Civil Liberties. Framer’s view Constitution states what government could do, not what state...
-
Upload
toby-quinn -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
1
Transcript of Civil Liberties. Framer’s view Constitution states what government could do, not what state...
CH 5Civil Liberties
Framer’s view
Constitution states what government could do, not what state governments could not do
Created a federal government with limited powers
Not necessary to create a bill of rights Ratification debate-fear of growing
national powers Bill of Rights Added Did the Bill of Rights apply to states?
Civil rights in conflict
Protection that the Constitution provides against the abuse of government power
Competing right of citizens and duties of government
1. Sedition Act of 1798 2. espionage and Sedition Act of
1917 3. Smith Act of 1940
The Bill of Rights
14th Amendment-1868
Liberties passed in Bill of rights only applied to the federal govt
Constitution silent on what states could do or not do to residents
Civil war Amendments-13-15th Amendments
14th Amendment applied certain rights to state governments
Process Called Selective Incorporation-Court applies Bill of Rights to the States
The 14th 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.
3 clauses of 14th Amendment *Citizenship clause in the “privileges
and immunities” clause *a due process clause the prohibits
abuse of “life, liberty, and property” *an “equal protection” clause that
protects civil rights
1st AmendmentFirst AmendmentCongress 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.
1st Amendment-religion
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
1. Establishment Clause2. Free Exercise Clause
Key Issues!
Very complex legal interpretations Does the 1st Amendment require complete
separation of church and state-it does not Free exercise clause clearer of the 2 Government can not prevent the exercise
of religion You can pretty much do what you want as
long as you don’t harm others Limits on free exercise to protect public
health and safety
The Free Exercise of religion Reynolds v. United States, (1878),
held that religious duty was not a suitable defense to a criminal indictment. George Reynolds was a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, charged with bigamy after marrying Amelia Jane Schofield while still married to Mary Ann Tuddenham in Utah Territory
Sherbert v. Verner
was a 7th Day Adventist case that required that government demonstrate a “compelling government interest” before denying unemployment compensation to someone who was fired because her job conflicted with her religion.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 , (also known as RFRA), is a 1993
United States federal law aimed at preventing laws that substantially burden a person's free exercise of their religion, state cannot pass a law that places an undue burden on someone practicing religion
Held Unconstitutional in 1997
Oregon v. Smith,
state could deny unemployment benefits to a person fired for violating a state prohibition on the use of peyote, even though the use of the drug was part of a religious ritual. If the law is secular in intent and has a rule of general applicability it can restrict religious practice
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, was a case in which the
Supreme Court of the United States held that an ordinance passed in Hialeah, Florida, forbidding the "unnecessar[y]" killing of "an animal in a public or private ritual or ceremony not for the primary purpose of food consumption", was unconstitutional.
Poisonous snakes?
Amish compulsory school attendance
Mandatory vaccinationsJacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), Court upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. The Court's decision articulated the view that the freedom of the individual must sometimes be subordinated to the common welfare and is subject to the police power of the state
Conscientious objectors and mandatory military service
The Establishment Clause
Ambiguous phrase…what does it mean?
No National religion? No government involvement in
religion? Wall of separation between church
and state? Topic of great controversy in
American history
1947-Everson v New Jersey
New Jersey town reimbursed parents for the cost of transported their children to parochial schools
Upheld program based on child benefit theory
Erected “Wall of separation” principleGovt cannot require a person to
profess or disprofess a religion, cannot aid one religion, some religions, or all religions
Lemon 3 part Test (lemon v Kurtzman)-1971 3 part test to determine under what
circumstances government involvement is improper
1. It has a secular purpose 2. Its primary effect neither
advances nor inhibits religion 3. It does not foster an excessive
entanglement with religion
Engel v Vitale (1962)
Banned prayers, even non-sectarian prayers in schools
Lee v Weisman (1992)
Banned clergy led prayers at graduation ceremonies
Santa fe Independent School district v Doe (2000) Students may not lead prayers
before the start of a football game at a public school
Other cases…
Court has banned…. Laws prohibiting the teaching of
evolution or giving equal time to creationism in science classes
Released time for religious instruction inside the schools
Court has upheld….Vouchers for private schoolsEqual access laws for religious groups
Nativity scenes??
Nativity scenes
Pawtucket, RI-Nativity scene as part of a Christmas display in a local park was ok
Pittsburg, PA-Could not put a nativity scene next to a courthouse, but could display a Menorah next to a Christmas tree
10 commandments displays
Texas ten commandments monument-June 27, 2005 Allowed by court The surrounding 22 acres (89,000
m²) contained 17 monuments and 21 historical markers commemorating the "people, ideals, and events that compose Texan identity."
Kentucky courthouse-June 27, 2005 Large visible displays of the 10
commandments inside the courthouse
Court banned because it was religious in nature!
Summary!-Wilson
The actual decisions are hard to summarize
Court seems deeply divided and confused!!
“The efforts to define the “wall of separation” will continue to prove to be as difficult as the Court’s earlier efforts to decide what is interstate and what is local commerce.”
Freedom of Expression
Congress shall make no law….abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble.
Thomas Jefferson
Freedom from prior restraint Freedom from censorship from
government
What about national security and speech?
Sedition Act of 1798Espionage and Sedition Act of 1917
Schenck v United States (1919) Charles T Schenck Convicted of
violating espionage act Mailed circulars urging men not to
register for the draft
Oliver Wendell Holmes-Chief Justice “clear and present” danger doctrine
Gitlow v New York (1925)
Benjamin Gitlow convicted of violating NY state sedition law
SC said that the Bill of Rights applied to the states via the due process clause of the 14th Amendment
1940’s and 50’s-Cold War
Smith Act of 1940-illegal to be member of party calling for overthrow of US government
Key issue! Are words enough to convict, or actions have to accompany the words?
Brandenburg v Ohio (1969)
Clarence Brandenburg-Ohio KKK-staged a cross burning rally and hurled insults against black and Jews
Police told him the clear the street and arrested him
Danger must be “clear and imminent”
1977-American Nazi Party v Skokie
Symbolic Speech
Speech that is meant to convey an political message
Landmark cases
Tinker v Des Moines (1969)-Public School students can wear black arm band to protest Vietnam
Texas v Johnson
Texas state law banning the burning of the flag declared to be unconstitutional
What about obscenity?-not generally given 1st Amendment protection Miller v California (1973) average person, applying contemporary community
standards (not national standards, as some prior tests required), would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law; and
"the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”
Barnes v Glen Theater (1991) Kitty Kat lounge and Glen theater
running live female exotic dancer in violation of Indiana decency laws requiring basic coverage of the dancer’s bodies
Girls argument: Our freedom of expression meant to convey sexuality violated by statute
SC Justice David Souter
Nudity itself is not inherently expressive conduct.
4 forms of speech not protected under the 1st 1. Obscenity 2. defamation Libel-written statement that defames
the character of another person Slander-spoken words that defame
the character of another person 3. False advertising 4. Symbolic Speech
Defamation of a public figure 1. must show that the statement is
false 2. must prove actual malice and a
“reckless disregard” for the truth 3. must prove actual harm
Who is a person??
What about interest groups, corporations, and children? Do they have free speech rights? Yes! With limitations…
Commercial speech
More limits on commercial than non-commercial speech
Cigarettes, liquor, and gambling False advertising claims regulated by
FTC Airwaves regulated by FCC
Campaign Finance Laws
Mccain-Feingold Campaign Finance reform Law-restricted corporate advertising in campaigns
Citizens United case-Corporations and interest groups have 1st Amendment rights and cannot be restricted from running campaign ads
Children??
Hazelwood v Kuhlmeier (1988)
Student run school newspaper class Principle was censoring articles Do the students shed their
constitutional rights to freedom of speech at the schoolhouse door?
2nd Amendment
"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.”
Collective right? Individual liberty? Limits on gun ownership?
Hunting
Military Tradition
Prohibition
U.S v Miller
Federal government can regulate the transport of sawed off shotguns as part of the interstate commerce clause
2nd Amendment applies only too certain types of weapons
Nov 22, 1963
April 4, 1968
Dec 8, 1980
March 1981
Brady Law
Federal law that mandates criminal background check and waiting periods to purchase a firearm
Assault Weapons Ban
1994 Law passed by Congress that banned certain types of high magazine semi-automatic weapons for civilian use
DC v Heller
Wash DC passes ban on handguns and unregistered weapons in the federal district of Columbia
SCOTUS overrules, says that 2nd Amendment grants an individual right to gun ownership for traditionally lawful purposes-upholds restrictions on guns
Mass killing
32 killed - April 16, 2007 - Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia. A gunman, 23-year-old student Seung-Hui Cho, goes on a shooting spree killing 32 people in two locations and wounds an undetermined number of others on campus. The shooter, Seung-Hui Cho then committed suicide.
27 killed - December 14, 2012 - Sandy Hook Elementary School - Newtown, Connecticut. Adam Lanza, 20, guns down 20 children, ages 6 and 7, and six adults, school staff and faculty, before turning the gun on himself. Investigating police later find Nancy Lanza, Adam's mother, dead from a gunshot wound. The final count is 28 dead, including the shooter.
4th Amendment
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.
What if the police seize evidence in an illegal way? 1. Use the evidence and punish the
police. 2. Discard the evidence altogether.
Exclusionary Rule
1. right to be free from illegal searches and seizures
2. right not to be compelled to give evidence against themselves
Mapp v Ohio Cleveland police break into the
apartment of Dollree Map in search of illegal narcotics, arrested for possessing obscene pictures-no warrant
Court used exclusionary rule for the 1st time
Reasonable warrant less searches It is reasonable in a general way for
the police to search
1. You 2. Things in plain view 3. Things or places under your
immediate control
The 4th Amendments and schools What protections do student shave
from unreasonable searches and seizures?
TLO v New Jersey (1985)-”reasonable suspicion” justified search
Safford v Reading (2013)-there was no reasonable suspicion to justify such an intrusive search
5th Amendment
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 offense 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
Miranda v. Arizona
Statements made in response to interrogation by a defendant in police custody will be admissible at trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning and of the right against self-incrimination prior to questioning by police, and that the defendant not only understood these rights, but voluntarily waived them.
6th Amendment
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 defense
Gideon v. Wainwright, (1963) Supreme Court unanimously ruled
that state courts are required under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution to provide counsel in criminal cases for defendants who are unable to afford their own attorneys.
Relaxing the exclusionary rule 1. good faith exceptions 2. if evidence would have been
“inevitably found”
8th Amendment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted
Furman v. Georgia, (1972)
ruled on the requirement for a degree of consistency in the application of the death penalty. The case led to a de facto moratorium on capital punishment throughout the United States because of the way it was carried out, it was not intrinsically against the 8th amendment
Gregg v. Georgia, (1976),
reaffirmed the United States Supreme Court's acceptance of the use of the death penalty, said that it must be non-mandatory, non-discriminatory, and non-arbitrary
SC has ruled that executing 1. mentally retarded people is
unconstitutional 2. juveniles is unconstitutional 3. lethal injection in constitutional 4. California's overcrowded prisons
is a violation of the 8th Amendment
Sept 11, 2001
USA Patriot Act
The USA PATRIOT Act is an Act of Congress that was signed into law by George W. Bush on October 26, 2001. Its title is a ten-letter backronym (USA PATRIOT) that stands for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001".
What it does!
1. Telephone taps based on suspects 2. Internet Taps 3. Voice mail seizures 4. Sharing of grand jury investigations 5. immigration: AG may hold a non-citizen
who is a national security risk for 7 days 6. Money laundering: US may track movement
of money across US borders 7. Crime: eliminates the statutes of limitation
on terrorist crimes and increases the penalties 8. section 213-”sneak and peak” warrants
Afghanistan-2001
Iraq-2003
War On Terror-President Bush On November 13, 2001, President
George W. Bush signed an executive order authorizing the creation of military tribunals for the detention, treatment and trial of certain non-citizens in the war against terrorism.
Gitmo-Guantanamo Bay Naval Base
Issues?
Do captured terrorists have access to the courts?
Bush says no…they are not POWS or criminal defendants…they are unlawful enemy combatants.
Hamdi v Rumsfeld
Yaser Esam Hamdi-US citizen-detained in Afghanistan and captured in the battlefield has the ability to challenge his detention in US courts-he has basic due process rights
Boumediene v. Bush
Lakhdar Boumediene, a naturalized citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina, held in military detention by the United States at theGuantanamo Bay detention camps in Cuba, has a right to file a writ of habeas corpus
Other issues…Surveillance
1978-Congress passes FISA-Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
President had to go before secret court to authorize surveillance
Lower standard than probable cause NSA Program to intercept telephone
calls and emails between Americans and foreigners
Edward Snowden
Rendition