Unit 6 Civil Rights and Liberties Flashcards
Explain the extent to which the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the First and Second Amendments reflects a commitment to individual liberty.
Recent trends in Supreme Court decisions favor a general trend to individual liberty.
Example:
Wisconsin v Yoder
Amish family’s right to religious freedom outweighed benefits of state-required schooling
District of Colombia v Heller
Protects and individuals right to bear arms
Explain how the Supreme Court has attempted to balance claims of individual freedom with laws and enforcement procedures that promote public order and safety.
Miranda Rights
-Can be wiaved if reading them puts public at risk
Free Speech
Schenk v. U.S ruled that free speech may be limited if it presents a clear and present danger to public safety
Pretrial Rights
-Everyone has the right to an attorney and fair trial
Civil Liberties
-courts must find a balance between civil liberties and pubic safety.
To what extent does the Bill of Rights apply to state governments?
**Fourteenth Amendment **
-no state government can deprive someone of life, liberty, or property without due process and equal protection of the law.
Selective Incorporation
-One decision at a time, the Supreme Court has indicated that, based on the provisions in the Fourteenth Amendment, most of the amendments in the Bill of Rights also apply to the states.
Due Process
-The court has ensured that individuals will receive fair trials and that rights to life, liberty, and property will be respected at all levels of government.
Explain how constitutional provisions have supported and motivated social movements and policy responses.
Policy Responses
-Brown v Board of Education any government-supported segregation was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment
Social Movements
National Organization for Women (NOW) called for the civil rights protections guaranteed by the Constitution to be applied towards rooting out sex discrimination based on the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
Explain how the Supreme Court has at times allowed the restriction of the civil rights of minority groups and at other times has protected those rights.
Restriction of civil rights of minority groups
-Plessy v Ferguson “seperate but equal” restricted civil rights. Resources for minority children vastly inferior
Protected Rights
-Brown V Board of Education overturned the courts previous ruling and ruled equal meant desegregation
Both decisions were based on different interpretations of the 14th amendment
First Ammendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Second Ammendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Third Ammendment
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner; nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Fourth Ammendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Fifth Ammendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
Sixth Ammendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.
Seventh Ammendment
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of common law.
Eighth Ammendment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Ninth Ammendment
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Tenth Ammendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
First clause in the First Amendment/Establishment Clause
prohibits the establishment of an official state religion
Prior Restraint
the censorship of a newspaper or publication before it is actually published. Unless there is specific threat
Free Exercise Clause
protects individual and group religious activities from government interference, and it also prohibits the government from indirectly placing an undue burden on religious groups because of their religion
Miranda rights
-The suspect has the right to remain silent, or to refuse to answer questions.
-Anything the suspect says may be used in court.
-The suspect has the right to an attorney, including a court-appointed attorney if he or she cannot afford an attorney.
-If the suspect does choose to speak or to answer questions, he or she is free to stop speaking at any time
exclusionary rule
individuals are protected from police simply looking until they find something that might be incriminating. Instead they must persuade a judge that there is probable cause that a specific search would yield evidence in a case.
Good faith in the exclusionary rule
police officer is acting in good faith and believes he or she has a valid warrant, the evidence found is admissible even if the warrant is invalid due to some kind of clerical error.
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)
This court’s only job is to issue warrants for the federal government to eavesdrop electronically on individuals. All the government needs to do to obtain a warrant is prove that the individual is working for a foreign government.
USA PATRIOT Act
expanded the power of the government to collect information from individuals suspected of involvement in terrorist activities. This included more flexibility in wiretapping, and the ability to intercept internet communications and seize voicemails so long as a court order had been obtained
USA Freedom Act (Updated Patriot Act)
Prohibition of bulk data collection. In other words, the government could no longer collect all cell-phone data from an entire city, zip code, or region. Rather, they would have to identify specific suspects and go through the FISA process to get a warrant. In this way, the private information of innocent Americans would still be protected