US Politics - Civil Rights

Question 1

Racial Segregation - the Fight for Equal Rights

Answer 1

• 50 years ago the Civil Rights Act enabled Black freedom (1964)
• You are 5 times more likely to go to prison if you’re black, and they are on average 8 times poorer than the average white family
• ‘American Nightmare’ - America in the 1960s was a decisive moment, with the 1964 Civil Rights Act banning discrimination and segregation and ended apartheid separation (got the vote, erased Jim Crow laws)

Question 2

Fight for Equal Housing

Answer 2

• 1960s Chicago saw black people still living in slums, with the poverty rate being 30% for black people and only 7% for white people
• Dorothy Gautreaux was the first person to protest this and fight for black people to live in the same communities as white people - she was living in squalid conditions in a black neighbourhood, and wanted to move to a mixed area but was only offered another poor black neighbourhood
• She filed a lawsuit against the Housing Authority in Chicago, stating that it was allowing segregation to continue by not allowing equal treatment under housing, and condemning the lack of public housing - she had to convince the courts that they were attempting to continue housing segregation

Question 3

Equal Housing cont.

Answer 3

• Martin Luther King Jr visited and died later that year, and the riots that followed his murder pushed the government into committing to fairness and equality, and they passed the final civil rights act - The Fair Housing Act (Lyndon B Johnson) prevented institutional racism in the distribution of housing
• Dorothy took her case to court 1 year after his death, and she won her case, with the judge agreeing it violated the constitution by continuing to separate housing and this aimed to get rid of the racism in public housing
• Laws were however not consistently reinforced, and programmes to rehouse black people into white neighbourhoods were few and far between
• In 2019, nearly 50% of the black population live in black neighbourhoods in Chicago, showing segregation - Alabama’s civil rights statue has to be guarded 24/7

Question 4

Fight for Equal Education

Answer 4

• Detroit, Michigan - home of Motown and and was the setting for one of the biggest fights for equal education for black people
• Riots in Detroit before 1969 would cause a lot of the white population to leave, furthering cultural segregation, and Helen Moore who moved to a white neighbourhood watched her neighbours move away
• The funding for public schools is reliant on property taxes, and so if you live in a wealthy area you have more revenue for your schools, but in a poor area schools are poorly funded - black people who moved into white areas that white people left would damage school budgets, and the quality of education was worsened for black people
• In Detroit, there were well funded schools in the outer areas, the wealthier areas, in which mainly white children attended, and poorly funded schools in the poorer areas in the inner city that mostly black children attended - a group of parents fought against this

Question 5

Fight for Equal Education cont.

Answer 5

• A Kansas court case in 1957 established school segregation was unfair and should be banned, and the Bradley (Bradley v Michigan) case in Michigan was challenging the two-tiered funding system, and wanted to show how housing segregation created school segregation and how government policy caused this, making it one of the biggest challenges to education segregation since the Civil Rights Act - Roth’s plan allowed this to end by reintegrating residencies and therefore school systems, aiming to end segregation and discrimination in schooling
• The main piece of evidence that won them the case was a map that showed the segregation through labelled black and white housing and the school district lines - residential segregation - and white children who were in black school district areas were allowed to go to a different district to attend a white school, known as optional attendance, and so even the action and policy was unequal
• However, there was backlash from the white people as they were either implicitly racist and didn’t want to integrate their children into black schools, and also were concerned about the economic consequences and educational consequences of having to move to poorer areas under the Roth plan
• The President backed the white people’s backlash, and the Supreme Court was given the case upon appeal of Roth’s decision - there was violation of equal protection, but they banned the plan in all other states but Detroit, and so only Detroit had to follow a cross-district bussing plan to decrease segregation

Question 6

Equal Education pt3

Answer 6

• Role of the Supreme Court is too decide the case, not decide social issues - a year before the Bradley case, the Rodriguez case prevented equal education for black and brown children based on the decision that segregation on school financing was not unconstitutional despite how unequal they were
• Nothing has significantly improved equality in education with black students being twice as likely to attend a high-poverty school than white students in 2017
• This caused a massive disparity in education, but Dorothy’s case acted as a blueprint to start highlighting the racism in public housing and to fight against it - having ‘black’ projects and ‘white’ projects was unconstitutional
• Affirmative Action - money had to be spent under the Fair Housing Act to right the wrong of institutionalized racial segregation (Housing Urban Development Agency - decides funds for fair housing and to address a legacy of federal racism)
• However, HUD allowed housing segregation to continue by not doing anything to change it

Question 7

Justice and the Black Community

Answer 7

• Record numbers of violence and drugs (crack cocaine) and unemployment in black projects developed in the 1970s and 1980s, and Ronald Reagan (Anti-Drug Abuse Act 1986) declared a war on drugs, signifying a crackdown on crack in particular, with the communities of colour was unequally targeted, with the differential between powder and crack cocaine meant that 5-10 years became a common sentence for black people arrested
• Black people were incarcerated at a much higher rate, with the Federal Sentencing data showing black people being put to death at disproportionate rates and disproportionate impacts in communities for black men
• Clinton - Habitual Offenders Act; instead of addressing the racism in the system, they expanded the justice system massively (three-strikes law) - if convicted of 1 violent felony and two other convictions, life sentences could be given (the circumstances of the offence itself didn’t matter; if they had two or three strikes, they would be have their sentence decided on that fact)

Question 8

Definitions - Civil Rights, Civil Liberties, Civil Rights movement and Landmark Rulings

Answer 8

Civil Rights -
- Typically additional protections to ensure that some are not discriminated against e.g. Voting Rights Act and Affirmative Action
- This is a fundamental protection of the individual that is not necessarily reinforced

Civil Liberties -
- These are the freedoms enjoyed by all Americans under the Bill of Rights, Constitution and Landmark Rulings
- These are guaranteed by the Constitution

Civil Rights Movement -
- Campaign for equal rights for African Americans who had been discriminated against

Landmark rulings -
- Roe v Wade or Obergefell v Hodges are examples of significant rulings that allow reinterpretation of the Constitution

Question 9

Definitions - Supreme Court, Bill of Rights and the Constitution

Answer 9

Constitution -
- The articles that explain how the US government operates - designed for effective checks and balances

Bill of Rights -
- First 10 amendments of the US constitution which includes the right to free speech, bear arms etc

Supreme Court -
- 9 justices who are the final authority on citizen rights and laws in relation to the US Constitution

Question 10

The Constitution and Civil Rights

Answer 10

• Origins of the constitution were designed on the principle of avoiding a tyrannical government and as such it was aimed at protecting the rights of citizens
• The constitution has significant checks and balances designed to check the power of the branches of government and in doing so protect the rights and freedoms of the citizens by limiting the power of the government
• For example, SCOTUS (Article III is the branch that allows a final appeal for the citizens who feel their rights have been infringed upon e.g. Miranda v Arizona
• The process of constitutional amendment is also very challenging so changing citizen rights is hard to do
• The Constitution’s role in protecting civil rights is in creation of processes to protect them, rather than creating them directly

Question 11

The role of the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments in protecting civil rights

Answer 11

• The bill of rights at first only applied to free persons - slaves and women not treated equally under law - i.e. freedom and voting
• 13th amendment abolished slavery, 14th gave slaves full rights and citizenship (equal protection under law), 19th amendment gave women suffrage and 24th amendment gave Americans the right to vote without needing to have paid tax (a method that was used to deny African Americans the vote)
• These two parts of the Constitution allow the explicit creation of civil liberties to b entrenched

Question 12

The role of Landmark rulings (SCOTUS) in protection of civil rights

Answer 12

• Supreme Court has had the power to create landmark rulings which can reinterpret the constitution and enhance the civil liberties and rights of citizens
• Brown v Board of Education (1954) - stopped segregation with a doctrine of separate but equal and this was a key case in the Civil Rights Movement
• Roe v Wade (1973) - gave the rights of women to have abortions
• Obergefell v Hodges (2015) - court gave same-sex couples the right to marry
• Citizens United v FEC (2010) - organisations have the same 1st amendment rights as individuals
• This allows the reinterpretation of the constitution to modernise the protection of rights - some disputing over only 9 people make civil rights decisions, but this is a flaw of the constitution’s construction

Question 13

The role of pressure groups in the protection of civil rights

Answer 13

• Because there are more pressure groups in the US (pluralistic society with concentric pressure group sectors), there is more of an ability to target different access points and gain more traction on rights; for example, through targeting the SC, targeting individual legislators and the President, targeting state legislatures , whereas the UK has to focus efforts on the Prime Minister
• Therefore, pressure groups are key in maintaining civil representation on issues and campaigning for more civil rights
• Both mainly use media and lobbying - however, in the US, PACs and Iron Triangles can be formed to create professional lobbyists
• This allows pressure group alliances through campaign funding to prioritise rights in legislation - the UK does not have this same ability

Question 14

Types of pressure groups in civil rights

Answer 14

• Key types of pressure groups - protective groups (narrow interest of members, are mainly Business Groups, Agriculture Groups - trade unions, and Doctors / Lawyers)
• Examples of protective - ABA, AMA, AFL-CIO, US National Chamber of Commerce and National Association of manufacturers
• Protective groups in the UK such as the National Farmers Union (70% membership) achieves an insider status with their relevant government department and provide services to members and Trade Unions / BMA have a similar role, and these groups try to represent the issues of these groups
• Promotional groups are different; in the US, this includes the NRA, AIPAC, ACF and Public Interest Research groups, and they are issue based rather than interest based to ensure policy doesn’t go against them
• In the UK, this includes groups such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the National Council of Civil Rights - floating membership reduces power in pursuit of electorally insignificant issues

Question 15

Difference between UK and US pressure groups and civil rights

Answer 15

• They have similar practices, but the US has more access points, they are richer and they are protected by a freedom of speech - similar legislation in the UK only exists through the Freedom of Information Act
• The UK does not have a access point through the court; 3 phases of pressure group development from economic interest groups under Wilson, clientelism throughout the 60s and 70s and Thatcher’s intervention in removing rights of pressure groups to be consulted by government to decrease visibility of special interest, and this led to introduction of select committees and this began a process of lobbying in UK PGs

Question 16

Race - The emergence of the alt-right

Answer 16

• This is a right-wing, predominantly online political movement or grouping based in the US whose members reject mainstream conservative politics and espouse extremist beliefs and policies typically centered on ideas of white nationalism
• This movement is wide ranging and can include Neo-Nazis, those sympathetic to the confederacy/ante-bellum south and supporters of state’s rights and anti-federal government
• It has grown in predominance and size following election of Trump in 2016 and was notable in the Charlottesville protests during the ‘Unite the Right’
• The alt right - Richard Spencer, Kevin B McDonald and Jared Taylor; Harambe and Kony 2012 posed a threat of Western Liberal hegemony and encouraged the emergence of an alt-right to combat clicktivism and liberal hypocrisy of pretending to care about issues and simply just virtue signalling
• 4Chan and other websites lead to an influx of posting of anonymous inflammatory messages and saw the growth of alt right movements and this was aided by GamerGate in 2014 - Milo Yiannapolis is a right wing ‘alt-light’ commentator, who had a representative of usually ‘left’ characteristics made him notable on the right
• Spencer - peaceful ethnic cleansing and praised Trump, coining the alt-right
• Taylor - differences between races and ethnicities is natural and so having racially homogenous societies is also natural - spoke of ‘racial realism’ such as Asians having superior intelligence compared to white people and in turn black people
• Ideas about culture being biological and separate creates issues
• This has led to some questioning whether civil rights will be defended by the administration after Trump’s election, and the alt-right are notable for the growth of new media outlets such as the One-American Network which is mainly web-based and has been mentioned by Trump in the past

Question 17

Race - The Black Lives Matter Movement

Answer 17

• Started with the death of Trayvon Martin in 2012 after he wrongly died at the hands of Zimmerman, who shot him when he walking home
• This sparked a series of protests that formed a cyclic relationship between police brutality towards black people and protests against this brutality, organised by ANTIFA and Black Lives Matter
• Founded by Patrisse Cullors, Alicia Garza and Opal Tometi - this movement is heavily informed by hashtags and online movements to mobilise people into action against racist systems, in particular the justice system

Question 18

Key questions in civil rights

Answer 18

What case stated separate but equal was unconstitutional?
- Brown v Board of Education (1948)

What laws was passed in 1965?
- The Voting Rights Act

Define what we mean by affirmative action?
- These are government policies that try to correct discrimination against minority groups by providing extra support for them in workplaces or schools - a form of positive discrimination that ensures diversity.

How many times greater is the African American prison population compared to the white prison population?
- 2017 - white people represent 64% of the general population but only 30% of the prison population, whereas black people make up around 12% of the general population but 33% of the prison population

What laws have allegedly been used to disenfranchise some voters?
- Jim Crow laws; Poll Taxes (upheld by Breedlove v Sutton, 1947) and literacy tests (corrected by an amendment to the VRA in 1970) and citizenship tests, gerrymandering, Voter ID laws

• The Alt-Right is a right wing ideological movement that mainly uses online forums to promote hate against minority groups and destroy the left - it is often composed of white political extremists and those who do not fit into typical right wing politics.

Question 19

Civil Rights case studies - Stand your Ground

Answer 19

The story -
- A number of recent shootings in America have caused great controversy after shooters were spared murder sentences due to ‘stand your ground’ in many US states - by having individual laws in some states causes issues with civil rights
- These ‘stand your ground’ laws are often an extension on what is known as the Castle Doctrine, which is the legal principle that it is acceptable to use lethal force to protect your home - however, stand your ground laws apply beyond the home to anywhere the individual feels threatened and allows lethal force against the person threatening them; it also allows them to shoot first
The first ‘stand your ground’ law was passed in Florida 2005, stating that a person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and use force including deadly force where it seems necessary
- Supporters of these laws see it as vital to defend those who reasonably use self-defence in life threatening situations - without these laws, they argue, prosecutors could simply argue that the victims should have tried to run away, requiring them to prove that they had no option but to use force and they feel that the shooter should be presumed to have acted in self-defence and the burden should be placed on prosecutors to prove that these claims are not credible
- One of the most controversial claims of self-defence in Florida involved a neighbourhood watch leader Zimmerman who shot and killed unarmed African American teenager Trayvon Martin after having pursued him; Martin was returning home from a convenience store where he brought Skittles and a drink
Zimmerman claimed that Martin was suspicious to police, who advised that he not pursue him - Zimmerman ignored this, and an alleged fight broke out which ended in Zimmerman shooting an ultimately killing Martin
- The ‘stand your ground’ laws were not actually used by Zimmerman’s defence team at trial but the judge reminded the jury of the laws and it aided his claims of self defence and stopped initial charges against him
- A jury later cleared Zimmerman of murder charges, sparking protests and the Black Lives Matter movement, as yet another example of how African-Americans do not receive equal treatment under the American criminal justice system
- Florida based newspaper the Tampa Bay Times studied over 200 ‘stand your ground’ cases and found that defendants claiming to have stood their ground were more likely to be cleared of murder if the victim was black

Question 20

Civil Rights Case studies - Stand your ground (exam applications)

Answer 20

• Good example when looking at federalism
• 46 states have adopted the ‘castle doctrine’ (individuals are not required to retreat from danger when threatened in their own home)
• 22 states have gone further and adopted ‘stand your ground’ laws (applying the same principle outside the home)
• Supporters argue that each state knows its circumstances better so they are in the best position to decide on this legislation
• Federal government’s role and power has greatly expanded throughout time
• Some argue this encroaches on the rights of states to determine their own laws
• This can be deemed unconstitutional
• President and attorney general have criticised ‘stand your ground’ laws and would likely challenge them if they had the chance
  Attorney general Eric Holder argued that the laws “senselessly expand the concept of self-defence and sow dangerous conflict in our neighbourhoods.”
• There is little that the federal government can do as states can have their own criminal laws
• The US Department of Justice does not have the constitutional power to overturn these laws
• SCOTUS upheld the principles of self-defence in multiple landmark cases
• Repealing or reforming the laws will require successful campaigning and legislation at a state level, not federal
• Brown v. United States (1921)
• Some claim that these laws are an example of the US Justice system being biassed against minorities
• George Zimmerman was acquitted for shooting Trayvon Martin → Obama caused controversy by saying that “Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago”
• He claimed that “There are very few African-American men who haven’t had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happened to me at least before I was a senator. - There are very few African-Americans who haven’t had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off. That happens often”
• Overall, despite criticisms, these laws cannot be changed easily due to the federal system in place in the US
• There would need to be widespread agreement from every state in order to enact change at a federal level but this is unlikely due to the extent of cultural differences between different areas of the US
• Federalism provides benefits in that each state can practise its legislation in ways which suits it best, however this means that there can be controversial laws put in place that the federal government would not have the power to amend or remove

Question 21

Civil Rights case studies - Stand your Ground (the executive and separation of powers)

Answer 21

• The President has demonstrated his inability to significantly alter gun laws in America, just as the White House is severely constrained in its capacity to respond to “stand your ground” legislation. President Obama vowed to sign 23 executive orders to help stop similar mass shootings in the aftermath of the tragedy at the Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut.
• on January 26th, 2013. Republicans who disagreed with the President’s actions said that he was violating the US Constitution’s establishment of the separation of powers, and stated that his actions could be considered an ‘executive power grab’
• However the media overstated Obama’s actions as he only issued ‘executive actions’ not orders, which are just proposals and do not have the same legal weight
• These executive actions included pledges to: “Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign”, and to “Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes”
• In conclusion, the president is restricted by the US Constitution, despite issuing 23 ‘executive actions’ regarding gun laws, Obama still stated that he could not act alone, and that the most important changes depend on congress
• Although the president might support greater gun control, nothing can be done as it would require congress to pass legislation, and at the time it was a Republican controlled house of representatives

Question 22

Civil Rights case study - Stand your ground (the judiciary)

Answer 22

• The Supreme Court has not yet had to rule specifically on ‘stand your ground’ laws, but it has upheld the rights of individuals to defend themselves many times throughout history.

Beard V. United States (1895)
- A farmer, confronted three nephews who had come onto his land to take a cow they claimed belonged to them. The Justices overturned the decision of the lower court judge who had argued that Beard should have retreated from the threats

Rowe V. United States 1896
- The court upheld the self-defence rights of David Rowe, who shot and killed a man even though Rowe was the one to start the fight. At his initial trial, the judge explained that Rowe could not claim self-defence because he had started the fight. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Rowe’s attack was not life threatening, whereas Bozeman’s retaliation with a knife was, and as Rowe had stepped back and stopped

Brown V. The United States
- the Supreme Court held that a man (Brown) had acted in self-defence after shooting and killing a man who had attacked him with a knife while he was working at a Post Office. Initially a jury convicted Brown of second-degree murder, holding that he should have retreated. However, the Supreme Court reversed the decision, with the written decision arguing “that if a man reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant he may stand his ground and that if he kills him he has not exceed the bounds of lawful self-defense.”

Question 23

Civil Rights case study - Syrian Refugees

Answer 23

• 10th September 2015: Obama gave order for his administration to accept 10,000 refugees over the next fiscal year.
• However, this was opposed by state governors arguing a security risk to accept the refugees relocated to their state.
• This security risk was resultant of active terrorist groups such as ISIS.
• Since the start of the civil war in 2011, over 4 million have fled Syria.
• In comparison with Germany taking in around 800,000 refugees over a 10 year period since 2011, the US have admitted only 1,600 refugees. This has resulted in a number of US charities and aid groups have criticised the country for not doing more.
• Obama criticised the suggestion that excessive admission would be dangerous.
• Governors argued that they will not cooperate with the President’s plan to admit 10,000 refugees (30 Republicans and 1 Democrat).
• Opposition increased following an allegation one of the terrorists responsible for the Paris attacks had entered the EU posing as a refugee, specifically using a fake Syrian passport.
• Governors have said to be waiting to be assured of the federal government’s security and screening procedures, capable of ensuring that secret terrorists are not aiming to carry out attacks in the US.
• Critics argue that given how little information the government has on many Syrian refugees the screening process may not be adequate.
• As of now, the process involves the National Counterterrorism Center, the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center, the Dept of Homeland Security, Dept of State and Dept of Defense.
• The doubt of its thoroughness is disputed by the President of the Conscience International who says ‘there is no chance a terrorist could get in under the present system.’ He also goes on to saying how a greater threat is posed intrinsic to the US’s border.

Question 24

Civil Rights Case study - Syrian Refugees; applications

Answer 24

• This issue is raised by the prevalence of federalism.
  Article I Section 8 gives Congress the exclusive power to pass immigration laws to establish how people from other countries gain American citizenship.
• The law requires states to provide ‘assistance and services to refugees without regard to race, religion, nationality, sex or political opinion.’
• The criticism of the expansion of federalism is questioned when it comes to immigration.
• Truax v Raich. (1915) centered on Arizona law tried to deter immigrants from settling by reducing the number of jobs available to immigrants. An Austrian-born took legal action when the law caused him to lose his job, the Supreme Court agreed this was unconstitutional.
• Although states do not get to decide who is admitted into the US, they can refuse to cooperate with federal agencies, making the process more difficult.
• Refugees fleeing danger are treated differently to immigrants who are required to prove they can become financially stable, prior to admission to the US.
• The federal government works cooperatively with non-profits, alongside state and local governments to help refugees settle sand arrange housing, education and training.
• Despite the 31 states who said they would not be cooperative, the federal government can look to those who did not say this. However, the denial of resources to Syrian refugees by the states exposes them to discrimination lawsuits.

Question 25

Civil Rights Case Study - Obama’s immigration reforms

Answer 25

• 21 November 2014 - Obama announced plans to overhaul America’s immigration system using Executive Order.
• The plans have proven to be extremely controversial, with Republicans claiming that the President is undermining the US Constitution.
• The reforms allowed undocumented immigrants to apply for work permits, meaning they could legally work in America. - There are around 11 million undocumented immigrants in the US, and many of them working illegally in Labour jobs, paid cash for work and not paying any taxes.
• To qualify for a permit, individuals must have been living in America for at least five years, and must have a child who was born in America or have a US citizenship.
• As anyone born in America is automatically given US citizenship, it has led to situation where children who were citizens had parents at risk of deportation.
• It is estimated that around 3.7 million people would have qualified for this new scheme. -
• They will have to pass background checks, begin paying taxes, and reapply after three years, but they will be able to work legally without fears of being deported.
• In a televised speech, Obama said that these reforms would allow people to ‘come out the shadows and get right with the law’.
• The reforms also expanded the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals programme established by executive order in 2012.
  Obama wanted to focus on deporting violent criminals rather than people who had been brought into the country illegal.
• It didn’t change the legal status of these immigrants, but gave them security from targeting by federal agencies.

Question 26

Civil Rights Case study - the issue with executive orders in Obama’s immigration reform

Answer 26

• One major problem was that the Executive Orders surround immigration that were set out by Obama did not set out a clear path to citizenship due to the fact that there were no changes to the legal status of the so-called ‘dreamers’.
• As well as this, due to it being an Executive Order and not an act passed by Congress, a succeeding President could come in and essentially withdraw this order with a following Executive Order, which became a key part of the campaign Trump used to win the 2016 election.
• The problem that came with Obama issuing the Executive Order surrounding immigration was the idea that he did not have the power to enforce policies surrounding these areas, with the idea that they lied within Congress.
• As well as this there is no specific mention of the powers of the President to be able to issue executive orders, but it is an implied power in Article II of the Constitution.

Question 27

Civil Rights Case study - Obama’s immigration reforms; conflicting opinions

Answer 27

Obama:
- Obama believed not only that he had the constitutional right to enforce these changes, but the political power to as well.
- He believed that it was well within his powers as President to be able to enforce these constitutional changes, according to Article II.
- He also believed he was given the mandate to be able to enforce these changes by the people of America as well as his party.

Republicans:
- Republicans believed that Obama had undermined the separation of powers established by the US Constitution, and that this was within the powers dedicated to Congress.
- They believed that this has shown a sign of Obama being considered an ‘Imperial President’. This was directly contradicted by the number of Executive Orders that Obama issued during his time as President with 193 orders in 6 years, a relatively low rate for a President.

Question 28

Civil Rights Case study - Obama’s immigration reforms; applications

Answer 28

• Altogether, this clearly demonstrates the controversy surrounding Executive Orders, which were set out by Article II of the Constitution. There was the argument that it had directly threatened the separation of powers.
• Following Obama’s call to make these laws an entrenched Congress backed bill, a Democrat Senator Charles Schumer introduced it as a bill to Congress.
• It was backed by the ‘gang of eight’, a group of bipartisan senators to make sure the bill was approved on both parties’ terms. It was passed on the 27th of June 2013, termed the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Bill through the Senate but was never considered in the House of Representatives.

Question 29

The First Amendment protection of the right to freedom of speech

Answer 29

• Supreme Court has ruled that spending money in a political context counts as free speech
• Allows for public criticism of the government without threat of criminal sentencing - there is no respect in free speech
• It also protects you from the government trying to infringe on your speech rights - if you work for private companies however, you are unable to claim freedom of speech rights if you are fired for hate speech etc
• Different protections - preferred position; any law or regulation that stops freedom of speech is always struck down by courts
• Brandenburg v Ohio - KKK speech in 1968, argued that because the speech was political it was protected - you can say what you want, as long as it doesn’t incite a riot (Trump - Capitol Riots, interference with electoral process he is not protected by the 1st amendment because his advocacy came to fruition)
• Constitutional freedom of speech do not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force - you can advocate for what you want, but you cannot actually produce what you advocate e.g. overthrowing the government
• US v Schenck 1917 - pamphlets urging people to not join the war draft, going against the Espionage Act which stated people cannot interfere with the effort - Supreme Court decided that the government can interpret the speech how they like; the first amendment does not protect speech that can create danger
• Symbolic speech - wearing armbands, carrying signs or wearing jackets and burning the American flag - protected as political speech
• Hate speech is also protected - burning a cross on a person’s lawn can be prosecuted elsewhere, and discipline codes are struck down
• Commercial speech is protected if it involves politics and money spending in campaigns is also considered commercial speech
• Fightin’ words - Chaplinsky v New Hampshire (1942); court ruled that some words are so insulting they may result in a fight; if your insults result in a fight, it is violence and are not protected - protects anarchy by preventing a reaction that will not be defended by the free speech amendment
• This exception is rarely used
• It only protects you from government criticism, not private persons - Pickering v Board of Education; complained about budgeting and he was fired and claimed that the speech was protected because it was political and aimed at local governments, which only worked as he was employed by the government

Question 30

The First Amendment protection of freedom of religion; Jurispendence

Answer 30

• Establishment clause - cannot create an official state church or ban religious buildings - ensures the US has not state endorsed religion and doesn’t write any laws based on any religious background / edicts
• Free exercise clause - you cannot be prohibited from being part of any religion, but not all religious practice is okay, such as human sacrifices
• Lemon v Kurtzman (1971) - public money; taxpayer funds were being used to fund religious schools - Supreme Court devised a three prong test to see if the state law violates the First Amendment freedom of religion; under the first prong, the court assessed whether the law has a secular legislative process (if the law is meant to educate children), second prong states if the law neither inhibits or enhances religion - religious teachers using educational , third prong does not cause entanglement between religion and state
• Pennsylvnia and Rhode Island got in trouble on the third prong for the forcing of religious practice and had ⅔ of their teachers as nuns - the restrictions needed would create entanglements between the state and religion (too much state power)
• This meant the secular purpose of educating children would be made more difficult, and is paternalistic as kids cannot block out religious imagery
• Engel v Vitale - prayer in schools violate religious freedom - precedent that now uses the Lemon prong test; silence in schools for prayer is not a secular purpose, but providing calm is, and so these laws are more protected
• Lemon test attempts to set up a way to analyse religion and government entanglement (Bright-Line Rule)

Question 31

Affirmative action programmes pt 1

Answer 31

• Affirmative Action is a government or private program designed to redress historic injustices against specific groups by making special efforts to provide members of these groups with access to educational and employment opportunities - it exists to correct discrimination
• Key principle - is that it provides special access to opportunities, usually in education and employment to members of groups that have been discriminated against
• Controversy - access or opportunity; Americans usually prefer equality of opportunity to equality of outcome, and as employment and education are often seen as the most vital parts of society, and so affirmative action is usually focused in equalising opportunity in these sectors
• In order to increase access to education and job opportunities for members of groups that are historically discriminated against, affirmative action programs try to ensure that they get extra special access to jobs and schools which, to many people, is not equality of opportunity
• Justices often describe it as putting a thumb on the scale to outline the added benefits that affirmative action provides
• Started with LBJ stating that laws should be created to ensure equal employment for individuals of minority groups but the first case at the Supreme Court over university education
  Regents of the University of California v Bakke in 1973; the court ruled on the issue of racial set-asides or quotas in admissions at the University of California Davis, a medical school - of the 100 slots available, 16 were set aside for racial minorities and Bakke claimed that this meant some people who were less qualified got in based on their ethnicity where he didn’t because he was white
• Ruled in his favour by stating that racial quotas are not allowed since they don’t provide equal opportunity but affirmative action programs were allowed if they served a compelling government interest and were narrowly tailored to meet this interest - if they passed the test of strict scrutiny
• The SC stated that a compelling government interest does not include the idea of righting historical wrongs was something that the government should undertake because it opens many historical issue, such as who decides when a wrong has been addressed
• A compelling government interest is however trying for diversity in admissions processes

Question 32

Affirmative Action pt 2

Answer 32

• 1970s - high tide of Affirmative Action, with courts using strict scrutiny on most affirmative action cases since then; Adarand v Constructors Inc., dealt with the contracting of workers based on ethnicity - in most of the cases, the court strikes down affirmative action provisions because they fail one or another of the strict scrutiny tests but the basic idea that universities can create programs to build and maintain a diverse student body has been upheld
• Gratz v Bollinger (2003) - court ruled that Michigan’s undergraduate admissions policy that awarded those of ethnic minorities extra points was unconstitutional as it was not narrowly tailored to the student body - the idea is constitutional, but the practice may not be
• California Civil Rights Initiative - saw the graduation rate among African Americans in some Californian universities went up but in contrast, enrollment declined (California Proposition 209 restricts affirmative action)
  While the courts have ruled that attempting to correct historical injustices of slavery and Jim Crow laws are not a compelling enough interest to justify affirmative action, but for many they are

Question 33

Sexual Discrimination

Answer 33

• Intermediate scrutiny - more stringent than rational basis review, where the government normally wins and strict scrutiny where the government normally loses
• Intermediate scrutiny is often used for cases involving discrimination against women - these groups not protected tend to be groups that have characteristics that cannot be changed, such as ethnicity, whereas gender and religion is open to change
• Majority groups have a good chance of winning in the legislative process and so do not need the same protections by the courts - women however, despite being a majority group, are still discriminated against and need more protection
• 14th amendment - equal protection under laws, Civil Rights Act 1964; outlawed discrimination based on sex, ethnicity, religion etc in a range of areas including employment - it is unlawful to be fired due to discrimination or to face discrimination due to a characteristics, or limit and segregate employees based on these characteristics
• However, if the employer can show that they did it for business reasons not discrimination, then they are not protected - discrimination claims are very difficult to prove
• Sexual discrimination - quid pro quo harassment - promotions etc are withheld in exchange for sexual favours, and hostile work environment is the result of all employees, and it refers to making the place safe for all workers
• Burlington v Ellerth - Ellerth was subject to unwanted advances by supervisors who made comments about her job being easier if she wore shorter skirts
• Women receive legal protections due to increasing presence in the workplace - anti-discrimination laws and intermediate scrutiny help to protect women