Civil Rights Flashcards
Compare the USSC and UKSC regarding protection of rights and statute law.
- US - SC can derogate (circumvent) statute law - e.g. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld - Military Commissioners Act 2006 - prevented a right to fair trial (6th amendment right)
- UK - statute law is superior to common law - judges are bound by it - the judiciary merely acts as a persuasion for parliament - e.g. R (Anderson) v. Secretary of the Home Department - s.29 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 violated art. 6 - later repealed by s.303 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
Compare the USSC and UKSC regarding their ability to change legislation.
- US - SC is labelled ‘quasi-legislature’ - e.g. Plessy v. Ferguson - ‘separate but equal’ clause - later the point of contention in Brown v. Board of Edu.
- UK - SC judges can only rule laws incompatible with the HRA ‘98 - e.g. R(Bono) v. HDC - violated art. 6 as the tribunal was not impartial - though Parliament are under no duty to accept the ruling.
Compare the USSC and UKSC regarding the protection of the rights and the application for judicial review.
US - All that is required is a writ of certiorari.
UK - must have locus standi - Lord Scarman - ‘busybodies’ cannot apply (IRC v. National Federation of Small Business) -
Compare the USSC and UKSC regarding the protection of rights and judicial interpretation amendments.
US - judicial interpretation amendments allow for the protection of rights - e.g. Texas v. Johnson - Texas had violated the first amendment for prosecuting an individual for burning a flag.
Give one way the philosophical nature of the bench jeopardises citizen’s rights.
The philosophy of the bench may change - Roe v. Wade (1973) was decided by the liberal ‘Warren’ court - however, Alabama’s contest to this ruling may see a reversal due to the conservative Roberts court.
- UK - judges are free from political coercion thus, decisions that indeed protect rights are protected in themselves.
Give 3 ways affirmative action has been successful.
1) . Leads to greater levels of diversity - likely wouldn’t have been achieved without affirmative action.
2) . Evidence suggests it is effective - number of black postgraduates increased 3 fold - 5% to 15% - between 1960 and 1995
3) . Increased diversity within the education setting - resonates well with students - undoubtedly bring more accepting minds to the professional workplace.
Give three ways affirmative action has been less successful.
1) . Adulation and nepotism towards a particular group - ultimately leads to disadvantages for another - ‘one man’s discrimination is another man’s equality’.
2) . Mixing high achieving white students with black students results in close to half of black students at the bottom of their class - suggesting affirmative action pushes people out of their comfort zone.
3) . Generalises rather than being individualistic - ‘clash between the liberal notion of individual worth and the collective interests of a group’.
Give some examples of cases that contributed to the development of affirmative action.
- Gratz v. Bollinger - Uni of Michigan’s mechanistic system was unconstitutional
- Whereas Grutter v. Bollinger - Uni’ Law School’s individualistic system was constitutional.
- Uni’ of California v. Bakke - minority quotas were unconstitutional -
- District of Meredith v. Jefferson Board of Edu. - unconstitutional to admit minority students merely to achieve racial balance.
Give three ways civil rights campaigns can be said to be more influential in the US than UK.
- Unlimited campaign spending - Citizens United v. FEC removed many of the limits on organisations - e.g. US Chamber of Commerce met with congressmen 36 occasions (after spending $77 million in 2019) - achieved US-Mex-Can agreement.
- Frequently use the courts - SC can strike down incompatible laws with their verdicts only being reversed with con. amendment - ACLU initiated 56 legal cases against Trump administration - bans on immigrants and transgender soldiers were halted in 2017.
- Some pressure groups have unparalleled influence in the US political system - e.g. NRA successfully opposed all gun legalisation between 2012 and 2016 - irrespective that it was supported by Obama and the public at large - could argue some pressure groups exert the influence of a political party?
How do tight electoral finance laws make UK civil rights campaigns less influential than in the US?
- Maximum of £500 spending for a third-party to support or oppose a candidate (Bowman v. United Kingdom).
- Must rely on other methods in UK - lobbying of legislators to change civil rights law.
- Although trade unions make significant political contributions - e.g. Unite pays an annual affiliation fee of £1 million to the Labour party.
How could the use of the judiciary in the UK be said to make civil rights campaigns more influential than those in the US?
- HRA ‘98 has led to an increase in judicial review applications - 4000 in 2000 to 15,000 in 2013 - e.g. Lee v. Asher’s Baking Company (gay cake case) - though SC only has the ability to rule legislation incompatible with the Act - less influential than the USSC.
How could UK pressure groups be compared to the unparalleled influence of some US pressure groups?
- Some pressure groups share party affiliation - e.g. Labour and Unite - ensuring the rights of workers are considered during the legislative process.
- Though Unite distanced themselves in 2021 - solely paying the annual £1 million affiliation fee.
- Is this a ploy to gain the support of a certain clique at election time or a method to encourage civil rights?
How could rational theory be used to compare the role of the individual in civil rights campaigns in the US and UK?
US:
- Indivisuals will take action in the event of a rights infringement - e.g. Linda Brown in Brown v. Topeka (1954)
UK:
-Individuals will use judicial review to challenge civil rights violations - e.g. Gina Miller challenged the decision to withdraw from the EU without legislation in 2017 - SC rulings can be overturned with a parliamentary majority.
How could rational theory be used to compare the role of individual politicians in civil rights campaigns in the US and UK?
US: - Individual politicians may expand civil rights - e.g. Kennedy and Johnson with civil rights legalisation in the 60s e.g. Civil Rights Act 1964.
UK: - MPs may introduce PMBs that expand civil rights - e.g. David Steel’s Abortion Act 1967 - ensuring abortion was legal and a gratuitous provision of the NHS.
How could rational theory be used to compare the role of civil rights leaders, in civil rights campaigns, in the US and UK?
US: - Civil rights leaders have a transformative influence on campigns - e.g. Martin Luther King’s ‘I have a drewam speech’ unquestioningly benefitted the civil rights movement.
UK: - The UK lacked a figure of such political stature in the post-war era
