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
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 clause
prohibits states from “depriv[ing] any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
Gideon v. Wainwright
you may recall that Gideon could not afford an attorney, and that Florida law only required the state to provide an attorney in capital cases. The Supreme Court declared that by virtue of the due process clause, the right to an attorney applied in all criminal cases, whether in a federal court or a state court.
Roe v. Wade
Texas woman challenged a state law banning abortions except to save the life of the mother. The Supreme Court determined that the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments, taken together, implied a right to privacy. The Texas law banning abortion violated this right to privacy and was therefore determined to be unconstitutional
Plessy v. Ferguson
Louisiana state law requiring separate cars for black and white railroad passengers was challenged based on the Equal Protection Clause. In an 8-1 decision, the court stated that as long as equal accommodations were provided, requiring separation based on race was not a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Interestingly, the court cited as part of its justification a Massachusetts State Court decision from 1850 allowing segregated schools—for some reason ignoring the fact that this decision had been made nearly twenty years before the Fourteenth Amendment was written
Fourteenth Amendment
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka
Brown family had sued the Topeka, Kansas, Board of Education for not allowing their daughter to attend the school closest to their home—a school that had been designated a “whites only” school.
Overturned separate but equal
Brown v. Board II
essentially a follow-up to the original decision. It tasked federal district courts with the duty to oversee the transition to a nondiscriminatory system of public education “with all deliberate speed.”
The Civil Rights Act of 1964
protected voting rights and barred discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin in employment or in public accommodations such as hotels, movie theaters, and restaurants
aimed at eliminating sex-based discrimination in schools receiving federal funds
What is the fundamental purpose of NOW?
to advocate for passage of the Equal Rights Amendment
Parents v. Seattle School District
court dealt a significant blow to mandatory busing programs by declaring that race could not be used as a determining factor in assigning a student to a school
affirmative action
Their coworkers might assume that they had been hired simply because of their race or sex, and not because of their job skills.
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
The court sided with Bakke, to a certain degree. They ruled that racial quota systems were not permissible, violating either the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Fourteenth Amendment, or both. On the other hand, they ruled that race could be used as one of several criteria for admission
Why is the judicial system usually the best recourse minority groups have for the preservation of their interests?
The Executive and Legislative Branches speak for the majority.
Liberals
-valuing equality above all else, and promoting the use of government to establish equality
-government as a legitimate, useful instrument to bring about social and economic change
-advocate for social welfare and to promote special protection for historically marginalized groups in the name of social justice
-accept tax increases if the money is going to support social programs, though they generally oppose increases in defense spending.
Conservatives
-value individual liberty above all else
-government as more of a threat to liberty than anything else
-oppose social welfare programs and favor measures that promote the free market
-opposed to tax increases and government spending, though they tend to support strong national defense
“political elite”
refers to those individuals who are particularly active in the political process
Communism
Favors government ownership of all property
Favor enforced economic equality
Favors little to no personal liberty
Socialism
Favors government ownership of major industries
Favors government intervention to facilitate greater equality
Favors significant limits on personal freedom
Libertarianism
Opposes government intervention in the economy and in personal morality
Believes individuals are equipped to take care of themselves with minimal interference from the government
Influences on Ideology
-Schooling
-peers
-mass media
-Major historical events
-personal experiences
-Race
-Class
-Gender
-Occupation
