion
non-preferentialist
government can get involved in religion, as long as they don’t favor one religion over another
Engle v. Vitale (1962)
Alabama school had a mandatory prayer and students who didn’t participate were punished
SCOTUS ruled that school could have a moment of silence but not a prayer
Map v. Ohio (1961)
4th amendment, cops wanted to search without a warrant
cops got a warrant to search for a person, they found hand drawn pornographic material in a suitcase but they didn’t have authority to search the suitcase
SCOTUS ruled in favor of Mapp and established the exclusionary rule
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
established the miranda rule
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
established the right to an attorney
Cases that deal with Cruel and Unusual punishment
Furman v. Georgia (1972)
Gregg v. Georgia (1976)
Cases that deal with the right to privacy: Abortion
Grizwold v. CT (1965)
- 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 9th amendments
Roe v Wade
Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization
Roe v. Wade
made abortion legal nationwide
Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022)
overturned decision in roe, made abortion rights up to the states
Right to Privacy
Non- reproductive Sexual Activity
Bowers v Hardwick (1986)
Lawrence v TX (2003)
