Unit 4: Civil Rights and Civil Liberties

2nd Amendment

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" Applied to the states as an individual's right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and defense of the home.

Affirmative Action pt.1 (Pros)

-Helps lift more of the discrimination against minority groups in a wide range of fields -Makes up for past discrimination/current discrimination against minorities -Can break the discriminatory habits/views of certain groups

Affirmative Action pt.2 (Cons)

-Might accidentally lead to "reverse discrimination" -Justifies the use of race as a weighed factor, even if it's in the interest of diversity -Can lead to unintentional preferential treatment of minorities

Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969)

5 students wore black armbands to their schools(middle and high school) to protest U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War for 2 weeks. Schools found out and created policy that banned the armbands, and kids were sent home for violating the policy + couldn't come back until they stopped. Parents sued school district for violating the kids' First Amendment right Constitutional Provisions and Court Precedents: 1st Amendment(Freedom of Speech/Expression), W.V. Board of Ed. v Barnette (1943) SCOTUS Issue: Does prohibition against wearing armbands in a public school as symbolic speech violate First Amendment's freedom of speech? Tinker argues: -Students, whether in school or out are still citizens that enjoy the full protections of all rights Des Moines argues: -Free speech right not absolute, Can't say anything at any time in any place -Could have been distracting to the students' "ability to learn" and therefore disrupt school function -Vietnam War controversial and could lead to "an explosive situation" -Might lead to bullying/violence directed at protesting students -Only banned the armbands b/c of inflammatory nature and potentially disruptive -Ruling in favor of children would overstep boundary btw/ state and federal powers Decision: Ruled for Tinker 7-2; Said students still had rights in school and armbands were a form of protected symbolic speech. School couldn't ban it on an assumption that it would cause disturbance in the learning environment. Stressed that the school could limit speech in certain cases, but this wasn't one of them. Dissent backed Des Moines' first point and that the bands could create significant disturbance in the learning environment.

"Letter from a Birmingham Jail"

A letter written by Martin Luther King Jr. while in custody in response to another letter written by some clergymen in the South Clergymen critiqued his actions as "an ill-timed threat to law by an 'outsider'" Defended his tactics, timing, and beliefs while relaying some of his own critiques and disappointment from the lack of support from the Church and other good people that wouldn't show support either

Prior Restraint

A limit on freedom of the press; Allows gov. to prohibit the media from publishing certain materials

Due Process

All laws and proper legal procedures/processes are being carried out; All of this must happen in order to determine when and if it is Constitutional to relieve an individual of certain liberties.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)

Allan Bakke(white student), sued when denied admission to med school several times because of the rigid quotas reserving spots in the class for minority/disadvantage students -Had significantly higher scores+grades than some of minority students -Court agreed that quotas were unconstitutional, still allowed race to be considered a "plus factor" in the name of diversity -Established student body diversity as a compelling state interest to use race as a deciding factor -Example of Affirmative Action

Substantive Due Process Doctrine

An interpretation of the Due Process Clause; Supreme Court has power to overturn laws that infringe on liberties of the individual

Civil Rights Act of 1964

Banned discrimination in public accommodations, federally assisted program most employment Enlarged federal powers to protect voting rights and to speed school desegregation Helped give African-Americans equality on paper

Double Jeopardy

Being tried twice for the same crime; Prevented by the 5th amendment

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)

Brandenburg(KKK leader) made speech at clan rally in Ohio. Promoted criminal/unlawful actions of terrorism Got arrested for violating a criminal syndicalism law Constitutional Amendments: 1st Amendment - Freedom of Speech, 14th Amendment(Due Process) SCOTUS Issue: Did Ohio's criminal syndicalism law (prohibits public speech that advocates various illegal activities) violate Brandenburg's right to free speech as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments? Decision: Unanimous for Brandenburg; Ohio law was unconstitutional for being too broad; Law prohibited the action of teaching/sharing doctrines regardless of whether they might incite imminent lawless action or not Protected unpopular speech, which is important to the function of a democracy

Griswold v. CT (1965)

CT had banned any method of contraception(e.g. drugs, medical devices, etc.). Gynecologist Buxton and Planned Parenthood leader Griswold opened a birth control clinic and were convicted for violating the law. Constitutional Amendments: 14th Amendment - Due Process SCOTUS Issue: Does the Constitution protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on couples' ability to be counseled in the use of contraceptives? Decision: 7-2 for Griswold; Right to privacy can be inferred from a group of different amendments, making CT's ban unconstitutional. Dissent stated that there was no protected right to privacy in the Constitution.

Due Process Clause (of the Fourteenth Amendment)

Cannot deprive any citizen of natural/protected rights without going though all the lawful procedures. Used by the judiciary to apply the Bill of Rights to the actions of state governments. AKA Selective Incorporation Three important purposes: (1) substantive due process - government must treat citizens fairly to protect a citizen's life, liberty, and property (2) procedural due process - government must follow consistent procedures to protect a citizen's life, liberty, and property (3) Incorporation Doctrine - Supreme Court has applied most of the Bill of Rights to the states to protect a citizen's life, liberty, and property

McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

Chicago had handgun ban to combat crime; Required owners to register though a complex process, banning guns to most in practice. After Heller, McDonald and some others sued that the handgun regulations violated their 2nd Amendment right through the 14th. Constitutional Amendments and Court Precedents: 2nd Amendment, 14th Amendment - Due Process, Duncan v. Louisiana(1968), District of Columbia v. Heller(2008) SCOTUS Issue: Does the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms apply to state/local gov. through the 14th and limit Chicago's ability to reg. guns? McDonald argues: -2nd applies to states b/c it's very important part of American History -Most of first 8 Amendments already applied to the states; Rights in BoR assumed to be fundamental -Affords citizens ability to defend themselves against government; Doesn't make sense to only defend against federal and not state too -Obstructs core rights recognized in Heller; Chicago ban very similar to Heller ban; Can't be reasonable -Applying 2nd to states won't create public safety crisis; Limited to weapons of common use and only in the hands of non-criminals+ out of restricted areas Chicago argues: -BoR originally limits only federal government -Heller recognized individual rights and not state gun control -Guns' place in our country has changed overtime/ not so important to warrant incorporation and has become a debated issue on whether to limit guns or not -Decision in Heller about the right is not absolute -Only established procedures that needed to be followed to possess a handgun due to local history of gun violence -Court should refer to state judgement for gun control b/c situations in different areas/states could be vastly different Decision: 5-4 for McDonald; 2nd applied to the states through Selective Incorporation for self-defense(another basic right est. in Heller). Framers considered possession of a gun a fundamental right. Dissent said that the 2nd was meant to protect the states from the federal government and application wouldn't make sense. Nothing in the text indicated that it was a fundamental right for private self-defense.

Grandfather Clause

Clause in registration laws most known in the South; Said people who's ancestors(as far back as the voter's grandfather) had not voted before 1867, couldn't vote either

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Consolidates 4 cases where defendant confessed guilty after being subjected to several interrogations w/o being informed of his 5th Amendment rights. Miranda arrested as suspect to rape and kidnapping crimes+produced written confession after 2 hours and found guilty. Attorney protested that defendant wasn't informed of his 5th Amendment rights the entire time. Constitutional Amendments: 5th Amendment - To an attorney while being questioned. SCOTUS Issue: Does the 5th Amendment's protection against self-incrimination extend to police interrogations of a suspect? Decision: 5-4 for Miranda; 5th Amendment requires officers to remind suspect of 5th Amendment Rights while in custody; Interrogation violated defendant's 5th Amendment right and evidence gained in interrogation w/o being advised couldn't be used Dissent claimed it was an unnecessary+strict interpretation of 5th. States should take responsibility for alerting the defendants, but the evidence gained should be available to be used. Separate dissent argues the 5th only protects from self-incrimination, and that the interrogation wasn't "inherently coercive".

Civil Liberties

Constitutional freedoms guaranteed to all American citizens as protection against tyranny. Originally, tyranny of the federal government, but has now been applied to the states.

District of Colombia v. Heller (2008)

D.C. provision made unregistered firearms illegal and banned handguns, etc. Heller(special police officer) cleared to have handgun while on duty and filed to keep one at home, but was refused. Sued D.C. for violating his 2nd Amendment rights. Constitutional Amendments: 2nd Amendment - Right to Keep and Bear Arms SCOTUS Issue: Do D.C.'s code provisions to restrict the licensing of handguns and require licensed firearms kept in the home to be kept nonfunctional violate the 2nd Amendment? Decision: 5-4 for Heller; Took the plainest meaning the 2nd could've had at the time of it's creation, that individuals had the right to keep and bear arms just in case b/c "militia" would've been all able-bodied men. Dissent stated that the 2nd Amendment isn't unlimited and shouldn't be applied to the non-military.

De jure and de facto segregation

De Jure Segregation: Segregation occuring within the boundaries of the law; Legal segregation De Facto Segregation: Segregation not sactioned by the law; Usually the result of other outside forces resulting in the illegal consequence; Illegal segregation; Segregation in practice, but not on paper

NYT v. United States (1971)

Ellsberg(former military analyst) "disillusioned" to U.S. role in Vietnam was and leaked confidential papers to the press. Press published the information(e.g. NYT+WP) and the US sent restrain order to publication firms Constitutional Amendments and Court Precedents: 1st Amendment - Freedom of the Press, Near v. Minnesota(1931), Dennis v. U.S.(1951) SCOTUS Issue: Did gov. efforts to prevent 2 newspapers from publishing classified documents received from a leaker violate 1st Amendment freedom of the press? N.Y.T. argues: -Framers gave press protection to protect the peoples' access to uncensored information to elect leaders and make decisions; Created to serve the governed -No laws abridging the freedom of the press for national security+presidential power; Shouldn't make law b/c another branch asked them to -Published papers on important public issue to help, not harm the country -Gov. secrecy=undemocratic; Revealing mistakes of the gov. part of the job of the press U.S. argues: -War time requires more power to exec. branch to maintain national security -Judicial and exec are coequal; Supreme Court shouldn't pass judgement on assessment of national/international affairs including the U.S. -Newspapers knew that the information was classified and illegally obtained and used it anyway without letting the gov. even know they had them -All individuals/groups have duty to report stolen property Decision: 6-3 for N.Y.T. and the other newspapers; Any case implying prior restraint(in this case of the papers) will most likely be seen as unconstitutional except under specific circumstances which the gov. didn't meet. Dissent complained of the rushed decision w/o all the facts, and argued that the 1st Amendment protections aren't absolute and shouldn't cover the papers' actions.

Clear and Present Danger Test

Est. during Schneck v. U.S. case; Allows gov. to restrict certain types of speech deemed dangerous.

Direct Incitement Test

Est. in Brandenburg v. Ohio; Protects threatening speech under the First Amendment unless that speech aims to and is likely to cause imminent "lawless action"

Religion - The Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses

Establishment prevents government from taking on or creating any official national religion. Free Exercise gives us the right to openly believe in, share, and practice any religion(exception being if any action under the religion is at conflict with a law or violates any other individuals' protected rights)

Fighting Words (Doctrine)

Forms of expression that as-soon-as-said, can incite violence. Can be reg. by all levels of government, but can be difficult to find a solid definition. (e.g. some places consider specific words bad slurs/swears that are not to be said)

Equal Protection Clause

From the 14th Amendment: Prohibits states from denying equal protection under the law, used to combat discrimination, guarantees equal-treatment under the law (Fifth Amendment imposes same limitation on federal government) Major constitutional restraint on government power. Forbids discrimination against persons because of race, national origin, or sex.

Furman v. Georgia (1972)

Furman burglarized home, and after getting spotted by a resident tripped in his escape and the gun went off and killed the resident. Convicted of murder+sentenced to death. Constitutional Provisions and Federal Statutes: 8th Amendment, 14th Amendment SCOTUS Issue: Does the imposition and carrying out of the death penalty in specific cases classify as cruel and unusual punishment and violate the 8th and 14th Amendments? Decision: 5-4 for Furman; In this case the death penalty was cruel and unusual. Pointed out it could be used as a tool of discrimination; Forced states to rethink the death penalty laws.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Gideon arrested charged w/ petty larceny(a felony) in Florida after being found nearby. Asked judge for a lawyer b/c he couldn't afford one, and was refused. Studied law in prison and confirmed that his rights were violated and he was improperly imprisoned. Constitutional Amendments and Court Precedents: 6th Amendment - To have a lawyer/defense attorney present(Protects the accused), 14th Amendment - Due Process, Powell v. Alabama (1932), Johnson v. Zerbst (1938), Betts v. Brandy (1942) SCOTUS Issue: Does 6th Amendment's right to counsel in criminal cases extend to defendants in state courts, even when death penalty doesn't apply? Gideon argues: -Cannot assure fair trials until everyone is afforded a lawyer; Average person doesn't know how to defend themselves sufficiently in court -Court ruled that right to counsel only in death penalty cases fundamental+applied to states, but any case involves taking an individuals liberties away to some degree and isn't trivial in any way -Has been an increase in requirement for a lawyer for the poor since Betts v. Brandy -Broad support to overturn Betts v. Brandy(22 states support overturning) Wainwright argues: -Betts v. Brandy est. defendant entitled to council claiming he would be denied fair trial w/o one; Gideon didn't -Federal system where fed. gov. can't exercise arbitrary power over states; Imposing inflexible rule intrudes into state power -Possible to have a fair trial w/o lawyer; Exposure to multiple judges -Betts v. Brandy decided only 20 years before Gideon+ should be upheld -If Betts v. Brandy overturned, all indigents would have to be given a lawyer by the government regardless of severity; Heavy burden on taxpayers Decision: Unanimous for Gideon; Part of Betts v. Brandy overturned+ 6th Amendment is now a fundamental right. Applies to both state and federal gov. cases. Since gov. has benefit of financial support, only fair that the defendant gets a good lawyer too. Right only applies to felony cases and anything larger.

6th Amendment

Gives right to a speedy trial by impartial jury, representation by an attorney for an accused person

"Takings Clause"

Gov. can only take private property for: -a public purpose ,but -fair compensation must be provided to the owners of that property Taking of property protected by the 5th Amendment.

Gregg v. Georgia (1976)

Gregg found guilty of armed robbery and murder and sentenced to death. Georgia Supreme Court only denied the imposition of the death sentence for the robbery. Gregg claimed that the death sentence was a violation of the 8th and 14th. Constitutional Amendments: 8th Amendment - Protection against cruel and unusual punishment, 14th Amendment - Due Process SCOTUS Issue: Is the imposition of the death sentence prohibited under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments as "cruel and unusual" punishment? Decision: 7-2 for Georgia; Protection from the death penalty as cruel and unusual punishment not applicable in all cases. Death penalty appropriate if "carefully employed"

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US (1964)

Heart of Atlanta Motel refused to accept African Americans. Gov. wanted to enjoin them for Constitutional Provisions and Federal Statutes: Commerce Clause, Civil Rights Act - Title II(Forbade racial discrimination in public accommodations if they affected commerce) SCOTUS Issue: Did Congress exceed Commerce Clause powers by taking away public accommodations' choice of deciding who their customers are? Decision: Unanimous for U.S.; Gov. could enjoin the motel for racial discrimination. The motel's location near the interstate highway made it important to interstate economy, justifying use of the Commerce Clause.

Intermediate Scrutiny

Less strict Supreme Court scrutiny test to determine Constitutionality of a law Requires: -furthers an important gov. interest in a way that's "substantially related" to said interest -uses means that closely fit gov. goal; not any broader than necessary -"content neutral"

Brown v. Board of Education (I & II)

I. Case in 1954; Ruled racial segregation in public schools a violation of individuals' civil rights("Separate educational facilities by race are inherently unequal") II. Case in 1995; Followed+Closely related to first case Ruled that school districts required to desegregate "with all deliberate speed"; Task of supervising desegregation delegated to the lower federal courts Later changed "with all deliberate speed" to "immediately" due to the South's stubborn refusal to cooperate

Privacy Rights

Liberties protected by the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 9th Amendments in the BoR; Protects certain aspects of citizens' lives from government influence

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

In NY school, voluntary, school-provided prayer(Christian) after salute led by teacher right after school started in the classroom. Two Jewish families of students sued local school board for violating Constitution. Constitutional Amendments and Court Precedents: 1st Amendment(Free Exercise v. Establishment), West Virginia State Board of Ed. v. Barnette(Mandatory saluting of the flag unconstitutional), McCollum v. Board of Ed.(Teaching religious instruction of one religion during school hours on school property violates Establishment Clause) SCOTUS Issue: Does prayer recitation in public schools violate Establishment Clause? Engel argued: Violated Est. Clause because the BoR now applies to the states & schools = state government. Violated Free Exercise b/c it "coerced" childeren to participate b/c kids couldn't skip school Teachers = state officals: leading of the prayer = forcing religion on an individual. Few students would refuse to participate for fear of being ostracized. Previous precedents stated schools forcing children to participate in any religious activity is not legal. Vitale argued: Prayer safeguards religious heritage of country. Federal gov. often uses official statements referencing a monotheistic religion. Prayer declaration of faith. Prayer part of supplemental char. edu. function. Prayer is voluntary. Pledge of Allegiance references God. Court has not struck down references to God. Decision: 6-1 for Engel & struck down prayer for violating Est. Clause. Used much of Engels points and points out why the colonists left England in the first place(freedom to practice their religion). Also brings up framers' intent to separate church and state foremost. Stated that no gov. support doesn't mean hostility toward religion; Dissent said that Constitution was misapplied, mentioning references to God in official government practices.

Voting Rights Act of 1965

Invalidated use of any test or device to deny the vote and authorized federal examiners to register voters in states that had disenfranchised the African American group As a result: -More blacks became politically active and elected black representatives, it brought jobs, contracts, and facilities/services for the black community -Encouraged greater social equality and decreased wealth + education gap

Texas v. Johnson (1989)

Johnson burned an American flag at Dallas City Hall to protest Reagan Admin. policies. Convicted for violating flag desecration law to a year in jail and a $2,000 fine. Constitutional Amendment: 1st Amendment - Freedom of Speech SCOTUS Issue: Is desecrating the American flag protected as a form of speech under the 1st Amendment? Decision: 5-4 for Johnson; Flag desecration a protected form of speech and cannot ban something because other people might be offended by the political message.

Selective Incorporation Doctrine

Legal concept under which S.C.O.T.U.S. has applied the almost all of the Bill of Rights to the states through the 14th Amendment, one case at a time created from the Due Process Clause (exceptions being 3rd, 7th, 9th, and 10th)

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) ["Separate but Equal"]

Louisiana enacted the Separate Car Act(segregated railway transportation). Plessy agreed to challenge the act. Railroad agreed b/c they disliked the unnecessary cost of extra railroad cars. Plessy's lawyers argued that the Act violated the 13th and 14th Amendments+ judge found law could be enforced as long as it was only railroads within it's boundaries Constitutional Amendments: 13th Amendment - Prohibits discrimination, 14th Amendment - Due Process and Equal Protection SCOTUS Issue: Does the Separate Car Act violate the 14th Amendment? Decision: 7-1 that the Act was constitutional. Upheld de jure segregation and established "separate but equal".

Rational Basis Test

Lowest level scrutiny test of the Supreme Court/Easiest to pass Requires: - closely related evidence that rationalizes the unequal treatment of two different groups based on behavior

Mapp v. Ohio (1961) [Exclusionary Rule]

Mapp convicted for possession of obscene material found in a warranted search of the home for a fugitive. Appealed based on freedom of expression. Constitutional Provisions and Federal Statutes: 1st Amendment - Freedom of Speech/Expression, 4th Amendment - Unreasonable Search and Seizure SCOTUS Issue: Were the confiscated materials protected from seizure by the 4th Amendment? Decision: 6-3 for Mapp; 1st Amendment relations ignored for 4th Amendment issue. Established that any evidence obtained in an illegal search violating the 4th Amendment can't be used in court.

Kelo v. New London (2005)

New London used eminent domain authority to seize private property to sell to private devs. Wanted to increase available jobs+tax revenue. Kelo and other homeowners who had their prop. seized sued. Claimed 5th Amendment's Taking Clause violated b/c selling to private devs. wasn't for public use. Constitutional Amendments: 5th Amendment - Takings Clause SCOTUS Issue: Is 5th Amendment's Taking Clause violated if city takes private property to sell to private developers to better the bad local economy? Decision: 5-4 for New London; Taking private property for private devs. falls within taking clause b/c it's following an economic plan for the area, and not just to benefit the developers.

Symbolic Speech (Doctrine)

Non-verbal expression (e.g. signs and symbols); Valued the same as verbal speech for expressive value and thus protected under the 1st Amendment

Hate Speech

Offensive or abusive expression; Currently protected by the 1st Amendment Usually in terms of race, gender, or sex/gender and sexual orientation

14th Amendment

One of the Reconstruction Amendments passed after the Civil War. Section 1: Any person born or naturalized in the USA considered full citizens that can't be denied any of the rights afforded to every American including their life, liberties, or property without due process of law, and can't deny equal protection of the law- Includes Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.

1st Amendment

Part of the Bill of Rights, Establishes Freedom of Religion through Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses, Speech/Expression, Press, Assembly, and Petitioning of the Government

Roe v. Wade (1973)

Privacy was a subject that the Constitution didn't address, though some amendments served as protection of privacy when put together. Before the case, abortions weren't legal unless the mother's life was in imminent danger. Unmarried+pregnant Texan wanted to terminate pregnancy. TX made abortion of a fetus a felony unless mother was in danger. Jane Roe(pseudonym) filed lawsuit against district attorney Henry Wade that the state violated the Constitution. District court ruled unconstitutional by the 9th that women's choice to have children or not protected. Constitutional Amendments and Court Precedents: 9th Amendment - Enumerations of certain rights shall not be construed to deny of disparage others for the people, 14th Amendment - Due Process, Griswold v. Connecticut(1965), U.S. v. Vuitch(1971) SCOTUS Issue: Does the U.S. Constitution protect the right of a woman to obtain an abortion? Roe argues: -Women'd right to privacy guaranteed by 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th; Certain matters are individual decisions protected by the Constitution -Unwanted pregnancies had a major impact on women's lives(no maternity leave, could get laid off, endanger career/finances, negative physical+psychological impact -Texan women have to go out of state to get an abortion or get an illegal one that could even threaten the woman's life -Abortion is a safe medical procedure, and criminalizing it in a way that's so vague can threaten the doctor's job too for deciding whether or not to perform the abortion under the exception circumstances -Unborn fetus isn't a person and doesn't have equal rights to the mother; Framers didn't intend to include fetuses under the definition of "persons" b/c abortions were more common in the 19th century Wade argues: -No guaranteed right to an abortion in the Constitution and no reason to believe that's what it was intended for -Fetus from date of conception is a person w/ all the protections of the Constitution; Balancing interests of the fetus vs the mother should favor the fetus b/c it's more vulnerable -Previously, rights in individual/marital privacy not absolute and all rights have some restrictions -Abortion different from contraception; Destroying life as opposed to preventing it -Abortion best left as a state matter to better reflect the "popular will and morality of the people" Decision: 7-2 for Roe; Woman's choice to get an abortion protected by the Constitution, rooted in Due Process Clause. Liberty protected in 14th also includes fundamental right to privacy. Looked at deeper history of abortion and found that restricting it was only very recent. Decided that unborn fetuses not counted as "persons" under the Constitution. States only qualified to regulate or prevent abortion in third trimester(when viability of fetus is high) and case by case in the second trimester. Uses interpretation of substantive due process. Dissent that the language/history of the Constitution doesn't support the right to an abortion.

Fair Housing Act of 1968

Prohibited discrimination concerning the sale, rental, and financing of housing/real estate for or against a client based on race

Equal Rights Amendment (1972)

Proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution giving women equal rights under the law by banning sex-based discrimination Approved by Congress, but failed to achieve ratification by the required 38 states

4th Amendment

Protection against unreasonable search and seizure of an individual's possessions/documents. Authorities can only search and seize with a warrant or probable cause

Freedom of Speech and Expression

Protects all types of expression. spoken, written, what you wear, the arts, etc. and not just regular speech and the media. Protected by the 1st Amendment in the Bill of Rights, mostly protects unpopular opinion to maintain broad range of perspective. Clear and present danger test used to determine when it is legal to limit the freedom.

8th Amendment

Protects form excessive bail or fines, and cruel or unusual punishment

5th Amendment

Protects from being arrested/charged without an indictment, subject to double jeopardy, self-incriminate(remain silent), or deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law

Commercial Speech

Public expression w/ aim of making profit (e.g. advertisements; Has received greater protection under the First Amendment recently; Remains less protected than political speech Can be regulated if it concerns illegal activities or is misleading. Previously had none/very little protection until more recently.

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

Requires: -employers and public facilities to make "reasonable accommodations" for people with disabilities + prohibits discrimination against these individuals in matters of employment -easy access to any public facilities(installation of ramps, braille, special elevators, etc.)

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) and the Lemon Test

Rhode Island and Pennsylvania had statutes that helped pay for parts of non-secular + non-public education(private religious schools) like teacher salaries, educational materials, etc. Lemon and the other appellants represented the citizens and taxpayers that believed statutes violated Est. Clause Constitutional Amendments and Court Precedents: Establishment Clause of the First Amendment SCOTUS Issue: Do statutes providing state funding for private religious schools violate the Est. Clause of the First Amendment? Decision: 8-0(PA)/8-1(RI) for Lemon; Found that statutes constituted excessive entanglement of government and religion, and to keep religion from interfering with secular subjects while being federally funded would require too much involvement on the part of the gov. White was the only dissenter, though it was only in part Created a 3-part "Lemon Test." Requires laws which aid religion must: 1) have a "secular purpose" 2) neither advance nor inhibit religion 3) avoid "excessive government entanglement with religion"

Civil Rights

Rights that guarantee individuals freedom from discrimination; Generally grounded in the Equal Protection Clause (14th Amendment) Laid out in laws passed by Congress (e.g. 1964 Civil Rights Act)

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

Same sex couples sued their states as a challenge to the bans on and unrecognized right to same sex marriage. Argued that they violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th and the Civil Rights Act Constitutional Amendments and Federal Statutes: 14th Amendment - Due Process and Equal Protection, Civil Rights Act SCOTUS Issue: Does 14th Amendment require a state to license a same sex marriage? Does the 14th require a state to recognize a legally licensed same sex marriage performed in another state? Decision: 5-4 for Obergefell; Due Process and Equal Protection guarantees right to marry as a protected fundamental liberty regardless of sex. 1st doesn't allow states to deny same sex couples right to marry on same terms of opposite sex couples. Dissent says that same sex marriage is good policy, but unmentioned in the Constitution, and not the Court's place to decide whether the states allow it. That the decision was based on overly expansive interpretation of Due Process and Equal Protection.(Gives Judicial branch too much power)

Gitlow v. NY (1925)

Socialist Gitlow arrested for spreading "Left Wing Manifesto" = calling for est. of socialism through strikes and all class action Violated Criminal Anarchy Law = cannot advocate for forced overthrow of the government Argued that they couldn't arrest him because no action was taken as a result of his speech Held that he was guilty in all state courts Constitutional Amendments/Involvement and Court Precedents: 1st Amendment, NY's Criminal Anarchy Law, Schenck v. U.S., Abrams v. U.S SCOTUS Issue: Does the 1st Amendment protect speech directly advocating for violent overthrow of government? Decision of the Court holding that freedoms of the press and speech are fundamental rights+liberties protected by the 14th Amendment(Due Process Clause) Establishes process of Selective Incorporation

Schenk v. US (1919)

Schenk(Gen. Secretary for Socialist Party in Philly, PA) convicted for violating Espionage Act by printing and mailing flyers arguing that conscription=involuntary servitude violated the 13th and advocated resistance. Constitutional Provisions and Federal Statutes: 1st Amendment - Free Speech, Espionage Act, Section 3 - Insubordination, mutiny, disloyalty, etc. in military/naval forces of willful obstruction of recruitment/conscription punished by a fine less than or equal to $10,000 and/or incarceration for less than or equal to 20 yrs SCOTUS Issue: Did Schenk's conviction under the Espionage Act for criticizing the draft violate his Free Speech right? Schenk argues: - 1st prevents Congress from prohibiting criticism of gov. actions and protects speaker from punishment after; must protect free discussion of public matters to help hold gov. officials accountable+ promote transparency -Gov. can only punish people for actions, not words -Exercised free speech right to communicate his opinions on public matters and only told readers to exercise their own right to write to their Reps. for a redress of grievances U.S. argues: -Congress empowered to declare war and ensure a functioning military by the Constitution+may limit expression and recruit/enlist soldiers in a time of war if necessary -In distributing fliers, they possessed clear intent to persuade others to not enlist, violating the federal Act -War time different than peace time and more power must be given to the gov. to maintain national safety Decision: Unanimous for the U.S.; Accepts possible interpretation that the First Amendment prevents enactment of prior restrain and punishment afterwards. However, also states that deciding what punishment an action deserves if any also depends on the context in which it is done. Schenk and Baer's actions posed a "clear and present danger" at the time. Created Clear and Present Danger test.

14th Amendment (pt.2)

Section 2: Representatives in federal government to be apportioned by number of all citizens excluding not taxed Native Americans. Right to vote for other government executives cannot be denied to any citizen that meets the following conditions: - male - 21 years of age - naturalized citizens - inhabitants of a State unless they are found to have been charged/are participating in any crime/criminal activity.

14th Amendment (pt.3)

Section 3: No person already holding a government executive position can take a different position at the same time. Nor can people participating in rebellion, or aiding an enemy of the state take a gov. exec. position unless 2/3rds of both the Senate and the House overrule this.

14th Amendment (pt.4)

Section 4: Valid public debts = incurred for payment, pensions, and bounties for services in suppressing rebellion. Invalid public debts = incurred in aid of rebellion against the US, claim for the loss/emancipation of any slave Section 5: Gives Congress express permission to create any appropriate legislation to enforce Sections 1-4.(Implied Powers of the Necessary and Proper Clause)

Title IX

Section of the Educational Amendment of 1972 Prohibits institutions collecting federal funds from discriminating on the basis of sex(has greatest impact on women's sports opportunities in colleges)

Roper v. Simmons (2005)

Sentenced to death at 17, Missouri Supreme Court stayed Simmons' execution while a U.S. Supreme Court was deciding Atkins v. Virginia(execution of mentally ill violates 8th and 14th). Simmons case then reconsidered, and was decided 6-3 that a precedent partially overturned+made execution of minors now unconstitutional. Constitutional Provisions and Federal Statutes: SCOTUS Issue: Does the execution of minors violate the prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment"(8th) and applied to states through the 14th? Decision: 5-4 in favor of Simmons; Execution of minors is "cruel and unusual punishment" due to altered standard of decency of society in general.

Shelby County v. Holder (2013)

Shelby County filed district suit that sections 4(b) and 5 were unconstitutional + "a permanent injunction against their enforcement". 5 originally meant to be temporary, but was renewed multiple times. Was held that the sections were Constitutional up until the U.S. Supreme Court. Constitutional Amendments and Federal Statutes: Voting Rights Act - Sections 4(b)=Defines eligible districts that had voting tests and less than 50% turnout and 5=Prohibits eligible districts from enacting changes to voting laws w/o official authority from the courts SCOTUS Issue: Does renewal of sections 4(b) and 5 of Voting Rights Act exceed Congressional power under the 14th and 15th + violate the 10th and Article 4 of the Constitution? 5-4 for Shelby County; Decision: 5-4 for Shelby County; Sec. 4 of Act unconstitutional b/c it's outdated, encroaches on state power, and formula to identify eligible areas outdated. Sec. 5 unconstitutional as well. Dissent argued Congressional power to enforce 14th and 15th w/ legislation includes Voting Rights Act. Legislation history, text, and precedents support authority to enact legislation. Voting Rights Act still advances legitimate objective of the gov. Holding Sec. 4 void made enforcing Sec. 5 impossible.

Slander and Libel

Slander: Spoken false statements that damage a person's rep. Libel: Written false statements that damage a person's rep. Both can be gov. regulated; Difficult to define a distinct separation between protected and unprotected speech.

Civil Rights Movement

Social movement in the U.S. during the 1950's and 1960's People organized to demand equal rights for African Americans and other minority groups(end racial discrimination); Worked together to change unfair laws + Gave speeches, marched in the streets, and participated in boycotts

Jim Crow Laws

State/local laws enforcing/requiring legal segregation of all public facilities Mostly seen in the South, some border states and some Northern communities between 1876 and 1964

Strict Scrutiny

Supreme Court test using the most in-depth level of scrutiny in determining the Constitutionality of a law Requires: -shown to be/serve a "compelling state interest" -narrowly tailored to achieve specific goal -uses least restrictive means of enforcement to achieve goal

Criminal Justice

System made up of the agencies involved in enforcement of public safety and handling criminally offending groups/individuals(e.g. police departments, courts, and correctional institutions) Separate systems and rules for juvenile and adult offenders

New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) [Reasonableness]

T.L.O.(high school student) searched by school officials in school and found to possess cigarettes, marijuana, and a list of people w/ debts owed. Charged w/ marijuana possession, moved to suppress evidence, but was prevented. New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that Exclusionary Rule of 4th Amendment applied to searches by school officials in public schools. Constitutional Provisions and Federal Statutes: 4th Amendment - Unreasonable Search and Seizure SCOTUS Issue: Does the exclusionary rule apply to searches conducted by school officials in public schools? Decision: 6-3 for New Jersey; Does apply to school officials still, but the exclusionary rule in a search without a warrant under the specific circumstances did not apply

Discrimination

The action of treating groups/categories of people /things differently based on defining features of the classifications rather than the traits of each individual

Bill of Rights

The first ten amendments to the Constitution enumerating the peoples' civil liberties. Thought to be unneeded by the Federalists, but the Anti-Federalists wanted a written guarantee from the framers. Originally applied only to the federal level, but now some apply to state and local levels through Selective Incorporation of the Due Process Clause.

Freedom of Press

The right of journalists, authors, newspapers, news outlets, and the general media to disclose details of any event previous, current and possibly soon-to-be to the public without any restrictions.

Freedom of Assembly

The right of the people to gather peacefully; Usually to petition the gov. to bring attention to an issue that we want reviewed

Disenfranchisement

To be denied the ability to exercise a right (e.g. right to vote)

Voting Access - Voter ID Laws

Voter ID Laws - Requires people to produce ID or some other form of identification that they are a legally documented citizen in order to vote Seen as a form of voter suppression tactic to leave out the illegal immigrants and some who may just live "off the grid"

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

Wisconsin required kids to receive a formal edu. up until the age of 16 and conflicted with Amish + Mennonite practice of stopping edu. at 14. Convicted Mr. Yoder and some other members of the community b/c they wouldn't comply in favor of their own specialized edu. to prep the kids for life in their own community. Claimed their continued separation affects their "salvation" according to their religious beliefs. Also forced to pay fine, but wouldn't pay either, claiming their Free Exercise rights were violated Constitutional Amendments and Court Precedents: 1st Amendment - Free Exercise Clause where the gov. can't "prohibit free exercise", 14th Amendment - Due Process Clause, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, Prince v. Massachusetts SCOTUS Issue: What conditions does the state's interest in promoting compulsory edu. override parents' First Amendment right to Free Exercise of religion? Wisconsin argues: -Compulsory edu. up to 16 is "'compelling governmental interest' that benefits the larger society" + should override Amish practices/beliefs Final years of HS prep students for employment, civic participation, and being self-sufficient in the American political system -Students may choose to leave the community, and need to have a complete/proper edu. to be successful -Mandatory school applies to everyone regardless of religion or lack thereof and falls beyond the First Amendment protection Yoder argues: -Beliefs about dangers of formal edu. to their religion sincere/Shouldn't be forced to violate them -Amish provide alternate vocational edu. beyond 8th grade to prep for future roles in the community+makes them self-sufficient -Additional edu. beyond 8th grade won't better prep. Amish students for lives in the community even if -Amish and Mennonites have been law abiding for centuries/Evidence that citizenship requirements have been met by the Amish w/o extra edu. -Stopping doesn't create physical or mental harm to students and doesn't disrupt school/outside community Decision: Unanimous in favor of Yoder(2 Justices Didn't Participate); Free Exercise Clause as applied to states through Due Process is violated by Wisconsin's decision to keep students in school to 16 w; Religion outweighed state interest in this case; Would interfere w/ well-established/deeply held religious convictions; Rejected override of parents' religious beliefs Partial dissent that the decision focused on the parents and not the children and that the decision might agree with some but not all the families being tried