Poli Sci Midterm Study Guide

Judicial restraint

Judicial restraint is a theory of judicial interpretation that encourages judges to limit the exercise of their own power. It asserts that judges should hesitate to strike down laws unless they are obviously unconstitutional,[1] though what counts as obviously unconstitutional is itself a matter of some debate.[2] Judicial restraint is sometimes regarded as the opposite of judicial activism. In deciding questions of constitutional law, judicially restrained jurists go to great lengths to defer to the legislature. Judicially restrained judges respect stare decisis, the principle of upholding established precedent handed down by past judges

Supermajority

A "supermajority vote" is a vote that must exceed the number of votes comprising a "simple majority." For example, a simple majority in the 100-member Senate is 51 votes; while a 2/3 supermajority vote requires 67 votes. In the 435-member House of Representatives, a simple majority is 218 votes; while a 2/3 supermajority requires 290 votes.

Coordination dilemma

A coordination problem is a situation in which two or more people are all better off if every player chooses the same course of action, but there may be disagreement about which course of action is best.

Literacy tests

A literacy test assesses a person's literacy skills: their ability to read and write. Literacy tests have been administered by various governments to immigrants, and in the United States between the 1850s[1] and 1960s, literacy tests were also administered to prospective voters and used to disenfranchise racial minorities.

Living document

A living document, also known as an evergreen document or dynamic document, is a document that is continually edited and updated. A simple example of a living document is an article in Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia that permits anyone to freely edit its articles, in contrast to "dead" or "static" documents, such as an article in a single edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica. A living document may or may not have a framework for updates, changes, or adjustments. This type of document without proper context can change away from its original purpose through multiple uncontrolled edits. This can encourage open collaboration within the network, but in some cases there can also be stagnation if no one takes on the initiative of updating the work. One reason why initiative is not taken to update the document could come from a sense of ambiguity.

Prisoner's dilemma

A prisoner's dilemma is an interaction between two individuals in which neither actor has an incentive to cooperate, even though both would be better off if they cooperated. The collective-action problem can be thought of as a multiperson version of the prisoner's dilemma.

Anti-federalists

Anti-Federalism refers to a movement that opposed the creation of a stronger U.S. federal government and which later opposed the ratification of the 1787 Constitution. The previous constitution, called the Articles of Confederation, gave state governments more authority. Led by Patrick Henry of Virginia, Anti-Federalists worried, among other things, that the position of president, then a novelty, might evolve into a monarchy.

Enumerated powers (Art I, Sec 8)

Article I of the Constitution defines the role of Congress, the federal legislative branch. Section 8 contains the enumerated powers of the federal government delegated to Congress. The following was prepared by the Office of the Secretary of the Senate with the assistance of the Library of Congress, providing the original text of each clause of the Constitution with an accompanying explanation of its meaning and how that meaning has changed over time. Source: U.S. Senate, Library Of Congress Sections 1, 2 and 3 (Legislative Powers) | Sections 4, 5, 6 and 7 (Elections and Legislative Process) | Section 8 (Enumerated Powers) | Sections 9 and 10 (Powers Denied To Congress and States)

De Facto Segregation

De facto discrimination means "by the facts" and occurs through social interaction, according to Princeton.edu. De jure and de facto discrimination are both forms of racial prejudice.

De Jure Segregation

De jure discrimination means "of the law" and is discrimination enacted through law by the government, while de facto discrimination means "by the facts" and occurs through social interaction, according to Princeton.edu. De jure and de facto discrimination are both forms of racial prejudice.

Democracy

Democracy (Greek: δημοκρατία, Dēmokratía literally "rule of the commoners"), in modern usage, is a system of government in which the citizens exercise power directly or elect representatives from among themselves to form a governing body, such as a parliament.[1] Democracy is sometimes referred to as "rule of the majority".[2] Democracy was originally conceived in Classical Greece, where political representatives were chosen by a jury from amongst the male citizens: rich and poor.[citation needed] The English word dates to the 16th century, from the older Middle French and Middle Latin equivalents. According to political scientist Larry Diamond, democracy consists of four key elements: (a) A political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections; (b) The active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life; (c) Protection of the human rights of all citizens, and (d) A rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens.[3]

Dual federalism vs cooperative

Dual federalism is a theory about the proper relationship between government and the states, portraying the states as powerful components of the federal government -- nearly equal to the national government. Cooperative federalism was coined in the 1930s and acknowledges a need for cooperation between state and federal governments.

Federalism

Federalism is the mixed or compound mode of government, combining a general government (the central or 'federal' government) with regional governments (provincial, state, cantonal, territorial or other sub-unit governments) in a single political system. Its distinctive feature, exemplified in the founding example of modern federalism of the United States of America under the Constitution of 1787, is a relationship of parity between the two levels of government established.[1] It can thus be defined as a form of government in which there is a division of powers between two levels of government of equal status.[2]

Marbury v Madison

In Marbury v. Madison (1803) the Supreme Court announced for the first time the principle that a court may declare an act of Congress void if it is inconsistent with the Constitution. William Marbury had been appointed a justice of the peace for the District of Columbia in the final hours of the Adams administration. When James Madison, Thomas Jefferson's secretary of state, refused to deliver Marbury's commission, Marbury, joined by three other similarly situated appointees, petitioned for a writ of mandamus compelling delivery of the commissions.

Griswold v Connecticut

In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Supreme Court ruled that a state's ban on the use of contraceptives violated the right to marital privacy. The case concerned a Connecticut law that criminalized the encouragement or use of birth control. The 1879 law provided that "any person who uses any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purposes of preventing conception shall be fined not less than forty dollars or imprisoned not less than sixty days." The law further provided that "any person who assists, abets, counsels, causes, hires or commands another to commit any offense may be prosecuted and punished as if he were the principle offender." Estelle Griswold, the executive director of Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and Dr. C. Lee Buxton, doctor and professor at Yale Medical School, were arrested and found guilty as accessories to providing illegal contraception. They were fined $100 each. Griswold and Buxton appealed to the Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut, claiming that the law violated the U.S. Constitution. The Connecticut court upheld the conviction, and Griswold and Buxton appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reviewed the case in 1965. The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision written by Justice William O. Douglas, ruled that the law violated the "right to marital privacy" and could not be enforced against married people. Justice Douglas contended that the Bill of Right's specific guarantees have "penumbras," created by "emanations from these guarantees that help give them life and opinion." In other words, the "spirit" of the First Amendment (free speech), Third Amendment (prohibition on the forced quartering of troops), Fourth Amendment (freedom from searches and seizures), Fifth Amendment (freedom from self-incrimination), and Ninth Amendment (other rights), as applied against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, creates a general "right to privacy" that cannot be unduly infringed. Further, this right to privacy is "fundamental" when it concerns the actions of married couples, because it "is of such a character that it cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of our civil and political institutions." Because a married couple's use of contraception constitutes a "fundamental" right, Connecticut must prove to the Court that its law is "compelling" and "absolutely necessary" to overcome that right (i.e., the "strict scrutiny test"). Because Connecticut failed to prove this, the law was struck down as applied. Other justices, while agreeing that marital privacy is a "fundamental right" and that the Connecticut law should be struck down, disagreed with Justice Douglas as to where in the Constitution such a "fundamental right" exists. In his concurrence, Justice Arthur Goldberg argued that the Ninth Amendment, which states that the Bill of Rights does not exhaust all the rights contained by the people, allows the Court to find the "fundamental right to marital privacy" without having to ground it in a specific constitutional amendment. In another concurrence, Justice John Marshall Harlan II maintained that a "fundamental right to marital privacy" exists only because marital privacy has traditionally been protected by American society. Finally, in yet another concurrence, Justice Byron White argued that a fundamental right to marital privacy constitutes a liberty under the Due Process Clause, and is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment against the states. Yet, for all their differences, the majority in Griswold v. Connecticut agreed that the "right to privacy," in addition to being "fundamental," was "substantive." In West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937), the Court had rejected the idea that the Constitution protects "substantive rights," i.e., protects certain activities from government interference that are not explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights. In Griswold, however, it ruled that "substantive rights" do exist in non-economic areas like "the right to privacy," even if they do not in economic activities like the right to contract. Over the next 10 years, the Court expanded this fundamental, substantive "right to privacy" beyond the marital bedroom, ruling that the state could not ban the use of contraceptives by anyone (Eisenstadt v. Baird [1972]), and that the state could not ban most abortions (Roe v. Wade [1973]).

Poll tax

In the United States, payment of a poll tax was a prerequisite to the registration for voting in a number of states until 1966. The tax emerged in some states of the United States in the late 19th century as part of the Jim Crow laws. After the right to vote was extended to all races by the enactment of the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, a number of states enacted poll tax laws as a device for restricting voting rights. The laws often included a grandfather clause, which allowed any adult male whose father or grandfather had voted in a specific year prior to the abolition of slavery to vote without paying the tax. These laws, along with unfairly implemented literacy tests and extra-legal intimidation,[1] achieved the desired effect of disenfranchising African-American and Native American voters, as well as poor whites. Proof of payment of a poll tax was a prerequisite to voter registration in Florida, Alabama, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia (1877), North and South Carolina, Virginia (until 1882 and again from 1902 with its new constitution),[2][3] and Texas (1902).[4] The Texas poll tax "required otherwise eligible voters to pay between $1.50 and $1.75 to register to vote - a lot of money at the time, and a big barrier to the working classes and poor."[4] Georgia created a cumulative poll tax requirement in 1877: men of any race 21 to 60 years of age had to pay a sum of money for every year from the time they had turned 21, or from the time that the law took effect.[5] The poll tax requirements applied to whites as well as blacks, and also adversely affected poor citizens. The laws that allowed the poll tax did not specify a certain group of people.[6] This meant that anyone, including white women could also be discriminated against when they went to vote. One example is in Alabama where white women were discriminated against and then organized to secure their right to vote. One group of women that did this was Women's Joint Legislative Council of Alabama (WJLC).[6] African American women also organized in groups against being denied voting rights. One African American woman sued the county with the help of the NAACP. She sued for her right to vote as she was stopped from even registering to vote. As a result of her suing the county the mailman did not deliver her mail for quite some time.[7] Many states required payment of the tax at a time separate from the election, and then required voters to bring receipts with them to the polls. If they could not locate such receipts, they could not vote. In addition, many states surrounded registration and voting with complex record-keeping requirements.[8] These were particularly difficult for sharecropper and tenant farmers to comply with, as they moved frequently. The poll tax was sometimes used alone or together with a literacy qualification. In a kind of grandfather clause, North Carolina in 1900 exempted from the poll tax those men entitled to vote as of January 1, 1867. This excluded all blacks, who did not then have suffrage.[9] Although largely associated with states of the former Confederacy, poll taxes were also in place in some northern and western states. For instance, California had a poll tax until 1914 when it was abolished through a popular referendum

Wilmot proviso

PRINT CITE The Wilmot Proviso was designed to eliminate slavery within the land acquired as a result of the Mexican War (1846-48). Soon after the war began, President James K. Polk sought the appropriation of $2 million as part of a bill to negotiate the terms of a treaty. Fearing the addition of a pro-slave territory, Pennsylvania Congressman David Wilmot proposed his amendment to the bill. Although the measure was blocked in the southern-dominated Senate, it enflamed the growing controversy over slavery, and its underlying principle helped bring about the formation of the Republican Party in 1854.

What are the differences between civil rights and civil liberties? Historically, which branch of government has expanded these rights and liberties? How have they done so? (give specific case examples)

Protection of civil liberties and civil rights is perhaps the most fundamental political value in American society. And yet, as former Justice Frankfurter explained in the quote above, the people who test liberties and rights in our courts are not always ideal citizens. Consider some of these examples: A pick ax murderer on death row who found God and asked for clemency A publisher of magazines, books, and photos convicted for sending obscene materials through the United States mail A convict whose electrocution was botched when 2,000 volts of electricity rushed into his body, causing flames to leap from his head A university student criminally charged for writing and publishing on the internet about torturing and murdering women Each of these people made sensational headline news as the center of one of many national civil liberties disputes in the late 20th century. They became involved in the legal process because of behavior that violated a law, and almost certainly, none of them intended to become famous. More important than the headlines they made, however, is the role they played in establishing important principles that define the many civil liberties and civil rights that Americans enjoy today. Liberties or Rights? What is the difference between a liberty and a right? Both words appear in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. The distinction between the two has always been blurred, and today the concepts are often used interchangeably. However, they do refer to different kinds of guaranteed protections. Civil liberties are protections against government actions. For example, the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights guarantees citizens the right to practice whatever religion they please. Government, then, cannot interfere in an individual's freedom of worship. Amendment I gives the individual "liberty" from the actions of the government. Civil rights, in contrast, refer to positive actions of government should take to create equal conditions for all Americans. The term "civil rights" is often associated with the protection of minority groups, such as African Americans, Hispanics, and women. The government counterbalances the "majority rule" tendency in a democracy that often finds minorities outvoted. Right vs. Right Truman desegregation headline The Chicago Defender, an African-American newspaper, trumpets the desegregation of the military. The right to participate in public institutions is a key component of civil rights. Most Americans think of civil rights and liberties as principles that protect freedoms all the time. However, the truth is that rights listed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are usually competing rights. Most civil liberties and rights court cases involve the plaintiff's right vs. another right that the defendant claims has been violated. For example, in 1971, the New York Times published the "Pentagon Papers" that revealed some negative actions of the government during the Vietnam War. The government sued the newspaper, claiming that the reports endangered national security. The New York Times countered with the argument that the public had the right to know and that its freedom of the press should be upheld. So, the situation was national security v. freedom of the press. A tough call, but the Court chose to uphold the rights of the press. The Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment The overwhelming majority of court decisions that define American civil liberties are based on the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments added to the Constitution in 1791. Civil liberties protected in the Bill of Rights may be divided into two broad areas: freedoms and rights guaranteed in the First Amendment (religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition) and liberties and rights associated with crime and due process. Civil rights are also protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects violation of rights and liberties by the state governments. 14th Amendment Section 1. 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. Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age [Changed by the 26th Amendment], and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state. Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Protection of civil liberties and civil rights is basic to American political values, but the process is far from easy. Protecting one person's right may involve violating those of another. How far should the government go to take "positive action" to protect minorities? The answers often come from individuals who brush most closely with the law, whose cases help to continually redefine American civil liberties and rights.

Peripheral rights

Some rights aren't exactly stated in the U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights, but courts have recognized them as necessary to protecting the rights that are mentioned.

Thirteenth amendment

The 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution officially abolished slavery in America, and was ratified on December 6, 1865, after the conclusion of the American Civil War. The amendment states: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Compromise of 1850

The Compromise of 1850 was a package of five separate bills passed by the United States Congress in September 1850, which defused a four-year political confrontation between slave and free states regarding the status of territories acquired during the Mexican-American War (1846-1848). The compromise, drafted by Whig Senator Henry Clay of Kentucky and brokered by Clay and Democratic Senator Stephen Douglas of Illinois, reduced sectional conflict. Controversy arose over the Fugitive Slave provision. The Compromise was greeted with relief, although each side disliked specific provisions.[citation needed] Texas surrendered its claim to New Mexico, as well as its claims north of the Missouri Compromise Line. It retained the Texas Panhandle and the federal government took over the state's public debt. California was admitted as a free state with its current boundaries. The South prevented adoption of the Wilmot Proviso that would have outlawed slavery in the new territories,[1] and the new Utah Territory and New Mexico Territory were allowed, under the principle of popular sovereignty, to decide whether to allow slavery within their borders. In practice, these lands were generally unsuited to plantation agriculture and their settlers were uninterested in slavery. The slave trade (but not slavery altogether) was banned in the District of Columbia. A more stringent Fugitive Slave Law was enacted. The Compromise became possible after the sudden death of President Zachary Taylor, who, although a slave owner, had favored excluding slavery from the Southwest. Whig leader Henry Clay designed a compromise, which failed to pass in early 1850, due to opposition by both pro-slavery southern Democrats, led by John C. Calhoun, and anti-slavery northern Whigs. Upon Clay's instruction, Douglas then divided Clay's bill into several smaller pieces and narrowly won their passage over the opposition of those with stronger views on both sides.

The Great Compromise

The Great Compromise, also known as the Connecticut Compromise, was the result of a debate among delegates that decided how much representation each state should have in Congress. Delegates gathered at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 to reach a compromise on this issue. The Great Compromise affected the formation of Congress and the House of Representatives. Prior to the Great Compromise, delegates envisioned only one law-making branch of the government. Most delegates agreed that representatives from each state should be a part of this branch, but no agreement could be reached regarding how much each state should be represented. Most delegates from larger states favored the Virginia Plan. This plan determined the extent of state representation by the population of a state. On the other hand, smaller states were in favor of the New Jersey Plan that would require all states to be represented in Congress equally, regardless of the number of citizens in a state. A compromise was reached when Connecticut delegate Roger Sherman proposed the creation of a two-chambered Congress. This led to the creation of the House of Representative. Today, each state is represented by two senators and several members of the House of Representatives. The amount of representatives for each state is determined by the population of the state.

Supremacy clause

The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land.[1] It provides that state courts are bound by the supreme law; in case of conflict between federal and state law, the federal law must be applied. Even state constitutions are subordinate to federal law.[2] In essence, it is a conflict-of-laws rule specifying that certain national acts take priority over any state acts that conflict with national law. In this respect, the Supremacy Clause follows the lead of Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, which provided that "Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress Assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them."[3] A constitutional provision announcing the supremacy of federal law, the Supremacy Clause assumes the underlying priority of federal authority, at least when that authority is expressed in the Constitution itself.[4] No matter what the federal government or the states might wish to do, they have to stay within the boundaries of the Constitution. This makes the Supremacy Clause the cornerstone of the whole American political structure

How does the Supreme Court decide which cases it will review? What are the decision rules of the process? What factors increase the likelihood that a case will be reviewed?

The Supreme Court decides to hear a case based on at least four of the nine Justices of the Supreme Court agreeing to grant the Petition for Certiorari. If four Justices agree to grant the petition, the Supreme Court will consider the case. A Petition for Certiorari is granted in very, few selected cases—fewer than 100 a year, by the Supreme Court of the United States. A petition for Writ Certiorari is a request that the court hear your case. The Supreme Court receives over 5000 writs of Certiorari every year. Each writ and the case it comes from is reviewed the Supreme Court clerks and then shortened into a cert. memo. The cert. memo is what the Supreme Court justices use to actually decide the case. Upon reviewing the memo, the particular justice that the case was assigned to will either deny the appeal himself and affirm the appeals court judgment or will bring the cert. memo before the other justices and debate whether the case should be heard. In order for the case to be heard, four justices must agree to hear the case. This is known as the Rule of Four. If four justices vote to hear the case, then it is placed onto the court's docket and the parties and their attorney's are notified that the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case. The court will typically grant the petitions of cases that are exceptionally unique and that present an issue of law that would be considered far-reaching throughout the United States. The Supreme Court also prefers cases that are clear examples for the lower court so that exact guidance can be given.

10th amendment

The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 25[1] It expresses the principle of federalism, which strictly supports the entire plan of the original Constitution for the United States of America, by stating that the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the United States Constitution. All remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people. The amendment was proposed by Congress in 1789 during its first term following the Constitutional Convention and ratification of the Constitution. It was considered by many members as a prerequisite of such ratification[2] particularly to satisfy demands by the Anti-Federalism movement that opposed the creation of a stronger U.S. federal government. In drafting this amendment, its framers had two purposes in mind: first, as a necessary rule of construction; and second, as a reaffirmation of the nature of the federal system of freedom.

Three-fifths compromise

The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise reached between delegates from southern states and those from northern states during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention. The debate was over whether, and if so, how, slaves would be counted when determining a state's total population for legislative representation and taxing purposes. The issue was important, as this population number would then be used to determine the number of seats that the state would have in the United States House of Representatives for the next ten years. The effect was to give the southern states a third more seats in Congress and a third more electoral votes than if slaves had been ignored, but fewer than if slaves and free persons had been counted equally, allowing the slaveholder interests to largely dominate the government of the United States until 1861.[1] The compromise was proposed by delegates James Wilson and Roger Sherman.

Conformity costs

The difference between what a person would ideally prefer and what the group with which that person makes collective action decisions actually does. Individuals pay conformity costs whenever collective decisions produce policy outcomes that do not best serve their interests. Ex. Dictatorship is high cc.

Fugitive slave laws

The fugitive slave laws were laws passed by the United States Congress in 1793 and 1850 to provide for the return of slaves who escaped from one state into another state or territory. The idea of the fugitive slave law was derived from the Fugitive Slave Clause which is in the United States Constitution (Article IV, Section 2, Paragraph 3). It was thought that forcing states to deliver escaped slaves to slave owners violated states' rights due to state sovereignty and was believed that seizing state property should not be left up to the states. The Fugitive Slave Clause states that escaped slaves "shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due", which abridged state rights because retrieving slaves was a form of retrieving private property.[1] After the Compromise of 1850, the Supreme Court made slavery a protected institution and arranged a series of laws that allowed slavery in the new territories and forced officials in Free States to give a hearing to slaveholders without a jury

Right to privacy

The right to privacy is an element of various legal traditions which may restrain both government and private party action that threatens the privacy of individuals.[1][2] Over 150 national constitutions mention this right (click here to read the provisions). Since the global surveillance disclosures of 2013, the inalienable human right to privacy has been a subject of international debate. Under the pretext of combatting terrorists, controversial agencies such as the NSA, CIA, RAW, GCHQ, and others have engaged in mass global surveillance, undermining the right to privacy. There is now a question as to whether the right to privacy can co-exist with the current capabilities of government agencies to access and analyse virtually every detail of an individual's life. A major question is whether or not the right to privacy needs to be forfeited as part of the social contract in order to bolster defence against alleged terrorist threats.

Tragedy of the Commons

The tragedy of the commons is an economic problem in which every individual tries to reap the greatest benefit from a given resource. As the demand for the resource overwhelms the supply, every individual who consumes an additional unit directly harms others who can no longer enjoy the benefits. Generally, the resource of interest is easily available to all individuals; the tragedy of the commons occurs when individuals neglect the well-being of society in the pursuit of personal gain.

Unanimity

Unanimity is agreement by all people in a given situation. Groups may consider unanimous decisions as a sign of agreement, solidarity, and unity. Unanimity may be assumed explicitly after a unanimous vote or implicitly by a lack of objections. It does not necessarily mean uniformity and can sometimes be the opposite of majority in terms of outcomes.

Miranda v Arizona

n Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the Supreme Court ruled that detained criminal suspects, prior to police questioning, must be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self-incrimination. The case began with the 1963 arrest of Phoenix resident Ernesto Miranda, who was charged with rape, kidnapping, and robbery. Miranda was not informed of his rights prior to the police interrogation. During the two-hour interrogation, Miranda allegedly confessed to committing the crimes, which the police apparently recorded. Miranda, who had not finished ninth grade and had a history of mental instability, had no counsel present. At trial, the prosecution's case consisted solely of his confession. Miranda was convicted of both rape and kidnapping and sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison. He appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, claiming that the police had unconstitutionally obtained his confession. The court disagreed, however, and upheld the conviction. Miranda appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reviewed the case in 1966. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, ruled that the prosecution could not introduce Miranda's confession as evidence in a criminal trial because the police had failed to first inform Miranda of his right to an attorney and against self-incrimination. The police duty to give these warnings is compelled by the Constitution's Fifth Amendment, which gives a criminal suspect the right to refuse "to be a witness against himself," and Sixth Amendment, which guarantees criminal defendants the right to an attorney. The Court maintained that the defendant's right against self-incrimination has long been part of Anglo-American law as a means to equalize the vulnerability inherent in being detained. Such a position, unchecked, can often lead to government abuse. For example, the Court cited the continued high incidence of police violence designed to compel confessions from a suspect. This and other forms of intimidation, maintained the Court, deprive criminal suspects of their basic liberties and can lead to false confessions. The defendant's right to an attorney is an equally fundamental right, because the presence of an attorney in interrogations, according to Chief Justice Warren, enables "the defendant under otherwise compelling circumstances to tell his story without fear, effectively, and in a way that eliminates the evils in the interrogations process." Without these two fundamental rights, both of which, the Court ruled, "dispel the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings," "no statement obtained from the defendant can truly be the product of his free choice." Thus, to protect these rights in the face of widespread ignorance of the law, the Court devised statements that the police are required to tell a defendant who is being detained and interrogated. These mandatory "Miranda Rights" begin with "the right to remain silent," and continue with the statement that "anything said can and will be used against [the defendant] in a court of law." The police are further compelled to inform the suspect of his or her right to an attorney and allow for (or, if necessary, provide for) a defendant's attorney who can accompany him during interrogations. Because none of these rights was afforded to Ernesto Miranda and his "confession" was thus unconstitutionally admitted at trial, his conviction was reversed. Miranda was later retried and convicted without the admission of his confession. Miranda v. Arizona, in creating the "Miranda Rights" we take for granted today, reconciled the increasing police powers of the state with the basic rights of individuals. Miranda remains good law today.

Free-rider problem

where people are individually better off trying to free ride and benefit from a public good without contributing to it, but people as a group would be better off if they all contributed.

Civil rights

"Civil rights" are the rights of individuals to receive equal treatment (and to be free from unfair treatment or "discrimination") in a number of settings -- including education, employment, housing, and more -- and based on certain legally-protected characteristics. Historically, the "Civil Rights Movement" referred to efforts toward achieving true equality for African-Americans in all facets of society, but today the term "civil rights" is also used to describe the advancement of equality for all people regardless of race, sex, age, disability, national origin, religion, or certain other characteristics.

Grandfather Clause

A grandfather clause (or grandfather policy) is a provision in which an old rule continues to apply to some existing situations while a new rule will apply to all future cases. Those exempt from the new rule are said to have grandfather rights or acquired rights. Frequently, the exemption is limited; it may extend for a set time, or it may be lost under certain circumstances. For example, a "grandfathered power plant" might be exempt from new, more restrictive pollution laws, but the exception may be revoked and the new rules would apply if the plant were expanded. Often, such a provision is used as a compromise or out of practicality, to allow new rules to be enacted without upsetting a well-established logistical or political situation. This extends the idea of a rule not being retroactively applied. The term originated in late nineteenth-century legislation and constitutional amendments passed by a number of U.S. Southern states, which created new requirements for literacy tests, payment of poll taxes, and/or residency and property restrictions to register to vote. States in some cases exempted those whose ancestors (grandfathers) had the right to vote before the Civil War, or as of a particular date, from such requirements. The intent and effect of such rules was to prevent poor and illiterate African-American former slaves and their descendants from voting, but without denying poor and illiterate whites the right to vote. Although these original grandfather clauses were eventually ruled unconstitutional, the terms grandfather clause and grandfather have been adapted to other uses.

Monarchy

A monarchy is a form of government in which a group, usually a family called the dynasty, embodies the country's national identity and one of its members, called the monarch, exercises a role of sovereignty. The actual power of the monarch may vary from purely symbolic (crowned republic), to partial and restricted (constitutional monarchy), to completely autocratic (absolute monarchy). Traditionally and in most cases, the monarch's post is inherited and lasts until death or abdication, but there are also elective monarchies where the monarch is elected.[1] Each of these has variations: in some elected monarchies only those of certain pedigrees are, whereas many hereditary monarchies impose requirements regarding the religion, age, gender, mental capacity, etc. Occasionally this might create a situation of rival claimants whose legitimacy is subject to effective election. Finally, there have been cases where the term of a monarch's reign is either fixed in years or continues until certain goals are achieved: an invasion being repulsed, for instance. Thus there are widely divergent structures and traditions defining monarchy.

Plurality

A plurality vote (in North America) or relative majority (in the United Kingdom)[1] describes the circumstance when a candidate or proposition polls more votes than any other, but does not receive a majority.[2] For example, if 100 votes were cast, including 45 for Candidate A, 30 for Candidate B and 25 for Candidate C, then Candidate A received a plurality of votes but not a majority. In some votes, the winning candidate or proposition may have only a plurality, depending on the rules of the organization holding the vote.[3]

Explain the early challenges of the US government under the Articles of Confederation? How did the Constitution resolve this problem?

After the outbreak of the Revolutionary War, the thirteen American colonies needed a government to replace the British system they were attempting to overthrow. The Founding Fathers' first attempt at such governance was formed around the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation were first proposed at the Second Continental Congress in 1777 in Philadelphia. They were fully ratified and put into effect in 1781. The reign of the Articles of Confederation was brief. Why did the articles of confederation fail? What were the flaws of the Articles of Confederation and how did it distribute power? Read more to discover why by 1789 the former colonies were under the law of a new governing document—the Constitution of the United States of America. 1 The inherent weakness of the Articles of Confederation stemmed from the fact that it called for a confederacy—which placed sovereign power in the hands of the states. This is most explicitly stated in Article II, which reads: "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled." 2 This distribution of power was chosen by the Founding Fathers because American colonists were wary of strong national governments. Having dealt with the British Crown for so many years, the American colonies did not want to create yet another out-of-touch, national government. Moreover, Americans identified most strongly with their individual colony, so it seemed natural to construct an American government based on powerful state governments. That said, during its short lifespan, the Articles of Confederation became increasingly ineffective at governing the continually growing American states. The main cause of this ineffectiveness stemmed from a lack of a strong, central government. From the absence of a powerful, national government emerged a series of limitations that rendered the Articles of Confederation futile. Specifically, the lack of a strong national government in the Articles of Confederation led to three broad limitations. Economic disorganization Lack of central leadership Legislative inefficiencies Economic Disorganization The first flaw of the Articles of Confederation was its economic disorganization which led to financial hardship for the emerging nation. By the late 1780's, America was struggling to compete economically and pay off the debts it accumulated in its fight for independence. These problems were made worse by a series of economic limitations present in the Articles of Confederation. 1) Congress could not regulate trade In 1786, James Madison wrote a letter to Thomas Jefferson detailing the economic problems caused by disorganization and competition between the states: "The States are every day giving proofs that separate regulations are more likely to set them by the ears than to attain the common object. When Massachusetts set on foot a retaliation of the policy of Great Britain, Connecticut declared her ports free. New Jersey served New York in the same way. And Delaware I am told has lately followed the example in opposition to the commercial plans of Pennsylvania. A miscarriage of this attempt to unite the states in some effectual plan will have another effect of a serious nature....I almost despair of success." 3 America in the mid-1780's was plagued by economic chaos that originated from the national government's inability to manage trade. Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress had limited power to regulate trade. Congress was only able to regulate trade and commerce with Native American tribes and, even then, only if it did not impair an individual state's ability to monitor its own trade. Congress had no ability to negotiate trade agreements with foreign countries. The central government could enact foreign treaties, but such treaties were specifically barred from policing imports and exports. 4 States, on the other hand, could make and enforce any trade restriction they saw fit. The only power they lacked was the ability to make foreign treaties. Since the central government had so little trade power, there was very little economic coordination amongst the states. Each state had its own agenda and import and export policies differed greatly from state to state 2) No uniform system of currency North Carolina's Own Currency North Carolina's Own Currency Article IX of the Articles of Confederation stated, "The United States in Congress assembled shall also have the sole and exclusive right and power of regulating the alloy and value of coin struck by their own authority, or by that of the respective State." 5 While Congress had the right to regulate all forms of American currency, the Articles failed to call for a singular form of currency. This meant that the national government could print money, but each state could as well. Consequently, America had no uniform system of currency which made trade between the states, and with foreign entities, much more difficult and less efficient. 3) No power of taxation Only the states, not Congress, had the authority to impose taxes and raise revenue. Accordingly, Congress had to request for funds from the states. Per Article VIII, these funds "shall be supplied by the several States in proportion to the value of all land within each State." 6 How that money was raised, within each state, was up to the state legislatures. Unfortunately, this money was oftentimes not raised by the states or given to the national government long after it was due. 7 As a result, Congress faced substantial revenue shortfalls. Without payment from the states, Congress struggled to pay off America's foreign debts and was incapable of fulfilling its other tasks, such as managing foreign affairs. Moreover, the unpredictability of the central government's revenue stream made establishing a national budget nearly impossible. Not knowing how much and when states were going to pay their share severely handicapped an already-limited national government. In short, it was a lack of economic unity that brought about many of America's economic woes during the years under the Articles of Confederation. Congress had few effective means to enforce its laws, raise revenue, or regulate the economy. The result was a disorganized economy that lacked the ability to pay for itself.. Lack of Central Leadership The second series of limitations that the Articles of Confederation had to contend with deal with was the lack of central leadership it provided. As detailed earlier, the Articles placed sovereign power in the hands of the state. Most critically, this led to economic troubles, but it also led to leadership deficit. Lack of national leadership took various forms. 1) No independent judiciary The Articles of Confederation offered no system of courts in the jurisdiction of the national government. This meant that the entire judiciary branch was dependent on the states. According to Article IV, "Full faith and credit shall be given in each of these States to the records, acts, and judicial proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every other State." 8 Consequently, states could overturn national actions that they found objectionable. Since Congress had no means to enforce its laws, the states could simply ignore national laws without fear of retribution. Also, since there was no national courts system, individual persons or states could not file complaints against the national government. The states could always ignore anything they disagreed with, but if a citizen had a grievance with the national government there was no system in place to hear the lawsuit. 2) No foreign affairs head One of the glaring differences between the Articles of Confederation and its successor—the Constitution of the United States—was its lack of a chief executive. Most notably, the lack of a presidential figure or body left America without a representative to conduct foreign affairs. Britain actually complained of such difficulties, protesting that they did not know who to contact in order to initiate diplomacy. Without a single executive to act as the head of foreign affairs, America was at a serious diplomatic disadvantage. 3) Inability to deal with internal and external threats It seems counterintuitive that a body of government would be tasked with declaring war, but not be allowed to commission an armed force. According to the Articles of Confederation, Congress had the sole power to make peace and war, but did not have the authority to raise an army of its own: "The United States in Congress assembled, shall have the sole and exclusive right and power of determining on peace and war." 9 Instead, the national government had to rely on state militia. Since it was dependent on state troops, Congress was severely limited in its capabilities to quickly and effectively responding to internal and external threats. Abroad, Congress failed to defend American from the continuing threat of Britain following the Revolutionary War. Shortly after signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1783, Britain began to break the agreement. "Shays's Rebellion." The portraits of Daniel Shays and Job Shattuck, leaders of the Massachusetts "Regulators," 1787. Bickerstaff's Boston Almanack of 1787 (c. 1787), National Picture Gallery, Smithsonian Institution. "Shays's Rebellion." The portraits of Daniel Shays and Job Shattuck, leaders of the Massachusetts "Regulators," 1787. Bickerstaff's Boston Almanack of 1787 (c. 1787), National Picture Gallery, Smithsonian Institution. By 1784, the British were infringing upon American fishing rights and the British Royal Navy was impressing American sailors into forced conscription. Without the aid of a unified military, though, Congress was incapable of fighting back and protecting America's sovereignty. At home, the inability of Congress to decisively put down the internal threat of Shay's Rebellion was a direct result of the lack of a capable national army. The rebellion began in 1786 due to the post-war economic depression and the American government's harsh policies in response to the economic downturn. Rebels initially protested peacefully, resisting the collection of taxes and debts from struggling Americans. 10 However, following the arrest of several of their leaders, rebels became much more militant. The national government failed to come up with the funds to raise an army capable of putting down the rebellion. It took a group of rich merchants from Massachusetts pooling their resources to pay for a militia. 11 The rebellion was eventually put down, but the inability of the national government to act effectively made the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation ever more apparent. Shay's Rebellion served as one impetus for the creation of a stronger, central government in the upcoming Constitution. 12 Legislative Inefficiencies Lastly, the Articles of Confederation proved ineffective because of a set of rules that made legislating under this framework inefficient. 1) Each state had one vote Per Article V, "each State shall have one vote." 13 As a result, small states and large states had the same voting weight in Congress andthere was no proportionality in voting matters. Considering the large discrepancy in state populations, states with larger populations were quite unhappy with this set-up. For example, in 1780, Virginia had over ten times the number of citizens as Delaware. In fact, Virginia had twice as many people as every state except for Pennsylvania, yet each state received only one vote in Congress. 14 2) Difficulty passing laws In a pre-calculator era, one might think that "one state, one vote" would make it easier to pass laws. Regrettably, the opposite rang true since it took the consent of nine of the thirteen states to approve legislation. This meant that blocking a bill took only five of the thirteen states. In 1780, the five least populated states—Delaware, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Georgia, and New Jersey—had a total population of less than 400,000. Virginia, on the other hand, had a population of over 500,000. 15 Thus, a unified population smaller than the single state of Virginia could block any piece of legislation presented in Congress. A very small percentage of the American populace could preclude bills from passing that could benefit the majority of Americans. 3) Impractical amendment process The most ironic of the Articles' legislative inefficiencies was the difficult amendment process it detailed. Article XIII prohibited "any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State." 16 This meant that any amendment had to have the consent of the national Congress and all of the states. Requiring a unanimous vote made it extremely difficult to pass changes. Ironically, the fact that the Articles of Confederation was so poorly structured that it did not have mechanisms in place to fix itself. Ultimately, the Articles were scrapped altogether in favor of an entirely new governing document. The main difference between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution is that the Articles called for a confederate style of government, whereas the Constitution outlined a federal form of governance. The divergence between confederate and federal models occurs when sovereign power is granted. 17 In a confederate government, that ultimate power resides in regional and local governments. The central government only has as much power as regional governments are willing to give to it. The only noteworthy examples are the Articles of Confederation and the Confederacy during the Civil War. Neither of these regimes lasted more than a decade. In a federal government, sovereign power is given to both regional and central governments. A strong and clear constitution is needed in order that power is clearly divided. This notion of a separated government was popularized by the Constitution of the United States and can be found in modern politics in countries such as Canada, Germany, and Spain. The third form of government, that neither the Articles nor the Constitution proposed, is a unitary government. Unitary governments place all power in the central government. Acting like the opposite of a confederacy, regional governments only have the power that is given to them by the national government. Modern unitarian governments include Britain, France, and Italy.

New Jersey Plan

After two weeks of debating the Virginia Plan, a counterproposal was put forth by William Patterson, which has become known as the New Jersey Plan (or the Small State Plan or the Patterson Plan). Patterson's ideas amounted to no more than a simple reshaping of the Articles of Confederation. The plan once again offered the idea of a unicameral (one house) legislature in which all states would have an equal number of votes. Nevertheless, Patterson did advance one highly valuable idea: "All acts of the United States in Congress made in pursuance of the powers hereby and by the articles of confederation vested in them, and all Treaties made and ratified under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the respective States . . . and the Judiciary of the several States shall be bound thereby in their decisions, anything in the respective laws of the individual States to the contrary notwithstanding.

Fiscal federalism

As a subfield of public economics, fiscal federalism is concerned with "understanding which functions and instruments are best centralized and which are best placed in the sphere of decentralized levels of government" (Oates, 1999). In other words, it is the study of how competencies (expenditure side) and fiscal instruments (revenue side) are allocated across different (vertical) layers of the administration. An important part of its subject matter is the system of transfer payments or grants by which a central government shares its revenues with lower levels of government. Federal governments use this power to enforce national rules and standards. There are two primary types of transfers, conditional and unconditional. A conditional transfer from a federal body to a province, or other territory, involves a certain set of conditions. If the lower level of government is to receive this type of transfer, it must agree to the spending instructions of the federal government. An example of this would be the Canada Health Transfer.

Brown v Board of Education

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students to be unconstitutional. The decision overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson decision of 1896, which allowed state-sponsored segregation, insofar as it applied to public education. Handed down on May 17, 1954, the Warren Court's unanimous (9-0) decision stated that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." As a result, de jure racial segregation was ruled a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. This ruling paved the way for integration and was a major victory of the Civil Rights Movement,[1] and a model for many future impact litigation cases.[2] However, the decision's fourteen pages did not spell out any sort of method for ending racial segregation in schools, and the Court's second decision in Brown II only ordered states to desegregate "with all deliberate speed".

Civil liberties

Civil liberties or personal freedoms are personal guarantees and freedoms that the government cannot abridge, either by law or by judicial interpretation, without due process. Though the scope of the term differs between countries, civil liberties may include the freedom from torture, freedom from forced disappearance, freedom of conscience, freedom of press, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, the right to security and liberty, freedom of speech, the right to privacy, the right to equal treatment under the law and due process, the right to a fair trial, and the right to life. Other civil liberties include the right to own property, the right to defend oneself, and the right to bodily integrity. Within the distinctions between civil liberties and other types of liberty, distinctions exist between positive liberty/positive rights and negative liberty/negative rights.

Dictatorship

Dictatorship is a form of government where a country or a group of countries is ruled by one person or political entity, and exercised through various mechanisms to ensure that the entity's power remains strong.[1][2] A dictatorship is a type of authoritarianism, in which politicians regulate nearly every aspect of the public and private behavior of citizens. Dictatorship and totalitarianism societies generally employ political propaganda to decrease the influence of proponents of alternative governing systems. In the 19th and 20th centuries, traditional monarchies gradually declined and disappeared. Dictatorship and constitutional democracy emerged as the world's two major forms of government.[1]

Virginia Plan

Drafted by James Madison, and presented by Edmund Randolph to the Constitutional Convention on May 29, 1787, the Virginia Plan proposed a strong central government composed of three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. On May 29, 1787, Virginia delegate Edmund Randolph proposed what became known as "The Virginia Plan." Written primarily by fellow Virginian James Madison, the plan traced the broad outlines of what would become the U.S. Constitution: a national government consisting of three branches with checks and balances to prevent the abuse of power. In its amended form, this page of Madison's plan shows his ideas for a legislature. It describes 2 houses: one with members elected by the people for 3-year terms and the other composed of older leaders elected by the state legislatures for 7-year terms. Both would use population as a basis for dividing seats among the states.

Dred Scott v Sanford

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), also known simply as the Dred Scott case, was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on US labor law and constitutional law. It held that "a negro, whose ancestors were imported into [the U.S.], and sold as slaves",[2][3] whether enslaved or free, could not be an American citizen and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court,[4][5] and that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the federal territories acquired after the creation of the United States. Dred Scott, an enslaved man of "the negro African race"[6] who had been taken by his owners to free states and territories, attempted to sue for his freedom. In a 7-2 decision written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, the court denied Scott's request. The decision was only the second time that the Supreme Court had ruled an Act of Congress to be unconstitutional.[7] Although Taney hoped that his ruling would finally settle the slavery question, the decision immediately spurred vehement dissent from anti-slavery elements in the North, especially Republicans. Many contemporary lawyers, and most modern legal scholars, consider the ruling regarding slavery in the territories to be dictum, not binding precedent. The decision proved to be an indirect catalyst for the American Civil War. It was functionally superseded by the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, adopted in 1868, which gave African Americans full citizenship. The Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford is unanimously denounced by scholars. Bernard Schwartz says it "stands first in any list of the worst Supreme Court decisions—Chief Justice C.E. Hughes called it the Court's greatest self-inflicted wound".[8] Junius P. Rodriguez says it is "universally condemned as the U.S. Supreme Court's worst decision".[9] Historian David Thomas Konig says it was "unquestionably, our court's worst decision ever"

What does it mean to "vote with your feet?" What are the benefits to this idea? What are the limits of its usefulness?

Foot voting is the ability of people to "vote with their feet"[1] by leaving situations they do not like or going to situations they believe to be more beneficial. It has been described as "a tool for enhancing political freedom: the ability of the people to choose the political regime under which they wish to live". Basically you can move to a certain area or state that allows you the freedoms you want.

Majority

In parliamentary procedure, the term "majority" simply means "more than half."[2] As it relates to a vote, a majority vote is more than half of the votes cast.[3] Abstentions or blanks are excluded in calculating a majority vote.[4] Also, the totals do not include votes cast by someone not entitled to vote or improper multiple votes by a single member.[5] Depending on the parliamentary authority used, there may be a difference in the total that is used to calculate a majority vote due to "illegal votes". Illegal votes are votes which are cast for unidentifiable or ineligible candidates or choices.[5] In this definition, "illegal" refers to the choices made on the ballot and does not refer to the persons who cast the votes (i.e. the persons are eligible to vote).

How has the right to privacy evolved since the writing of the Constitution?

In 1965, the Supreme Court held that the right to privacy in the marriage context is found among the penumbras of the Bill of Rights. 1 In Griswold v. Connecticut, the penumbral right to privacy prevented a state from forbidding the use of contraceptives by married couples. 2 The scope of protection of reproductive rights was expanded by the Court's 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade. 3 The Court held that the fundamental right to privacy, grounded in the fourteenth amendment's concept of personal liberty, encompasses a woman's decision to abort a fetus. 4 The dimensions of reproductive rights have continued to change since Roe. This Section will set forth the Court's opinion, analyze it, and briefly discuss some of the criticism of the Court's decision. II. BACKGROUND In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court found that a woman's decision to abort a fetus is constitutionally protected. 5 The public and scholarly reactions to the Court's decision varied. It pleased some and angered others. Attitudes about the acceptability of abortion have varied dramatically over the course of history. A consensus of the appropriateness of abortion has still not been achieved. In ancient times, the Persian Empire prohibited and criminally punished the practice of abortion. 6 It believed that a fetus was the "fruit of the womb" and therefore abortion was considered willful murder. 7 Contrarily, Greek and Roman civilizations freely permitted abortion as a method of birth control. 8 As societies ...

Block grant

In a fiscal federal form of government, a block grant is a large sum of money granted by the national government to a regional government with only general provisions as to the way it is to be spent, in contrast to a categorical grant, which has stricter and specific provisions on the way it is to be spent. An advantage of block grants is that they allow regional governments to experiment with different ways of spending money with the same goal in mind. Disadvantages are that it is very difficult to compare the results of such spending and reach a conclusion and that regional governments might be able to use the money as if they collected it through their own taxation systems to spend it, without any restrictions from above. Also, the formula can be manipulated for partisan advantage, and favoritism occurs more easily than with categorical grants.

Unfunded mandate

In the United States, federal mandates are orders that induce "responsibility, action, procedure or anything else that is imposed by constitutional, administrative, executive, or judicial action" for state and local governments and/or the private sector.[1] An unfunded mandate is a statute or regulation that requires a state or local government to perform certain actions, with no money provided for fulfilling the requirements. Public individuals or organizations can also be required to fulfill public mandates.[2] As of 1992, 172 federal mandates obligated state or local governments to fund programs to some extent.[3] Beginning with the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the United States federal government has designed laws that require state and local government spending to promote national goals.[4] During the 1970s, the national government promoted education, mental health, and environmental programs by implementing grant projects at a state and local level; the grants were so common that the federal assistance for these programs made up over a quarter of state and local budgets.[5] The rise in federal mandates led to more mandate regulation.[5] During the Reagan Administration, Executive Order 12291 and the State and Local Cost Estimate Act of 1981 were passed, which implemented a careful examination of the true costs of federal unfunded mandates.[6][7] More reform for federal mandates came in 1995 with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), which promoted a Congressional focus on the costs imposed onto intergovernmental entities and the private sector because of federal mandates.[8][9] Familiar examples of Federal Unfunded Mandates in the United States include the Americans with Disabilities Act and Medicaid.[10]

Missouri Compromise

In the years leading up to the Missouri Compromise of 1820, tensions began to rise between pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions within the U.S. Congress and across the country. They reached a boiling point after Missouri's 1819 request for admission to the Union as a slave state, which threatened to upset the delicate balance between slave states and free states. To keep the peace, Congress orchestrated a two-part compromise, granting Missouri's request but also admitting Maine as a free state. It also passed an amendment that drew an imaginary line across the former Louisiana Territory, establishing a boundary between free and slave regions that remained the law of the land until it was negated by the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854.

Jim Crow Laws

Jim Crow laws were state and local laws enforcing racial segregation in the Southern United States. Enacted after the Reconstruction period, these laws continued in force until 1965. They mandated de jure racial segregation in all public facilities in the states of the former Confederate States of America, starting in 1890 with a "separate but equal" status for African Americans. Facilities for African Americans were consistently inferior and underfunded compared to those available to European Americans; sometimes they did not exist at all. This body of law institutionalized a number of economic, educational, and social disadvantages. De jure segregation mainly applied to the Southern states, while Northern segregation was generally de facto—patterns of housing segregation enforced by private covenants, bank lending practices, and job discrimination, including discriminatory labor union practices

Judicial activism

Judicial activism refers to judicial rulings suspected of being based on personal or political considerations rather than on existing law. It is sometimes used as an antonym of judicial restraint.[1] The definition of judicial activism, and which specific decisions are activist, is a controversial political issue, particularly in the United States. The question of judicial activism is closely related to constitutional interpretation, statutory construction, and separation of powers.

Judicial review

Judicial review is a process under which executive and (in some countries) legislative actions are subject to review by the judiciary. A court with judicial review power may invalidate laws and decisions that are incompatible with a higher authority; an executive decision may be invalidated for being unlawful or a statute may be invalidated for violating the terms of a written constitution. Judicial review is one of the checks and balances in the separation of powers: the power of the judiciary to supervise the legislative and executive branches when the latter exceed their authority. The doctrine varies between jurisdictions, so the procedure and scope of judicial review may differ between and within countries.

Matching grant

Matching grants are an effective means of funding small projects, expecially those with active community support. The concept of a matching grant is simple; state or local governments designate funds to go to particular types of projects. Various groups within the community can then develop project proposals and apply for the grant. If accepted, the local government will match the community contribution to the project, generally at a 1:1 or 2:1 match, but it could be set up for any level of match. It is also important to note that community labor and materials, not just financial donations, count towards the matching grant donation. Thus, neighborhood groups that have time, but not money to donate, can still apply for grants, giving them an effective way to fund local improve- ment projects. Common design-related uses of matching grants include street tree plantings and creating or renovating parks and playgrounds. Many cities set up matching grants as a way of improving areas while also involving community and neighborhood groups. Some of these cities include Seattle, Washing- ton, Orlando,Florida, and Salt Lake City, Utah. Seattle's Department of Neighborhoods is particularly well known and respected for their success with matching grants.

Lemon test

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971),[1] was a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States. The court ruled in an 8-1[2] decision that Pennsylvania's Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act (represented through David Kurtzman) from 1968 was unconstitutional, violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The act allowed the Superintendent of Public Schools to reimburse private schools (mostly Catholic) for the salaries of teachers who taught in these private schools, from public textbooks and with public instructional materials. The decision also upheld a decision of the First Circuit, which had struck down the Rhode Island Salary Supplement Act providing state funds to supplement salaries at private elementary schools by 15%. As in Pennsylvania, most of these funds were spent on Catholic schools. The Court's decision in this case established the "Lemon test" (named after the lead plaintiff Alton Lemon),[3] which details legislation concerning religion. It is threefold: The statute must have a secular legislative purpose. (Also known as the Purpose Prong) The principal or primary effect of the statute must not advance nor inhibit religion. (Also known as the Effect Prong) The statute must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion. (Also known as the Entanglement Prong) Factors. Character and purpose of institution benefited. Nature of aid the state provides. Resulting relationship between government and religious authority. If any of these prongs are violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Mapp v Ohio

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), was a landmark case in criminal procedure, in which the United States Supreme Court decided that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures," may not be used in state law criminal prosecutions in state courts, as well as in federal criminal law prosecutions in federal courts as had previously been the law. The Supreme Court accomplished this by use of a principle known as selective incorporation; in Mapp this involved the incorporation of the provisions, as interpreted by the Court, of the Fourth Amendment which are applicable only to actions of the federal government into the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause which is applicable to actions of the states.

Obergefell v Hodges

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held in a 5-4 decision that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[2][3] In November 2014, following a lengthy series of appeals court rulings from the Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits that state-level bans on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional, the Sixth Circuit ruled that it was bound by Baker v. Nelson and found such bans to be constitutional. This created a split between circuits and led to an almost inevitable Supreme Court review. Judicial restraint

Original intent

Original intent is a theory in law concerning constitutional and statutory interpretation. It is frequently - and usually spuriously - used as a synonym for originalism;[1] while original intent is indeed one theory in the originalist family, it has some extremely salient differences which has led originalists from more predominant schools of thought such as original meaning to castigate original intent as much as legal realists do. Original intent presumes that there is a single, unified intent behind a text. In the case of the United States Constitution, the Philadelphia Convention was composed of over fifty men, who spent an entire summer compromising and arguing over provisions that were interpreted very differently the moment the Constitution's text became public.[5] It is far from clear, therefore, that those fifty-plus men had - i.e., agreed upon - a single original intent of the text, or whether their purposes in drafting the Constitution were predicated on personal self-interest.[6] Even if the Convention did have a single, unified intent, it is unclear how it could reliably be determined from two centuries' distance.

Plessy v Ferguson

Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 US 537 (1896) was a landmark constitutional law case of the US Supreme Court. It upheld state racial segregation laws for public facilities under the doctrine of "separate but equal".[1] The decision was handed down by a vote of 7 to 1 with the majority opinion written by Justice Henry Billings Brown and the dissent written by Justice John Marshall Harlan. "Separate but equal" remained standard doctrine in U.S. law until its repudiation in the 1954 Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education.[2] After the Supreme Court ruling, the New Orleans Comité des Citoyens (Committee of Citizens), which had brought the suit and had arranged for Homer Plessy's arrest in an act of civil disobedience in order to challenge Louisiana's segregation law, stated, "We, as freemen, still believe that we were right and our cause is sacred."[3]

District of Columbia v Heller

Provisions of the District of Columbia Code made it illegal to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibited the registration of handguns, though the chief of police could issue one-year licenses for handguns. The Code also contained provisions that required owners of lawfully registered firearms to keep them unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or other similar device unless the firearms were located in a place of business or being used for legal recreational activities. Dick Anthony Heller was a D.C. special police officer who was authorized to carry a handgun while on duty. He applied for a one-year license for a handgun he wished to keep at home, but his application was denied. Heller sued the District of Columbia. He sought an injunction against the enforcement of the relevant parts of the Code and argued that they violated his Second Amendment right to keep a functional firearm in his home without a license. The district court dismissed the complaint. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed and held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep firearms in the home for the purpose of self-defense, and the District of Columbia's requirement that firearms kept in the home be nonfunctional violated that right.

Roe v Wade

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. It was decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton. The Court ruled 7-2 that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's interests in regulating abortions: protecting women's health and protecting the potentiality of human life.[1] Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the third trimester of pregnancy. In disallowing many state and federal restrictions on abortion in the United States,[5][6] Roe v. Wade prompted a national debate that continues today about issues including whether, and to what extent, abortion should be legal, who should decide the legality of abortion, what methods the Supreme Court should use in constitutional adjudication, and what the role should be of religious and moral views in the political sphere. Roe v. Wade reshaped national politics, dividing much of the United States into pro-choice and anti-abortion camps, while activating grassroots movements on both sides.

Equal protection clause

The Equal Protection Clause is part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws". A primary motivation for this clause was to validate the equality provisions contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which guaranteed that all people would have rights equal to those of all citizens. As a whole, the Fourteenth Amendment marked a large shift in American constitutionalism, by applying substantially more constitutional restrictions against the states than had applied before the Civil War. The meaning of the Equal Protection Clause has been the subject of much debate, and inspired the well-known phrase "Equal Justice Under Law". This clause was the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision that helped to dismantle racial segregation, and also the basis for many other decisions rejecting discrimination against people belonging to various groups. The Equal Protection Clause itself applies only to state and local governments. However, the Supreme Court held in Bolling v. Sharpe (1954) that equal protection requirements apply to the federal government through the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Fifteenth amendment

The Fifteenth Amendment (Amendment XV) to the United States Constitution prohibits the federal and state governments from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen's "race, color, or previous condition of servitude". It was ratified on February 3, 1870, as the third and last of the Reconstruction Amendments. In the final years of the American Civil War and the Reconstruction Era that followed, Congress repeatedly debated the rights of the millions of black former slaves. By 1869, amendments had been passed to abolish slavery and provide citizenship and equal protection under the laws, but the election of Ulysses S. Grant to the presidency in 1868 convinced a majority of Republicans that protecting the franchise of black male voters was important for the party's future. On February 26, 1869, after rejecting more sweeping versions of a suffrage amendment, Congress proposed a compromise amendment banning franchise restrictions on the basis of race, color, or previous servitude. After surviving a difficult ratification fight, the amendment was certified as duly ratified and part of the Constitution on March 30, 1870. United States Supreme Court decisions in the late nineteenth century interpreted the amendment narrowly. From 1890 to 1910, most black voters in the South were effectively disenfranchised by new state constitutions and state laws incorporating such obstacles as poll taxes and discriminatory literacy tests, from which white male voters were exempted by grandfather clauses. A system of whites-only primaries and violent intimidation by white groups also suppressed black participation. In the twentieth century, the Court began to interpret the amendment more broadly, striking down grandfather clauses in Guinn v. United States (1915) and dismantling the white primary system in the "Texas primary cases" (1927-1953). Along with later measures such as the Twenty-fourth Amendment, which forbade poll taxes in federal elections, and Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections (1966), which forbade poll taxes in state elections, these decisions significantly increased black participation in the American political system. To enforce the amendment, Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which provided federal oversight of elections in discriminatory jurisdictions, banned literacy tests and similar discriminatory devices, and created legal remedies for people affected by voting discrimination.

Fifth amendment (self-incrimination)

The Fifth Amendment (Amendment V) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights and protects a person from being compelled to be a witness against themselves in a criminal case. "Pleading the Fifth" is a colloquial term for invoking the right that allows a witness to decline to answer questions where the answers might incriminate him, and generally without having to suffer a penalty for asserting their right. A defendant cannot be compelled to become a witness at his own trial. If, however, they choose to testify, they are not entitled to their right, and inferences can be drawn from a refusal to answer a question during cross-examination. The Amendment requires that felonies be tried only upon indictment by a grand jury. Federal grand juries can force people to take the witness stand, but defendants in those proceedings have Fifth Amendment privileges until they choose to answer any question. To claim the privilege for failure to answer when being interviewed by police, the interviewee must have explicitly invoked the constitutional right when declining to answer questions. The Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause provides the right to be tried only once in federal court for the same offense. The Amendment also has a Due Process Clause (similar to the one in the 14th Amendment) as well as an implied equal protection requirement (Bolling v. Sharpe). Finally, the Amendment requires that the power of eminent domain be coupled with "just compensation" for those whose property is taken.

First amendment (freedom of speech)

The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual's religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government. Learn more... Amendment I Congress 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.

Fourteenth amendment

The Fourteenth Amendment addresses many aspects of citizenship and the rights of citizens. The most commonly used -- and frequently litigated -- phrase in the amendment is "equal protection of the laws", which figures prominently in a wide variety of landmark cases, including Brown v. Board of Education (racial discrimination), Roe v. Wade (reproductive rights), Bush v. Gore (election recounts), Reed v. Reed (gender discrimination), and University of California v. Bakke (racial quotas in education

Fourth amendment (search and seizure)

The Fourth Amendment originally enforced the notion that "each man's home is his castle", secure from unreasonable searches and seizures of property by the government. It protects against arbitrary arrests, and is the basis of the law regarding search warrants, stop-and-frisk, safety inspections, wiretaps, and other forms of surveillance, as well as being central to many other criminal law topics and to privacy law. 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.

First amendment (freedom of religion)

The Free Exercise Clause is the accompanying clause with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause together read: " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... " In 1878, the Supreme Court was first called to interpret the extent of the Free Exercise Clause in Reynolds v. United States, as related to the prosecution of polygamy under federal law. The Supreme Court upheld Reynolds' conviction for bigamy, deciding that to do otherwise would provide constitutional protection for a gamut of religious beliefs, including those as extreme as human sacrifice. The Court said: "Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territory which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation."[1] Of federal territorial laws, the Court said: "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices."[1]

Second amendment (right to bear arms)

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights.[1][2][3][4] The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right belongs to individuals,[5][6] while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices.[7] State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[8]

The Voting Rights Act

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a landmark piece of federal legislation in the United States that prohibits racial discrimination in voting.[7][8] It was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson during the height of the Civil Rights Movement on August 6, 1965, and Congress later amended the Act five times to expand its protections.[7] Designed to enforce the voting rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the Act secured voting rights for racial minorities throughout the country, especially in the South. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the Act is considered to be the most effective piece of civil rights legislation ever enacted in the country.[9] The Act contains numerous provisions that regulate election administration. The Act's "general provisions" provide nationwide protections for voting rights. Section 2 is a general provision that prohibits every state and local government from imposing any voting law that results in discrimination against racial or language minorities. Other general provisions specifically outlaw literacy tests and similar devices that were historically used to disenfranchise racial minorities. The Act also contains "special provisions" that apply to only certain jurisdictions. A core special provision is the Section 5 preclearance requirement, which prohibits certain jurisdictions from implementing any change affecting voting without receiving preapproval from the U.S. Attorney General or the U.S. District Court for D.C. that the change does not discriminate against protected minorities.[10] Another special provision requires jurisdictions containing significant language minority populations to provide bilingual ballots and other election materials. Section 5 and most other special provisions apply to jurisdictions encompassed by the "coverage formula" prescribed in Section 4(b). The coverage formula was originally designed to encompass jurisdictions that engaged in egregious voting discrimination in 1965, and Congress updated the formula in 1970 and 1975. In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the coverage formula as unconstitutional, reasoning that it was no longer responsive to current conditions.[11] The Court did not strike down Section 5, but without a coverage formula, Section 5 is unenforceable

Transaction costs

The costs other than the money price that are incurred in trading goods or services. Before a particular mutually beneficial trade can take place, at least one party must figure out that there may be someone with which such a trade is potentially possible, search out one or more such possible trade partners, inform him/them of the opportunity, and negotiate the terms of the exchange. All of these activities involve opportunity costs in terms of time, energy and money. If the terms of the trade are to be more complicated than simple "cash on the barrelhead" (for example, if the agreement involves such complications as payment in installments, prepayment for future delivery, warranties or guarantees for quality, provision for future maintenance and service, options for additional future purchases at a guaranteed price, etc.), negotiations for such a detailed contract may itself be prolonged and very costly in terms of time, travel expenses, lawyers' fees, and so on. After a trade has been agreed upon, there may also be significant costs involved in monitoring or policing the other party to make sure he is honoring the terms of the agreement (and, if he is not, to take appropriate legal or other actions to make him do so). These are the main sorts of transaction costs, then: search and information costs, bargaining and decision costs, policing and enforcement costs.

Bill of Rights

The first 10 amendments to the Constitution make up the Bill of Rights. Written by James Madison in response to calls from several states for greater constitutional protection for individual liberties, the Bill of Rights lists specific prohibitions on governmental power. The Virginia Declaration of Rights, written by George Mason, strongly influenced Madison. One of the many points of contention between Federalists and Anti-Federalists was the Constitution's lack of a bill of rights that would place specific limits on government power. Federalists argued that the Constitution did not need a bill of rights, because the people and the states kept any powers not given to the federal government. Anti-Federalists held that a bill of rights was necessary to safeguard individual liberty.

Collective action problems

The logic of collective action (Olson 1965), which has proved to be applicable to a broad range of social and economic situations, assumes that cooperation must be explained by the individual's cost-benefit calculus rather than that of the group because the group as a whole is not rational but can only consist of rational individuals. Groups often seek public goods that are available, once they have been generated, to everyone, including those who did not contribute to producing them. Because individuals potentially can receive the benefits of public goods without having contributed to their production, they have an incentive to let others pay for them.

Federalists

The supporters of the proposed Constitution called themselves "FEDERALISTS." Their adopted name implied a commitment to a loose, decentralized system of government. In many respects "FEDERALISM" — which implies a strong central government — was the opposite of the proposed plan that they supported. A more accurate name for the supporters of the Constitution would have been "NATIONALISTS." The "nationalist" label, however, would have been a political liability in the 1780s. Traditional political belief of the Revolutionary Era held that strong centralized authority would inevitably lead to an abuse of power. The Federalists were also aware that that the problems of the country in the 1780s stemmed from the weaknesses of the central government created by the Articles of Confederation. For Federalists, the Constitution was required in order to safeguard the liberty and independence that the American Revolution had created. While the Federalists definitely had developed a new political philosophy, they saw their most import role as defending the social gains of the Revolution. As James Madison, one of the great Federalist leaders later explained, the Constitution was designed to be a "republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government." 3¢ stamp commemorating Alexander Hamilton, the leading Federalist Leading Federalist, Alexander Hamilton, was commemorated with his portrait on the 3¢ stamp. The Federalists had more than an innovative political plan and a well-chosen name to aid their cause. Many of the most talented leaders of the era who had the most experience in national-level work were Federalists. For example the only two national-level celebrities of the period, Benjamin Franklin and George Washington, favored the Constitution. In addition to these impressive superstars, the Federalists were well organized, well funded, and made especially careful use of the printed word. Most newspapers supported the Federalists' political plan and published articles and pamphlets to explain why the people should approve the Constitution. In spite of this range of major advantages, the Federalists still had a hard fight in front of them. Their new solutions were a significant alteration of political beliefs in this period. Most significantly, the Federalists believed that the greatest threat to the future of the United States did not lie in the abuse of central power, but instead could be found in what they saw as the excesses of democracy as evidenced in popular disturbances like Shays' Rebellion and the pro-debtor policies of many states.

Major rights

Transcript of The Five Major Rights of "The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen" and the "United States Constitution" Template by Missing Link Images from Shutterstock.com The Five Major Rights of "The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen" 1. Men are born and remain free and equal in rights 2. The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man 3. The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation 4. Society has the right to require of every public agent an account of his administration. 5. Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else. Similarities of "The Constitution" and "The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen 1. They both stated the basic freedoms of the people. 2. They both state that the government gets their power from the people. 1. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen does not state that women are born with equal rights. 2. The Constitution has 7 articles and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen has 17. Differences of "The Constitution" and "The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen The Five Major Rights of Important Documents "The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen" and the "United States Constitution" 1. Establish Justice 2. Insure domestic Tranquility 3. Provide for the common defence 4. Promote the general Welfare 5. Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity The Five Major Rights of "The Constitution" Fully litigated rights by the supreme court.

Explain the Virginia Plan, the New Jersey Plan, and the Great Compromise and how each was ultimately reflected in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

Transcript of Virginia Plan, New Jersey Plan, and The Great Compromise The Virginia Plan, New Jersey Plan, and The Great Compromise The Road to the Constitution CONCLUSION After the colonists gained their independence from England on July 4, 1776, they decided they needed a new form of government. The Articles of Confederation (their current government) was very flawed, and needed revision. The colonists called the Constitutional Convention to discuss how to correct their current matters. The Virginia Plan, also known as the Randolph Plan, suggested that representation should be based on population. The Virginia Plan The New Jersey Plan was proposed by William Patterson on June 15th. It called for a legislature with one house and they were enabled the power to regulate trade and taxation. The New Jersey Plan In the final plan, they reached a compromise. There would be two houses in Congress: the Senate, and the House of Representatives. Each state was given an equal number of votes in the Senate. Representation in the House of Representatives was based on state population. The convention passed the plan on July 16, 1787. The Great Compromise During the Constitutional Convention in 1787, two major plans for a new government were proposed. The first plan, the Virginia Plan, was set as a base for their new government. The New Jersey Plan was offered as an alternative. They then came up with the Great Compromise which was used in the final form of the Constitution. This plan proposed that there should be three branches of government: the legislative, judicial, and executive branches. The legislative branch would have two houses: the House of Representatives, and the Senate. This was the first plan proposed at the convention. This plan was designed with three branches of government; Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. Each state would be allowed a single vote. This plan did not offer as much power to the government.

Neutrality Test

the Supreme Court's most recent approach to deciding free exercise of religion cases, this test declares that a government law or action with a neutral intent and application is constitutional, even if it burdens religion and there is no compelling government interest at stake