Essential concepts - ap gov

How has the 14th Amendment's due process clause been used to expand individual liberties?

"Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." Beginning in a 1925 Supreme Court case, the Court has interpreted this clause as preventing states from infringing on any fundamental liberties. In a series of selective incorporation cases from 1925 to present (most recent example was in 2019), people are now protected from both federal and state actions that would infringe on civil liberties.

How has selective incorporation weakened state governments?

As civil liberties are incorporated on a case-by-case basis, states can no longer violate those rights and are therefore limited by the Bill of Rights like the federal government has been. For example, following the 2nd amendment in McDonald v. Chicago 2010, states can no longer violate an individual's right to bear arms.

How have Supreme Court rulings affected civil liberties over time?

At times the Court has limited civil liberties, as in Schenck v. U.S., which allowed Congress to restrict speech based on time, place, and manner, but has generally expanded civil liberties through cases such as Engel v. Vitale (establishment), Gideon v. Wainwright (right to counsel), Tinker v. Des Moines (speech), New York Times v. U.S. (press), Wisconsin v. Yoder (free-exercise), Roe v. Wade (privacy), McDonald v. Chicago (bear arms), Citizens United v. FEC (speech)

How have Supreme Court rulings expanded civil rights?

Brown v. Board (banned segregation in public schools) and Obergefell v. Hodges (legalized same-sex marriage)

cont.

Civil Rights movement led to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the 24th amendment, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The women's rights movement lad to the passage of the Equal Pay Act of 1963, CRA 1964, and Title IX of Education Amendments. LGBTQ movement has won victories in states and Supreme Court decisions such as Obergefell v. Hodges.

Describe how the equal protection clause has inspired social movements.

Civil rights, women's rights, and LGBTQ rights movements are based on the inclusive nature of the equal protection clause and such social movements demand the fulfillment of the inclusive words of the equal protection clause. Civil rights and social movements demand the fulfillment of the inclusive words of the equal protection clause.

How does the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 1st and 2nd Amendments reflect a commitment to personal liberty?

The Court typically has a broad interpretation of both amendments. Has expanded religious freedoms through Engel v. Vitale (establishment clause), and Wisconsin v. Yoder (free-exercise), expanded speech through Tinker v. Des Moines and Citizens United v. FEC and expanded press through New York Times v. U.S.. McDonald v. Chicago has expanded the 2nd amendment to mean there is an the right to bear arms and incorporated it.

How has the Supreme Court attempted to balance individual freedom with maintaining public order and safety?

One example is protecting the rights of the accused through the exclusionary rule and Miranda warnings, but they have allowed exceptions to both of these, including the public safety exception to Miranda. The exclusionary rule states that any illegally obtained evidence may not be used in trial, however this has been limited by rulings that allow illegally obtained evidence be used if police believed the search was legal or if the evidence would have eventually been found. The Miranda warning must be given to suspects, informing suspects of their 5th and 6th amendment rights. However, the public safety exception states that if there is a dangerous situation in which public safety is involved police may ask the suspect a question and the response may be used in court even if the suspect hasn't been informed of the Miranda rights.

Have Supreme Court rulings at times limited civil rights?

Plessy v. Ferguson allowed separate but equal legalized discrimination; Shaw v. Reno disallowed racial gerrymandering, even if the purpose was to help minorities by endorsing a colorblind interpretation of the constitution.

What limits has the Supreme Court allowed states to place on freedom of expression/speech?

Schenck v. U.S., established the precedent that there can be time, place, and manner restrictions on speech. Currently speech can be limited if it is intended to incite imminent illegal action and is likely to produce such an effect. Additionally, libel (written lie), slander (spoken lie), and obscenity are not protected.