AP Gov: Chapter 7 vocab

Fifth Amendment

A constitutional amendment designed to protect the rights of persons accused of crimes, including protection against double jeopardy, self-incrimination, and punishment without due process of law. The due process clause in the Fifth Amendment establishes that no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Prior restraint

A government preventing material from being published. This is a common method of limiting the press in some nations, but it is usually unconstitutional in the United States, according to the First Amendment and as confirmed in the 1931 Supreme Court case of Near v. Minnesota. Government censorship of information before it is published or broadcast. Once the Court, through the incorporation doctrine, had required states and localities to follow the First Amendment, it took 2 generations of cases to define "free speech" and "free press." When does one person's right to free expression violate others' right to peace, safety, or decency? Free speech is not absolute, but both federal and state governments have to show substantial or compelling governmental interest- a purpose important enough to justify the infringement of personal liberties- to curb it. The creators of the First Amendment meant to prevent government censorship. Many revolutionary leaders came to despise the accusation of seditious libel- a charge that resulted in fines and/or jail time for anyone who criticized public officials or government policies. Because expressing dissent in assemblies and in print during the colonial era led to independence and increased freedoms, the members of the first Congress preserved this right as the very first of amendments. The Court has not made much distinction between "speech" and "press" and ordinarily provides the same protective standards for both rights. "Speech" includes an array of expressions- actual words, the lack of words, pictures, and actions. An average citizen has as much right to free press as does a professional journalist. The First Amendment does not protect all speech, however, especially speech that invites danger, that is obscene, or that violates an existing law. The government also has no prerogative of prior restraint- the right to stop spoken or printed expression in advance- first declared in Near and later reaffirmed in New York Times v. United States. Governments cannot suppress a though from entering the marketplace of ideas just because most people see the idea as repugnant or offensive. A government that can squelch ideas is one that violates the very essence of a free democracy. The Court however, has never suggested that its reverence for free expression means that all expression should be tolerated at all times under the conditions. In addition to what the federal government prevents on the airwaves, there are exceptions that allow state and federal governments to limit or punish additional forms of speech.

Libel

A written defamation of a person's character, reputation, business, or property rights. A charge of libel refers to false statements in print that defame someone, hurting their reputation. Much negativity can be printed about someone of a critical, opinionated, or even speculative nature before it qualifies as libel. American courts have typically allowed for a rather high standard of defamation before rewarding a suing party. The main decision that defined the First Amendment's protection of printed speech against the charge of libel was New York Times v. Sullivan (1964). In 1960, a civil rights group including Martin Luther King Jr., put an ad in the NYT entitled "Heed their rising voices" which included some inaccuracies and false information about a Montgomery, Alabama, city commissioner, L. B. Sullivan. Sullivan sued for libel in an Alabama court and won $500,000 in damages. The Times appealed, arguing that the First Amendment protected against slight mistakes and these should differ from an intentional defamation. The Supreme Court sided with the newspaper. Uninhibited debate "may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials," the Court noted. The fear of an easy libel suit would stifle robust debate and hard reporting. Even false statements, therefore, must be protected "if the freedoms of expression are to have the 'breathing space' that they need.. to survive." The standard to prove libel is therefore high. The suing party must prove that they were damaged and that the offending party knowingly printed the falsehood and did so maliciously with intent to defame. Public officials are less protected than lay people and cannot recover damages for defamatory falsehoods relating to their official conduct unless they can prove actual malice- that is, reckless disregard for the truth. The Court later broadened the category of "public figure" to include celebrities such has movie stars, top athletes, business leaders. NYT v Sullivan and subsequent decisions have generally ruled that to win a libel suit in a civil court, the suing party must prove that the offending writer either knowingly lied or presented information with a reckless disregard for the truth, that the writer did so with malicious intent to defame, and that actual damages were sustained.

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)

Allowed states to provide textbooks and busing to students attending private religious schools. Established 3-part test to determine if establishment clause is violated: nonsecular purpose, advances/inhibits religion, excessive entanglement with government. In 1971, the Court created a measure of whether or not the state violated the establishment clause in Lemon v. Kurtzman. Both Rhode Island and Pennsylvania passed laws to pay teachers of secular subjects in religious schools with state funds. The state mandated such subjects as English and math and reasoned that it should assist the parochial schools in carrying out a state requirement. In trying to determine the constitutionality of this statute, the Court decided these laws created an "excessive entanglement" between the state and the church because teachers in these parochial schools may improperly involve faith in their teaching. In the unanimous opinion, Chief Justice Warren Burger further articulated Jefferson's "Wall of separation" concept, and "far from being a 'wall'", the policy made a "blurred, indistinct, and variable barrier." To guide lower court decisions and future controversies that might reach the High Court, the justices in the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman developed the Lemon test to determine excessive entanglement. The Lemon Test: to avoid an excessive entanglement, a policy must: - have a secular purpose that neither endorses nor disapproves of religion - have an effect that neither advances nor prohibits religion - avoid creating a relationship between religion and government that entangles either in the internal affairs of the other

Compelling governmental interest

An interest of the highest order - that is, a very important governmental goal. A very important public purpose. A concept in law that allows the government to regulate a given matter. Once the Court, through the incorporation doctrine, had required states and localities to follow the First Amendment, it took 2 generations of cases to define "free speech" and "free press." When does one person's right to free expression violate others' right to peace, safety, or decency? Free speech is not absolute, but both federal and state governments have to show substantial or compelling governmental interest- a purpose important enough to justify the infringement of personal liberties- to curb it.

Establishment clause

Clause in the First Amendment that says the government may not establish an official religion. Part of the First Amendment stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Both James Madison and Thomas Jefferson led a fight to oppose a Virginia tax to fund an established state church in 1785. Madison argued that no law should support any true religion nor should any government tax anyone, believer or nonbeliever, to fund a church. During the ratification battle in 1787, Jefferson wrote Madison from Paris and expressed regret that the proposed Constitution lacked a Bill of Rights, especially an expressed freedom of religion. The First Amendment allayed these concerns because it reads in part, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In 1802, President Jefferson popularized the phrase "separation of church and state" after assuring Baptists in Danbury, CT, that the First Amendment builds a "wall of separation between church and state." Today some citizens want a stronger separation; others want none. Members of the First Congress included the establishment clause to prevent the federal government from establishing a national religion. More recently, the clause has come to mean that governing institutions- federal, state, local- cannot sanction, recognize, favor, or disregard any religion. The free exercise clause prevents governments from stopping religious practices. Today, the establishment clause and the free exercise clause collectively mean people can practice any religion they want, provided it doesn't violate established law or harm others, and the state cannot endorse or advance one religion over another. The Supreme Court's interpretation and application of the establishment clause and free exercise clause show a commitment to individual liberties and an effort to balance the religious practice of majorities with the right to the free exercise of minority religious practice.

Civil liberties

Constitutional freedoms guaranteed to all citizens. The original Constitution includes a few basic protections from government-Congress can pass no bill of attainder and no ex post facto law, and habeas corpus cannot be suspended in peacetime. Article III guarantees a defendant the right to trial by jury. However, the original Constitution lacked many fundamental protections, so critics and Anti-Federalists pushed for a bill of rights to protect civil liberties- those personal freedoms protected from arbitrary governmental interference or deprivations. Citizens and governmental officials often differ on where the line should be drawn between government's pursuit of order and the individual's right to freedom. When this conflict occurs, citizens can challenge government in court.

Wall of separation

Court ruling that government cannot be involved with religion. Separation of church and state. The First Amendment also guarantees freedom of religion. The founders wanted to stamp out religious intolerance and outlaw a nationally sanctioned religion. The Supreme Court did not address congressional action on religion for most of its first century, and it did not examine state policies that affected religion for another generation after that. As the nation became more diverse and more secular over the years, the Supreme Court constructed what Thomas Jefferson had called a "wall of separation" between church and state. In this nation of varied religions and countless government institutions, however, it is easy for church and state to encroach on each other. Like other interpretations of civil liberties, those addressing freedom of religion are nuanced and sometimes confusing. More recently, the Court has addressed laws that regulate the teaching of evolution, the use of school vouchers, and the public display of religious symbols.

Due process

Fair treatment through the normal judicial system, especially as a citizen's entitlement. Following established legal procedures. Through a process known as selective incorporation, the Supreme Court has ruled in landmark cases that state laws must also adhere to selective Bill of Rights provisions through the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. The right to due process dates back to England's Magna Carta (1215), when nobles limited the king's ability to ignore their liberties. Due process ensures fair procedures when the government burdens or deprives an individual. It prevents arbitrary government decisions to avoid mistaken or abusive taking of life, liberty, or property (including money) from individuals without legal cause. Due process also ensures accused persons a fair trial. Due process is a fundamental fairness concept that ensures a legitimate government in a democracy. The due process clause in the Fifth Amendment establishes that no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The Fourteenth Amendment declares that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States... are citizens" and that no state can "deprive an person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." The first incorporation case used due process to evaluate issues of property seizure. In the 1880s, a Chicago rail line sued the city, which had constructed a street across its tracks. In an 1897 decision, the Court held that the newer due process clause compelled Chicago to award just compensation when taking private property for public use. This ruling incorporated the "just compensation" provision of the Fifth Amendment, requiring that the states adhere to it as well.

New York Times v. United States (1971)

Government can almost never use prior restraint (crossing out sections of an article before publication)-protections for the press were established here. Defense Department employee Daniel Ellsburg leaked some confidential files indicating that the war in Vietnam was going poorly, the government sought to prevent the publication of these "Pentagon Papers" by the New York Times. Court held that executive efforts to prevent the publication violated the 1st Amendment were forbidden. Government must prove actual harm to national security if it seeks prior restraint to censor the press (Burger Court). Prior restrain. Though the special circumstances of a school environment were a key factor in the Tinker decision, the Court also ruled that the school administration could not ban armbands protesting the war in Vietnam on the grounds that they could possibly cause a disruption. In a similar way, neither can the government prevent something true from being published, even if it was obtained illegally and conveys government secrets that could possibly endanger national security. Question before the Court: Can the executive branch block the printing of reporter-obtained classified government information in an effort to protect national secrets without violating the First Amendment's free press clause? No, 6:3 Before NYT v. US: In the selective incorporation case of Near v. Minnesota (1931), the Supreme Court ruled that a state law preventing the printing of radical propaganda violated freedom of the press Facts: Daniel Ellsberg, a high-level Pentagon analyst, became disillusioned with the war in Vietnam and in June 1971 released a massive report known as the Pentagon Papers to the NYT. It told the backstory of America's entry into the Vietnam conflict and revealed government deception. These papers put the government's credibility on the line and, President Nixon claimed, hampered the president's ability to manage the war. Nixon's lawyers petitioned a US district court to order the Times to refrain from printing in the name of national security. "Quit making national heroes out of those who steal secrets and publish them in the newspaper." The lower court obliged and issued the injunction (order). and armed guards arrived at the newspaper's office to enforce the injunction. The Times appealed, and the Supreme Court ruled in its favor. The ruling assured that the hasty cry of national security does not justify censorship in advance that the government does not have the power of prior restraint of publications. Even Nixon's solicitor general, the man who argued his side in the Supreme Court, later said the decision "cam out exactly as it should>" This decision was a "declaration of independence and it really changed the relationship between the government and the media ever since." The Court ruled on the newspaper's right to print these documents, not on Ellsberg's right to leak them. Ellsberg was later indicted under the 1917 Espionage Act in his own trial. Reasoning: In a rare instance, the Court in this case did not fully explain its ruling with a typical majority opinion. Instead, it issued a per curiam opinion, which is a judgment issued on behalf of a unanimous court or the court's majority without attribution to a specific justice. It relied heavily on the reasoning of previous cases. The judgment overruled the lower court's injunction and prevented the executive branch from stopping the printing.

Schenck v. United States (1919)

Held that the clear-and-present danger principle should be used as the test of whether a government may limit free speech. Speech may be punished if it creates a clear-and-present danger test of illegal acts. This case helped establish that limitations on free speech may be warranted during wartime. Question before the Court: Does the government's prosecution and punishment for expressing opposition to the military draft during wartime violate the First Amendment's free speech clause? No, 9:0 Facts: As the US entered WWI against the Central Powers, including Germany, the 1917 Sedition and Espionage Acts prevented publications that criticized the government, that advocated treason or insurrection, or that incited disloyal behavior in the military. A US district court tried and convicted Charles Schenck, the secretary of the Socialist Party, when he printed 15,000 anti-draft leaflets intended for Philadelphia-area draftees. In an effort to dissuade people from complying with the draft, he argued in his pamphlet that a mandatory military draft, or conscription, amounted to involuntary servitude, which is denied by the Thirteenth Amendment. The government was very concerned at the time about the Socialist Party, German Americans, and those who questioned America's military draft and war effort. Schenck appealed the guilty verdict from the district court. On hearing the case, the Supreme Court drew a distinction between speech that communicated honest opinion and speech that incited unlawful action and thereby represented a "clear and present danger." In a unanimous opinion delivered after the war's end, Schenck went to prison, as did defendants in 5 similar cases. The clear and present danger test became the balancing act between competing demands of free expression and a government needing to protect a free society. Reasoning: The Court arrived at its opinion through recognizing that the context of an expression needs to be considered to determine its constitutionality. At other times, under other circumstances, the pamphlet or circular might have been allowed. But during wartime and because of the immediate actions the pamphlet could lead to, the harm from the circular overrode Schenck's right to publish and distribute it. The clear and present danger standard did not prevent all forms of speech nor was the claim always a justification for criminal charges.

Clear and present danger test

Interpretation of the First Amendment that holds that the government cannot interfere with speech unless the speech presents a clear and present danger that it will lead to evil or illegal acts. From Schenck v. US (1919). Schenck appealed the guilty verdict from the district court. On hearing the case, the Supreme Court drew a distinction between speech that communicated honest opinion and speech that incited unlawful action and thereby represented a "clear and present danger." Schenck went to prison. The clear and present danger test became the balancing act between competing demands of free expression and a government needing to protect a free society.

Symbolic speech

Nonverbal communication, such as burning a flag or wearing an armband. The Supreme Court has accorded some symbolic speech protection under the first amendment. Using actions and symbols rather than words to convey an idea. As David O'Brien learned, people cannot invoke symbolic speech to defend an act that might otherwise be illegal. Eg. a nude citizen cannot walk through the town square and claim a right to symbolically protest textile sweatshops after his arrest for indecent exposure. Symbolic speech per se is not an absolute defense in a free speech conflict. That said, the Court has protected a number of symbolic acts or expressions. In April 1968, Paul Robert Cohen wore a jacket bearing the words "F--the Draft" while walking into a Los Angeles courthouse. Local authorities arrested and convicted him for "disturbing the peace.. by offensive conduct." The Supreme Court later overturned the conviction in Cohen v. California (1971). As opposed to its stance on the act of burning a draft card in O'Brien, the Court declared the state could not prosecute Cohen for this expression. The phrase on the jacket in no way incited an illegal action. "One's man vulgarity is another's lyric," the majority opinion stated. Along similar reasoning, the Court struck down both state and federal statutes meant to prevent desecrating or burning the US flag in Texas v. Johnson (1989) and US v. Eichman (1990). The Court found that these laws serve no purpose other than ensuring a government-imposed political idea- reverence for the flag. In evaluating regulations of symbolic expression, the Court looks primarily at whether the regulation suppresses the content of the message or simply regulates the accompanying conduct. Is the government ultimately suppressing what was being said, or the time, place, or manner in which it was expressed? Cohen and O'Brien rulings. In both cases, someone expressed opposition to the Vietnam-era draft. O'Brien burned a government-issued draft card. The Court didn't protect the defendant's speech but rather upheld a law to assist Congress in its conscription powers. Cohen publicly expressed dislike for the draft with an ugly phrase printed on his jacket, but he did nothing to incite public protest and did not actually refuse to enlist, so the Court protected his speech. Time, Place, and Manner test: - the restriction must be content-neutral. It must not suppress the content of the expression - the restriction must serve a significant government interest. In the O'Brien case, the Court ruled that the burning of a draft card was disrupting the government's interest of raising an army - the restriction must be narrowly tailored. The law must be designed in the most specific, targeted way possible, avoiding spillover into other areas. Eg. the law upheld in O'Brien was specifically about burning draft cards, not other items, eg. flags, whose burning might express a similar message - there must be adequate alternative ways of expression. The court can suppress expression on the basis of time, place, and manner if there are other times, places, and manners in which the idea can be expressed

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

Prohibited state-sponsored recitation of prayer in public schools by virtue of 1st Amendment's establishment clause and the 14th Amendment's due process clause; Warren Court's judicial activism. Struck down state-sponsored prayer in public schools. Ruled that the Regents' prayer was an unconstitutional violation of the Establishment Clause. Question before the Court: Does allowing a state-created, nondenominational prayer to be recited voluntarily in public schools violate the First Amendment's establishment clause? Yes, 6:1 Before Engel: Many public schools across the US started the school day with a prayer. In the 1950s, the state of New York tried to standardize prayer in its public schools by coming up with a common, nondenominational prayer that would satisfy most religions. The State Board of Regents, the government body that oversees the schools, did so. Each school day, classes recited the Pledge of Allegiance followed by this prayer, which teachers were required to recite. Students were allowed to stand mute or , with written permission, to depart the room during the exercise. Facts: In 1959, the parents of 10 pupils organized and filed suit against the local school board because this official prayer was contrary to the beliefs, religions, or religious practices of both themselves and their children. They argued the prayer-created by a state actor and recited as a state-funded institution where attendance was required by state law- violated the establishment clause. Vitale was the chairman of the local Hyde Park, NY school board. Reasoning: The majority reasoned that since a public institution developed the prayer and since it was meant to be used in a public school setting with mandatory attendance, the Regents Bard had made religion its business, a violation of the establishment clause. Because of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation, states as well as the federal government are forbidden from officially backing any religious activity. They also noted that including the word "God" was denominational-not all religions believe in God. Also, even though participation was voluntary, students would likely feel reluctant not to take part in a teacher-led activity.

Obscene speech

Speech that (1) appeals to the prurient interest, (2) depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and (3) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Depicts sexual conduct in a way that appeals to sexual interests in a manner that is "patently offensive" to community standards, and lacks serious artistic, political, or scientific value. Some language and images are so offensive to the average citizen that governments have banned them. Though obscenity is difficult to define, 2 trends prevail regarding obscene speech: the First Amendment does not protect it, and no national standard defines what it is. in the 19th century, some states and later the national government outlawed obscenity. Reacting to published birth control literature, postal inspector and moral crusader Anthony Comstock pushed for the first national anti-obscenity law in 1873, which banned the circulation and importation of obscene materials through the US mail. Yet the legal debate since has generally been over state and local ordinances brought before the Supreme Court on a case-by-case basis. The Court has tried to square an individual's right to free speech or press and a community's right to ban filthy and offensive material. From the late 1950s until the early 1970s, the Supreme Court heard several appeals by those convicted for obscenity. In Roth v. United States (1957), Samuel Roth, a long-time publisher of questionable books, was prosecuted under the Comstock Act. He published and sent through the mail his Good Times magazine, which contained partially airbrushed nude photographs. On the same day, the Court heard a case examining a CA obscenity law. The Court upheld the long-standing view that both state and federal obscenity laws were constitutionally permissible because obscenity is "utterly without redeeming social importance." In Roth, the Court defined speech as obscene and unprotected when "the average person, applying contemporary community standards," finds that it "appeals to the prurient interest" (having lustful or lewd thoughts or wishes). The new rule created a swamp of ambiguity that the Court tried to clear during the next 15 years. Before Roth finished his prison term, the law was on his side. The pornography industry grew apace during the sexual revolution of the 1960s and 1970s. States reacted, creating a battle between those declaring a constitutional right to create or consume risque material and local governments seeking to ban smut. The Court struggled to determine this balance. In his frequently quoted phrase from a 1964 case regarding how to distinguish acceptable vs. unacceptable pornographic expression, Justice Potter Stewart said "I know it when I see it." Although the Court could not reach a solid consensus on obscenity, from 1967-1971 it overturned 31 obscenity convictions. The conflict continued in Miller v. California (1973). After a mass mailing from Marvin Miller promoting adult materials, a number of recipients complained to the police. California authorities prosecuted Miller under the state's obscenity laws. On appeal, the justices reaffirmed that obscene material was not constitutionally protected, but they modified the Roth decision saying in effect that a local judge or jury should define obscenity by applying local community standards. Obscenity is not necessarily the same as pornography, and pornography may or may not be obscene. The following year, the Court overturned Georgia's conviction of a theater owner for showing the film Carnal Knowledge. The Court has heard subsequent cases dealing with obscene speech, but the Miller test- a set of 3 criteria that resulted from the Miller case- has served as the standard in obscenity cases. The Miller Test - the average person applying contemporary community standards finds it appeals to the prurient interest - it depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by state law - it lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value

Miller v. California (1973)

Supreme Court decision that avoided defining obscenity by holding that community standards be used to determine whether material is obscene in terms of appealing to a "prurient interest" and being "patently offensive" and lacking in value. Defining obscenity. The conflict continued in Miller v. California (1973). After a mass mailing from Marvin Miller promoting adult materials, a number of recipients complained to the police. California authorities prosecuted Miller under the state's obscenity laws. On appeal, the justices reaffirmed that obscene material was not constitutionally protected, but they modified the Roth decision saying in effect that a local judge or jury should define obscenity by applying local community standards. Obscenity is not necessarily the same as pornography, and pornography may or may not be obscene. The following year, the Court overturned Georgia's conviction of a theater owner for showing the film Carnal Knowledge. The Court has heard subsequent cases dealing with obscene speech, but the Miller test- a set of 3 criteria that resulted from the Miller case- has served as the standard in obscenity cases. The Miller Test - the average person applying contemporary community standards finds it appeals to the prurient interest - it depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by state law - it lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value

Tinker v. des Moines Independent Schools (1969)

The 1st Amendment protection of freedom of speech (in this case symbolic speech) is applied to schools via the 14th Amendment. In this case a school could not ban a student wearing a black armband to school to protest the Vietnam War, since it was not considered a substantial distraction to the learning environment. Question before the Court: Does a public school ban on students wearing armbands in symbolic, political protest violate a student's First Amendment freedom of speech? Yes, 7:2 Facts: In December 1965 in Des Moines, Iowa, Mary Beth Tinker, brother John F. Tinker, friend Christopher Eckhardt, and others developed a plan for an organized protest of the US conflict underway in Vietnam. They planned to wear black armbands for a period of time as well as have 2 days of fasting. The school administrators learned of the organized protest and predicted it would become a distraction in the learning environment they had to maintain. They also believed it might be taken as disrespectful by some students and become, at minimum, a potential problem. School principals met and developed a policy to address their concerns. When the Tinkers and students arrived to school wearing the armbands, principals instructed the students to remove them. The students, with support from their parents, refused. The school then suspended the students until they were willing to return without wearing the bands. The Tinkers and the others sued in US district court on free speech grounds and eventually appealed to the Supreme Court. Reasoning: Noting that the record or facts showed no disruption took place, the Court ruled in favor of the students who challenged the suspension, declaring that the students' right to political, symbolic speech based on the First Amendment overrode the school administrators' concern for potential disorder. The decision protected this speech because the suspension failed the content-neutral criterion of the time, place, and manner test: it was intended to quiet the students' anti-war message to avoid possible disruptions.

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

The Court ruled that Wisconsin could not require Amish parents to send their children to public school beyond the eighth grade because it would violate long-held religious beliefs. Free exercise clause. In 1972, the Court ruled a Wisconsin high school attendance law violated Amish parents' right to teach their own children under the free exercise clause. The Court found that the Amish' alternative mode of informal vocational training paralleled the state's objectives. Requiring these children to attend high school violated the basic tenets of the Amish faith because it forced their children into unwanted environments. Question before the Court: Does a state's compulsory school law for children aged 16 and younger violate the First Amendment's free exercise clause for parents whose religious beliefs and customs dictate they keep their children out of school after a certain age? Yes, 7:0 Facts: A Wisconsin statute required parents of children aged 16 and under to send their children to a formal school. 3 parents in the New Glarus, Wisconsin, school system had teenagers they did not send to school. Yoder and the others were charged, tried in a state criminal court, found guilty, and fined $5 each. The parents appealed the case to the state supreme court, arguing their religion prevented them from sending their children to public schools at their age. That court agreed. The state then appealed to the Supreme Court, hoping to preserve the law and its authority to regulate compulsory school attendance. These same children had attended a public school through 8th grade. Their parents felt an elementary education suitable and necessary, but they refused to enroll their 14 and 15 year olds in the public schools. Amish teens are meant to develop the skills for a trade, not continue learning subjects that do not have a practical application. Also, the parents did not want their children exposed to divergent values and practices at a public high school. The parents argued that the free exercise clause entitled them to this practice and this decision. The state invoked the legal claim of parens patriae- parental authority- claiming it had a legal responsibility to oversee public safety and health and to educate children to age 16. Those who skipped this education would become burdens on society. Reasoning: The Court found making the Amish attend schools would expose them to attitudes and values that ran counter to their beliefs. In fact, the Court also said that forcing the Amish teens to attend would interfere with their religious development and integration into Amish society. Further, the Court realized that stopping schooling a couple of years early and continuing informal vocational education did not make members of this community burdens on society. The Court declared in this case that the free exercise clause overrode the state's efforts to promote health and safety through ensuring a full, formal education. Justice William O. Douglas voted with the majority but wrote a partial dissenting opinion.

Free exercise clause

The First Amendment guarantee that citizens may freely engage in the religious activities of their choice. Both James Madison and Thomas Jefferson led a fight to oppose a Virginia tax to fund an established state church in 1785. Madison argued that no law should support any true religion nor should any government tax anyone, believer or nonbeliever, to fund a church. During the ratification battle in 1787, Jefferson wrote Madison from Paris and expressed regret that the proposed Constitution lacked a Bill of Rights, especially an expressed freedom of religion. The First Amendment allayed these concerns because it reads in part, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In 1802, President Jefferson popularized the phrase "separation of church and state" after assuring Baptists in Danbury, CT, that the First Amendment builds a "wall of separation between church and state." Today some citizens want a stronger separation; others want none. members of the First Congress included the establishment clause to prevent the federal government from establishing a national religion. More recently, the clause has come to mean that governing institutions- federal, state, local- cannot sanction, recognize, favor, or disregard any religion. The free exercise clause prevents governments from stopping religious practices. This clause is generally upheld, unless an unusual religious act is illegal or deeply opposes the interests of the community. Today, the establishment clause and the free exercise clause collectively mean people can practice any religion they want, provided it doesn't violate established law or harm others, and the state cannot endorse or advance one religion over another. The Supreme Court's interpretation and application of the establishment clause and free exercise clause show a commitment to individual liberties and an effort to balance the religious practice of majorities with the right to the free exercise of minority religious practice. Mormons brought the first freedom of religious exercise issue to the Supreme Court in 1879. Under President Ulysses S. Grant, the federal government pushed to end Mormon polygamy common in the Utah territory. US marshals rounded up hundreds of Mormons who had violated a congressional anti-polygamy law. George Reynolds, secretary to Mormon leader Brigham Young, brought a test case that argued the free exercise clause prevented such law. The Mormons lost, and the Court said the federal government could limit religious practices that impaired the public interest.

McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense is applicable to the states. The Second Amendment that allows the people to keep and bear arms applies to state governments as well as the federal one. States have increasingly passed laws to allow for ease in gun possession. The NRA and Republican-controlled legislatures have worked to pass a number of state laws to enable citizens to carry guns, some concealed, some openly. The NRA has also fought in the courts against these laws restricting gun ownership. 2 of the most noted cases are District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010). Question before the Court: Does the Second Amendment apply to the states, by way of the Fourteenth Amendment, and thus prevent states or their political subdivisions from banning citizen ownership of handguns? Yes. 5:4 Before McDonald: The Second Amendment prevents the federal government from forbidding people to keep and bear arms. In 2008, gun rights advocates and the National Rifle Association challenged a law in the District of Columbia, the seat of the federal government, which effectively banned all handguns, except those for law enforcement officers and other rare exceptions. In the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment applied and that the district's handgun ban violated this right. Because the Bill of Rights was intended to restrain Congress and the federal government, not the states, this ruling applied only to the federal government and did not incorporate the Second Amendment to state governments. Any existing state laws preventing handguns were not altered by this precedent, until McDonald. Facts: Citizens in Chicago and in the suburb Oak Park challenged policies in their cities that were similar to the ones struck down in Washington. Chicago required all gun owners to register guns, yet the city invariably refused to allow citizens to register handguns, creating an effective ban. The lead plaintiff Otis McDonald pointed to the dangers of his crime-ridden neighborhood and how the city's ban had rendered him without self-defense, and he argued that the Second Amendment should have prevented this vulnerability. His attorneys also attempted to take the Heller decision further, extending its holding to the state governments via the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. Reasoning: In a close vote, the Court applied the Second Amendment to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause, arguing that, based on Heller, the right to individual self-defense is at the heart of the Second Amendment. The majority also noted the historical context for the Fourteenth Amendment and asserted that the amendment sought to provide a constitutional foundation for the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The selective incorporation doctrine has encouraged the Court to require state governments and their political subdivisions to follow most parts of the Bill of Rights. The ruling in McDonald highlighted yet another right that the states and their municipalities could not deny citizens. The Heller and McDonald decisions partially govern gun policy in the US, but the Court has done little to define gun rights and limits since. It declined to hear cases on assault weapons bans from Maryland and a Chicago-area municipality. The Court has declined to rule on a restrictive CA limitation on who may carry concealed guns. Congress is typically at loggerheads in both a bipartisan and bicameral manner when it comes to gun policy. After each nationally notable homicide or massacre, the discussion about the Second Amendment becomes loud and intense, but little national law changes. Republicans tend to fiercely defend citizens' rights to own and carry guns, while Democrats tend to seek stronger restrictions on sale, ownership, and public possession. The US House of Rep. has recently been friendly to pro-gun legislation- bills supporting concealed carry reciprocity and protecting veterans' rights to carry- while the Senate, even with the Republican majority, has been reluctant to pass such legislation. President Obama issued an executive order to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally disabled Social Security recipients. Trump reversed the order.

Public interest

The best interests of the overall community; the national good, rather than the narrow interests of a particular group. The freedoms Americans enjoy are about as comprehensive as those in any Western democracy. Anyone can practice or create nearly any kind of religion. Expressing opinions in public forums or in print is nearly always protected. Just outside the Capitol building, the White House, and the Supreme Court, ever present protesters criticize law, presidential action, and alleged miscarriages of justice without fear of punishment or retribution. Nearly all people enjoy a great degree of privacy in their homes. Unless the police have "probable cause" to suspect criminal behavior, individuals can trust that government will not enter unannounced. When civil liberties violations have occurred, individuals and groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have challenged them in court. Both liberals and conservatives hold civil liberties dear, although they view them somewhat differently. At the same time, however, civil liberties are limited when they impinge on the public interest, another cherished democratic ideal. Public interest is the welfare or well-being of the general public. Eg. for the sake of public interest, the liberties of minors are limited. Their right to drive is restricted until they are teenagers, both for their safety and the safety of the general public. And although people generally have the right to free speech, what they say cannot seriously threaten public safety or ruin a person's reputation with untruthful claims. In the culture of civil liberties in the US, then, personal liberties have limits out of concern for the public interest.

Selective incorporation

The process by which provisions of the Bill of Rights are brought within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment and so applied to state and local governments. A constitutional doctrine that ensures states cannot enact laws that take away the constitutional rights of American citizens that are enshrined in the Bill of Rights. All levels of government adhere to most elements of the Bill of Rights, but that wasn't always the case. The Bill of Rights was ratified to protect the people from the federal government. The First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law" that violates freedoms of religion, speech, press, and assembly. The document then goes on to address additional liberties Congress cannot take away. Most states had already developed bills of rights with similar provisions, but states did not originally have to follow the national Bill of Rights because it was understood that the federal Constitution referred only to federal laws, not state laws. Through a process known as selective incorporation, the Supreme Court has ruled in landmark cases that state laws must also adhere to selective Bill of Rights provisions through the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. The right to due process dates back to England's Magna Carta (1215), when nobles limited the king's ability to ignore their liberties. Due process ensures fair procedures when the government burdens or deprives an individual. It prevents arbitrary government decisions to avoid mistaken or abusive taking of life, liberty, or property (including money) from individuals without legal cause. Due process also ensures accused persons a fair trial. Due process is a fundamental fairness concept that ensures a legitimate government in a democracy. The due process clause in the Fifth Amendment establishes that no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) in the aftermath of the Civil War strengthened due process. Before the war, Southern states had made it a crime to speak out against slavery or to publish antislavery materials. Union leaders questioned the legality of these statutes. During Reconstruction, union leaders complained that Southerners denied African Americans, Unionists, and Republicans basic liberties of free speech, criminal procedure rights, and the right to bear arms. They questioned whether the losing rebel state governments would willingly follow the widely understood principles of due process, especially toward freed slaves. Would an accused black man receive a fair and impartial jury at his trial? Could an African American defendant refuse to testify in court, as whites could? Could the Southern states inflict the same cruel and unusual punishment on freed men that they had inflicted on slaves? To ensure the states followed these commonly accepted principles in the federal Bill of Rights and in most state constitutions, the House Republicans drafted the most important and far-reaching of the Reconstruction Amendments, the Fourteenth, which declares that "all persons born or naturalized in the US... are citizens" and that no state can "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Fourteenth Amendment

the constitutional amendment adopted after the Civil War that states, "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." Through a process known as selective incorporation, the Supreme Court has ruled in landmark cases that state laws must also adhere to selective Bill of Rights provisions through the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. The ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) in the aftermath of the Civil War strengthened due process. Before the war, Southern states had made it a crime to speak out against slavery or to publish antislavery materials. Union leaders questioned the legality of these statutes. During Reconstruction, union leaders complained that Southerners denied African Americans, Unionists, and Republicans basic liberties of free speech, criminal procedure rights, and the right to bear arms. They questioned whether the losing rebel state governments would willingly follow the widely understood principles of due process, especially toward freed slaves. Would an accused black man receive a fair and impartial jury at his trial? Could an African American defendant refuse to testify in court, as whites could? Could the Southern states inflict the same cruel and unusual punishment on freed men that they had inflicted on slaves? To ensure the states followed these commonly accepted principles in the federal Bill of Rights and in most state constitutions, the House Republicans drafted the most important and far-reaching of the Reconstruction Amendments, the Fourteenth, which declares that "all persons born or naturalized in the US... are citizens" and that no state can "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."