Gov Pol Unit 3
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) [REQUIRED CASE]
3 Amish families in Wisconsin removed their kids from public schools after they graduated 8th grade. Amish families thought education wasn't necessary after 8th grade and their kids would learn better from working and they didn't want their kids to get influenced by world ideas from high school because of their religion Wisconsin had a law saying you can't drop out of school unless you're 16 or older and the kids weren't 16 or older so the parents were fined $5 Yoder argued in the Supreme Court that his first amendment rights of freedom of exercise was violated by Wisconsin's education law Wisconsin argued that the state had an interest to educate the children of the state which trumped the right of freedom of exercise (balance of social order and individual liberty) Court ruled in favor of Yoder saying that the states interest in education does not trump the free exercise of religion meaning Yoder won the case This case set a precedent between state interests and freedom of exercise and also gave the home school movement a lot of traction
Affirmative Action
A policy in educational admissions or job hiring that gives special attention or compensatory treatment to traditionally disadvantaged groups in an effort to overcome present effects of past discrimination Preferential admissions and hiring policies for minorities allowed but no quota system, no points awarded for race important thing to note is that quota systems aren't allowed by colleges are allowed to take race into consideration
Limits on method of speech
About how you're speaking: yelling, newspaper, quietly 3 things that the government must keep in mind if they're going to limit the method of speech - Content neutral: it can't be something specific, it has to be widely applicable - Narrowly tailored: Want it to be super specific so not taking something away (one particular instance) - Least restrictive means: must use the least restrictive means to limit you to the bear minimum so they can ensure the most amount of your rights Can place restrictions on time, place, and manner of speech
New York Times Co. v. U.S. (1971) [REQUIRED CASE]
America was in the middle of the Vietnam War and we were loosing the war but President Nixon and Johnson told America that we were very close to winning and just needed a little more time (Americans were very unhappy with the war to begin with) Nixon commissioned a top secret inquiry into the history of Americas involvement into the war and the findings were bad saying that presidents and agencies deceived the public about things going on in the war and someone who worked on the report leaked it to the New York Times and Washigton Post and they published the papers about how the goverment is lying to the public The Nixon administration sent out an order ceasing publication because they said it "threatened national security" Prior Restraint: Government censorship that blocks free speech or publication Freedom of press case Times claimed that Nixons prior restraint violated their first amendment rights Nixon's Administration claimed that prior restraint was justified because publication would threaten national security Court ruled in favor of Times saying Nixon's Administration restraint was unconstitutional allowing Time to continue printing "Pentagon Papers" and that the bar for using prior restraint is very high but it can be used if it actually is for national security like leaking a secret military attack
Civil Rights Act of 1964
Banned discrimination based on race, color, gender, religion, or national origin in public accommodations or employment
Voting Rights Act of 1965
Banned literacy tests, other obstacles to vote. Required states with a history of voting discrimination to obtain federal approval for election laws and policies
9th Amendment
Citizens entitled to rights not listed in the Constitution
Civil Rights vs Civil Liberties
Civil rights - Protection of groups of people from discrimination - Things in which the government is required to take some sort of action in order to ensure your rights - Ex: 6th amendment: right to a speedy and public trial, government forced to provide those things for you in order to protect right - Amendments: 4, 5, 6, 7 Civil Liberties - Individual personal freedoms - Restrictions on government actions to secure rights - Ex: 1st amendment, starts of with "congress shall make no law..."; restricting government action to ensure your rights - Amendments: 1, 2, 3, 5, 8
Schenk v. U.S. (1919) [REQUIRED CASE]
Congress passed Espionage Act which was supposed to stop disruptions to the draft going on for World War I Schenk was a socialist and was against the draft and wrote a pamphlet encouraging people to resist the draft and said that it was against the 13th amendment because it was like involuntary servitude and he handed out around 15,000 pamphlets and he was arrested for breaking the Espionage Act Schenk argued that his first amendment right to free speech was violated by the Espionage Act Court ruled against Schenk saying that his first amendment rights weren't violated because he wasn't just protesting the draft instead he was activate encouraging men to avoid the draft which is not considered protected speech In the majority opinion Schenk's pamphlets were compared to the not protected speech of falsely yelling fire in a movie theater
Exceptions to Warrent
Consent Incident to lawful arrest Emergency situation Hot pursuit Border crossing & airport search Mobile crime scene (vehicle) Plain view Stop & frisk (a brief non-intrusive police stop of a suspect)
14th Amendment
Declares that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens and are guaranteed equal protection of the laws *Citizenship Clause* Everyone born in the US is a citizen *Equal Protection Clause* Everyone in the US is treated equally under the law *Due Process Clause* "...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
Procedural Due Process
Due process *after* the law is made
Substantive Due Process
Due process *before* the law is made Makes sure that there's a good enough reason to limit personal freedoms
8th Amendment
Excessive bail/fines, cruel and unusual punishment Death penalty is constitutional, however minors and mentally deficient persons cannot receive death penalty
Due Process
Fair treatment through the normal judicial system, especially as a citizen's entitlement Rule of law, applies to everyone in society and have to follow certain steps to insure that rights aren't violated and those steps make it very clear that the law is applied to everyone Due process is also that the law applies to everyone, even the president, congress, etc. - founding fathers scared of how king doesn't apply to law
4th Amendment
Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures
1st Amendment
Freedom of Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, and Petition *Free Exercise Clause* (freedom of religion) - freedom to exercise whatever religion you choose *Establishment clause* (freedom from religion) - government can't establish any sort of religion - narrow interpretation: government cannot endorse any 1 religion - broad interpretation: government cannot be excessively entangled with religion at all
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) [REQUIRED CASE]
Gideon broke into a pool hall and stole some cash from a register and got arrested and this wasn't his first time getting arrested; In other states he has been provided a lawyer from the state for free In Florida the law said that they'll only appoint a lawyer to a defendant in capital cases so Gideon wasn't entitled to a free lawyer from the state so he represented himself and lost the case Said that Florida's law violated the 6th amendment which says that "In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right... to have the assistance of counsel for his defense" Technically Florida didn't violate the 6th amendment because it's not a federal court and the 6th amendment only applies to federal courts BUT does the 14th amendment allow for the 6th amendment to apply to states with selective corporation? Court ruled in Gideons favor saying that the 6th amendment does apply to the states via the 14th amendment equal protection clause
Prior Restraint
Government censorship that blocks free speech or publication
McDonald v. Chicago (2010) [REQUIRED CASE]
Heller v DC - Court ruled that restricted gun laws in DC were unconstitutional but because DC is a federal district the ruling only applied to federal territory (not the states) McDonald and other Chicago residents wanted to apply this decision to the states - McDonald's street has been taken over gangs and his house had been robbed five times, he owned hunting rifles and shotguns legally which weren't challenging to get but he said they were bad to use if someone was robbing your house - Getting a hand gun was very hard to do in Chicago so he challenged this based on the second amendment Personal Liberty vs Public Order and Safety McDonald argued that Chicago's restrictive gun laws infringed on his right to own guns (especially after Heller's ruling) Chicago said that these laws were necessary to uphold safety Ruling was in favor of McDonald saying it was in violation of their second amendment rights Also 14th amendment case because of equal protection clause allowing the court to rule on a state law with selective incorporation applying the Heller ruling to the states Big impact because any city with similar restrictive gun laws had to re-write their laws to apply with this case
Miranda v. Arizona
IMPORTANT: self-incrimination clause, 5th amendment (don't have to testify against yourself, right to remain silent), 6th amendment (you have a right to an attorney) Police arrest Miranda and officers aggressively integrate him and didn't tell him that he could call a lawyer and didn't have to answer the questions but the officers got a confession from Miranda and he was found guilty Appealed to SOCTUS and 5-4 ruling saying his confession couldn't be used because denied 5th and 6th amendment rights by not making them clear to him making police offers having to say Miranda rights while arresting anyone 5th Amendment self-incrimination clause requires government agents to warn suspects of their right to remain silent and/or contact an attorney before questioning them when they are in custody. Statements made without Miranda Warning are inadmissible in court (like the exclusionary rule for evidence) Miranda rule: Suspects in custody must be informed of their 5th and 6th amendment rights Public safety exception If a question is asked to neutralize a dangerous situation and a suspect responds voluntarily, the statement can be used even though it was made before the Miranda rights were read
Exclusionary rule
Illegally obtained evidence may not be used in a trial
Roe v. Wade (1973) [REQUIRED CASE]
In the 1930s many woman were getting abortions illegally and because they were illegal they weren't performed safely so many woman were getting very sick because of it or even dying Because of that many states were making abortions legal to give a safe option to woman A group of catholic physicals didn't like this because according to their religion life began at conception so killing a fetus to them is like any other sort of killing A big thing that woman were advocating for during the woman's right movements in the 60's and 70's was for the federal legalization of abortions because having control over their body was essential to their equality to men Roe tried to get an abortion in Texas and in Texas you could only get an abortion if the mothers life was in danger Argument based on a woman's right to privacy with the court saying that the right to privacy isn't explicitly mentioned in the constitution but implied in the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th amendments Right to Privacy Examples: Ex: citizens have the right not to have their homes and personal items searched without a warrant from the 4th amendment which the justices argued implies a right to privacy Ex: right to not tell the government your religion with the 1st amendment Court ruled that Texas abortion law violated Roe's right to privacy mainly to take decisions of her own body using the 14th amendment There were restrictions though: 1st Trimester - States couldn't in anyway restrict abortions 2nd Trimester - States could make reasonable restrictions as long as they were related to the mothers health 3rd Trimester - States could prohibit abortions entirely unless the mothers health and life were at stake
Limits on content of speech
National security - Troops can't go around tweeting military threats Fraud - False advertisement Clear and present danger (and threats) - Can't give a death threat Imminent lawlessness - Encouraging someone to break the law Libel/slander - Have to have malicious intent Obscenity - Ex: nudity
Engel v. Vitale (1962) [REQUIRED CASE]
New York Board of Regions made an optional non-religious prayer that was supposed to be said every morning after the pledge of allegiance Group of parents challenged the prayer because it violated the first amendment's establishment clause (Congress can't make any law about the establishment of religion) - the 14th amendment applies the 1st amendment to the states Question: "Does the reading of a state sponsored prayer at the beginning of the school violate the establishment clause in the first amendment?" They said that it does and the prayer is unconstitutional - Jefferson's separation of state and church played a big role in the outcome along with the establishment clause Court ruled in favor of individual liberties and this case is used as a big precedent for rulings with schools and religion
3rd Amendment
No quartering of soldiers
Title IX of the Educational Amendments Act of 1972
Prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any federally funded education program
2nd Amendment
Right to bear arms There is an individual right to bear arms for self-defense
5th Amendment
Self-incrimination (don't have to say incriminating about yourself) Double Jeopardy (can't get tried for the case more than once) Eminent Domain (government can take your property for the reason of promoting the common good)
Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) [REQUIRED CASE]
Senator Robert Kennedy called for a Christmas truce in the Vietnam War and the Tinker family wanted to support this with a symbolic protest and their kids and friends wanted to ware black armbands to school in support of the Christmas truce This was a very controversial issue so when the school heard about this they made a policy saying that anyone wearing an armband will be asked to remove it or be suspended until they came back to school without it Tinker kids wore the armbands anyway and got suspended and their parents filed a law suit The Question Even though the protest was symbolic and silent, it was on a controversial issue and the administrators do have a job to make sure the school day isn't interrupted but did they have the right to stop this protest and did it violated the students free speech? Court ruled that this was a violation to the students free speech. Court said that there is valid constitutional reasons for administration to restrict students free speech but this wasn't a valid reason. Court created the Substantial Disruption Test as a decision making criterion for how school administrators could limit speech (the speech would have to interfere with the school in a impactful way) Case is important because used as a precedent for other cases with student speech and school
Brown v. Board of Education I (1954) & II (1955) [REQUIRED CASE]
Series of cases put into one, all of the cases having to do with segregation in school Justified in Plessy v Ferguson many states had segregated schools that said segregation in public facilities was constitutional as long as the separate facilities were equal A black family tried to get their daughter into a public white school which was close to their house but was denied admission making her have to go to a way further school Brown argued racial segregation in school was in violation of the 14th amendments equal protection clause and his lawyer argued that even if funding was legal separation is still not equal and that this generates a feeling of inferiority to black children which effects their minds in a horrible way Court agreed that separate facilities violated the 14th amendment overturning the precent from Plessy v Ferguson This was a massive step for the Civil Rights Movement Supreme Court said they need to desegregate the schools with "deliberate speed" which southern states used to take their time and go very slow and be "deliberate"
6th Amendment
Speedy, public, local trial witness and counsel (right to a free lawyer)
10th Amendment
States' rights; All powers not delegated to the federal or denied to the states are reserved to the states
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 The due process clause and the 14th amendment in general allows for the bill of rights which is only applied to Congress to be applied to the states on a case by case basis An usually doesn't just get fully incorporated at once usually parts of it gets incorporated until it's fully incorporated
Letter from Birmingham Jail [REQUIRED DOCUMENT]
This document illustrator how equal protection clause in the 14th amendment supported and motivated the civil rights movement In 1963 King lead a campaign to desegregate Birmingham Alabama's downtown shopping district and he did so with a series of boycotts, sit-ins, and marches The campaign got King and a bunch of others arrested and in the midst of all of this, a group of white clergy who generally weren't against the civil rights movement published a letter in the newspaper saying that MLK's practices weren't effective and were disruptive and that black people in Birmingham needed to be patient and wait for the white people to work through the courts and legislators and then they'll have their rights Kings letter is in response to the Clergy and opens it with why he's in Birmingham saying that he can't just sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned what happens in Birmingham saying "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" He goes on to justify the non-violent direct action that he and his followers engage in saying that meaningful negotiation will never occur unless a criss raises the stakes and says that "...freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded buy the oppressed" which is why he and his followers can't just be patient and wait King expresses his disappointment for the white clergy men in Birmingham but its not for their racism but for their moderation and says that the "white moderate who is more devoted to order than justice" is more preventing their freedom then groups like the KKK He keeps talking about how everyone needs to act now saying that "We must come to see that human progress never rolls in on wheels of inedibility" The clergy calls King an extremist and King embraces it saying wasn't Jesus an extremist for love and other examples similar to that and that all these men were martyred for their extremism so King was fine with being called that
7th Amendment
Trial by jruy
Protected vs. Unprotected Speech
Unprotected Speech Libel, slander, obscenity, speech intended to incite "imminent illegal action" and "likely to produce such a result" Protected Speech Symbolic speech, hate speech libel and slander are like false information put out purposely to diminish someones reputation
Intermediate Scrutiny (level of scrutiny)
Why government treats of groups of people differently Intermediate Scrutiny - middle level of scrutiny; sometimes constitutional because it must prove laws are "substantially related to an important government purpose - based on gender, sex, illegitimacy of birth, sexual orientation; sometimes constitutional
Rational Basis (level of scrutiny)
Why government treats of groups of people differently Rational Basis - lowest level of scrutiny; usually constitutional because the reason for treating groups differently is rational - based on age, wealth, disability - Ex: different tax brackets based on wealth
Strict Scrutiny (level of scrutiny)
Why government treats of groups of people differently Strict Scrutiny - usually unconstitutional; government must show very strong "compelling state interest" - based on race, national origin, religion, citizenship status - creates suspect classes: government is creating a difference for the group based on their characteristics, class in that way so suspicious of the government doing that
