RACE AND RIGHTS Flashcards
distinguish between individual rights and civil rights
individual rights:
- rights which an individual has to limit government action in specific areas
civil rights:
- rights given by a government to ensure equality for all individuals
break up rights into 3 sections / catagorise
- state rights
- bill of rights / individual rights
- civil rights
give examples of individual rights protected under the constitution
amendment one: freedom of speech and religion
amendment two: right to keep and bear arms
amendment 8: no cruel or unusual punishment
amendment 10: any power not given to the federal government is reserved for the state
amendment four: no unreasonable seizures of property
give examples of supreme court cases which use amendment four to protect INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS (3)
amendment four = no unreasonable seizures of property
- rodriguez v US
- police extension of a traffic stop and search procedure in order to use a dog to sniff the contents violate the 4th amendment against unreasonable seizures - carpenter v US
- the government’s acquisition of someone’s cell site without a warrant violated 4th amendment rights - georgia v randolph
- the authorities cannot constitutionally search a property if one party consents the search, but the other (who is physically on site) objects
give the amendments related to civil rights, and what they protect
amendment 13: banned slavery
amendment 14: protected individuals against discrimination
amendment 15: protection from your individual vote from being abridged - guarantees the right to vote
give two of the major civil rights acts of 1964 and 1965
civil rights act 1964 which prohibited discrimination on the basis of sex, race, background, religion etc
voting rights act 1965 which prohibits radical discrimination in voting - was passed 79-18
examples of supreme court cases which have protected CIVIL RIGHTS under amendment 14, and describe the cases (5)
amendment 14 = protection against discrimination
amendment 14:
1. US v Windsor - the Defence of Marriage Act, in which the government refused to acknowledge same sex couples, violates the 5th amendment and 14th amendment - being discriminated against
2. Obergefell v Hodges - protected the right for all individuals to have access to same sex marriage
3. Gratz v Bollinger - the use of racial preferences from the University of Michigan in their admissions policy violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment
4. Roe v Wade - the 14th amendment provides women with a right to privacy, which gives her the constitutional right to obtain an abortion
5. Griswold v Connecticut - court ruled that the 14th amendment provides a right to privacy, meaning states cannot rule contraception used by married couples to be illegal
examples of supreme court cases which have protected CIVIL RIGHTS under amendment 15, and describe the cases (2)
amendment 15 = protection from individual votes being abridged
- shelby county v holder 2013
- a supreme court case which removed major protections for voting rights
- removed historic discriminative states to obtain pre-clearance before launching voting procedures which had systemically and disproportionately impacted people of colour
- the data determining if people needed pre-clearance was outdated - rucho v common cause 2019
- claimed that republican gerrymandering efforts were (politically) beyond the capabilities of the federal courts
paragraph structure on if the supreme court/congress/executive has adequately protected rights in the US
- voting rights protection
- individual rights (ie free speech, gun rights - first amendment rights)
- civil rights (ie affirmative action programmes, abortion)
how has the supreme court protected and not protected voting rights (describe each case)
protected:
- allen v michigan 2021 - alabama’s attempted redistricting and gerrmandering of house of rep seats, in order to pack and crack members of black communities to suppress their vote, violates section 2 of the VRA
- miller v johnson 1995 - racial gerrymandering of congressional districts with the intent to suppress individual votes of systematically suppressed communities (who were entitled to their own district) is unconstitutional and violates the equal protection clause
- in 1966, the SC decreed the poll tax in order to combat voter suppression and the grandfather clause
not protected:
- shelby county v holder - claimed that states with a history of voter suppression were not entitled to preclearance agreements, on the basis that the data to determine this is outdated
- shaw v reno - decided that north carolina’s redistricting plan attempted to separate voters based on race in different districts, which violated the equal protection clause
how has the supreme court protected and not protected individual rights
protected:
- DC v heller - protected the individual right to bear arms, as the ban on registering for handguns and keeping them disassembled in a household violated the second amendment 2008
- Citizens United v FEC - idea that large corporations are also entitled to free speech
- Speechnow.org - led to the establishment of superpacs by removing expenditure limits on individual donations to elections
- McDonald v Chicago - the 14th amendment makes the 2nd amendment (to keep arms for self defence) applicable to all states
not protected:
- morse v frederick - the slogan “bong hits 4 jesus” which claimed that the first amendment did not prevent school administrators from restricting student expression
how has the supreme court protected and not protected civil rights
protected:
- masterpiece cake shop v colorado civil rights commission - defended the cake shop owner under the first amendment , in that it protected freedom of speech and of religion in his refusal to create a cake for the wedding of a same sex couple
- obergefell v hodges - recognition of the federal government which allowed for same sex marriage and made it constitutional
- bostock v clayton county 2020 - claimed that an employer who fires an employee for their sexual orientation violates the CRA of 1964
not protected:
- dobbs v jackson - limited the ability of a woman to have a constitutional access to an abortion
- students for fair admission v harvard - harvard admissions programme violates the EPC of the 14th amendment, universities cannot use race as a factor in admissions
give the three paragraphs for a essay on if efforts to improve the protection of minorities have been successful
- voting rights for minorities
- immigration
- affirmative action
what did planned parenthood v casey argue
states cannot ban abortion before a declared time of fetal viability in 1992
in what ways has congress protected the rights of people more effectively than other branches of government in terms of voting rights
- voting rights
- 1962 - congress passes the 24th amendment which actively targets poll taxes and the grandfather clause
- 1975 - congress adds new provisions to the voting rights act to provide assistance to those with limited proficiency in English to vote
- 1982 - congress expands the voting rights act to ensure voting was more accessible for people with disabilities
- 1993 - congress passes the “motor voter” law, which allows people to register to vote with their drivers license - over 30 million people in 1 year (national voter reg act)
- 1965 - VRA with a 79-18 majority
- 2002 - Help America Vote Act - forces local election centres to invest in better voting equipment to improve the election procedure
in what ways has the executive protected the rights of people more effectively than other branches of government in terms of voting rights
- voting rights
- 1971 - Nixon passes the 26th amendment to bring down the voting age from 21 to 18 to increase accessibility and representation - in 1965, Johnson signs the VRA into law which provided enshrined voting rights for minority groups with a history of being suppressed
how to states properly and not properly protect individual and civil rights (paragraph plan)
- voting rights
- gun rights
- abortion rights / healthcare
states not properly and properly protecting individual and civil rights
- voting rights
not properly: state disqualifies student ID cards as an accepted form of voter identification in 2013
- Georgia senate passes a bill in 2018 which cuts voting hours in Atlanta, whereby Black Americans are 54% of the population
properly: voter turnout in the 2018 midterm elections was at a high of 49% of those eligible
describe the 1978 case of Regents of the university of California v Bakke
- the case allowed universities to consider race as a factor when making admissions, but it can only be a ‘plus’ factor, it cannot be the basis for admitting them, the basis for accepting someone into a university must be their academic abilities
- the supreme court decided that a quota system on admissions for minority students is unconstitutional in order to mitigate the impacts of racial discrimination
- remedying social discrimination and injustice is not in the interest of schools in admissions
- the decision to admit someone on the basis of race must be a combination of factors, not the sole factor
describe the Gratz v Bollinger and Grutter v Bollinger case of 2003
- the court decided that a points based admissions system is unconstitutional (the system would give 20 points to any member of an under-represented community) because race was not being considered on an individualised basis - automatically given these points without determining capabilities, which created a system based on race rather than ability
- in grutter, it was decided that admissions people could consider race as a factor when admitting an individual, but they must consider their race in an individualised way
- the court claimed that the points based system should only be temporary
describe the fisher v university of texas case of 2013
- fisher attempted to overturn the precedent of a race based admissions policy into universities, claiming that race could not be a part of admission policies for universities
- in 2016, when it was finally decided, it was declared that these admissions programmes were constitutional
- however, the supreme court claimed that universities should first look at the credentials of applicants before using race to make a decision
- displayed the court sticking to precedent of race not being the sole factor in an admission
describe the students for fair admissions v harvard and north carolina cases of 2023
- the cases claimed that the admissions programmes used by harvard and north carolina university violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment
- the cases attempted to overturn the use of race being used in admissions (in any way) because there was no connection between an applicant’s race and interest in diversity
- the cases claim that extra preference was given to systemically impacted groups
- race still cannot be used as a sole factor in university admissions, but can only be an additional factor
- if race is to be used in college admissions, it must be used in a tailored way / individualized and how it would contribute to the university, instead Roberts and conservative judges claimed these efforts to ensure that race was ONLY an additional factor were unfocused and promote stereotyping
- it is not unconstitutional to use race as an additional factor, but roberts argued the use of race was having an unnecessary impact on asian americans and was placing an unnecessary expense on other groups
- sticking to precedent by justifying race in being a secondary factor
- Roberts claimed that admission into any university must be based on experiences, not race
- REVERSE PRECEDENT - other cases claimed that the 14th amendment and equal protection clause were not violated so long as race was only an additional factor (GRUTTER)
define the strict scrutiny standard and the criteria
that a law or action passed by the government is justified by specific state interest and a desire to help the state (typically executive orders which are unilateral)
criteria:
- narrowly tailored and be individualised
- must have an interest in the government in terms of protecting civil rights
how has the executive protected the interests of immigrants (8 programmes)
- executive orders / actions
- by Obama through DACA / DAPA which helped over 1.2 million people in 2021
- initiation of the 2001 DREAM act
- invested $750million in aid to unaccompanied minors
- passing of the Migrant Protection Protocol Programme
- passing of the Central American Minors Programme to reunite children and their parents
- Biden formed the Summit of Americans 2022 Migration Pact to promise $314 million in migrant aid – co-operation with mexico to expand temporary working visas
- the executive increased the cap of refugees to 125,000 in 2022 under Biden
- in 2022, the Biden administration halted the construction of a border wall
