Civil Liberties - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Civil LibertiesSlide2

What the Framers Intended…

Framers thought they had written a document about what you could do, not what you could not do

Bill of Rights was added by the states to protect individual liberties because they were still scared of the power of a national government (didn’t imagine it would affect what states could do)

The “negative” statements (what the government cannot do) illustrate the rights the gov. cannot take away

Rights become an issue when:

Rights in conflict (interest group politics)

Passions inflamed by policy entrepeneur

Political culture has policies in conflict with one anotherSlide3

Barron v Baltimore (1833)Bill of Rights limited only national government and not the statesSlide4

Civil Liberties vs. Civil Rights

Civil Liberties protect individuals from the abuses of government

Civil Rights are the result of equal protection under the lawSlide5

Rights in Conflict

This happens when one person asserts a right and another person asserts a competing one

Examples

Freedom of speech vs. preservation of order (Jacob Kunz delivered inflammatory anti-Jewish speeches)

Duty vs. right (New York Times published Pentagon papers without censorship)Slide6

Policy Entrepreneurs

People who can get legislators to act against another group

War often facilitates entrepreneurial politics

1798- Sedition Act making a crime to speak against the president, Congress

1917-1918 Espionage and Sedition acts making it a crime to utter false statements that might interfere with the military

1954 Communist Control Act making it a crime to belong to the Communist party because they claimed the communists wanted to overthrow the governmentSlide7

Cultural Conflicts

Diverse ethnicities that make up the U.S. have different views on the meaning and scope of constitutionally protected freedoms

Examples:

Can a government building display a scene of the birth of Christ?

Is bilingual education constitutionally required?Slide8

The First Amendment: Freedom of Expression

In its true meaning the press should have freedom from prior restraint- freedom from censorship

Media had to only deal with the consequences of what they published

Jefferson pardoned a bunch of people indicted under the Sedition acts and there was no issue until the 20

th

century

1917-1918- Congress passed restrictions on speech that was treasonous Slide9

Schenck v United States

Schenck convicted of violating the Espionage Act because he mailed circulars to men urging them to avoid the draft

Question: What was the scope of Congress’ power to control speech?

Supreme Court Answer: Clear-and-present-danger test- if the words used will create a present danger, then Congress has the right to prevent it

Schenck lostSlide10

Due-Process Clause

14

th

amendment- “…No state shall…deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”

For half a century Supreme Court denied that the clause was applicable to states, so states could pass laws that wouldn’t be overturned by the Supreme Court

1925 – change- Supreme

Court

(

Gitlow

v New York)

stated that freedom of speech and the press were “fundamental personal rights” protected by the due process clause of the 14

th

amendment from infringements by state actions- so, states couldn’t make their own laws anymore

Since then the court has sided more and more with freedom of speech. No matter how offensive or provocative speech is, unless it results in action and that action is dangerous Slide11

What is Speech?

Four forms that are not automatically granted full constitutional protection: libel, obscenity, symbolic speech, and false advertisingSlide12

Libel

Written statement that defames the character of another person

Hard to prove libel in the U.S., for you must show that the libelous statement was false

Public figures have a hard time with libelSlide13

Obscenity

Court has always upheld that states can regulate obscenity because obscene materials have no social value

There is no consensus on what constitutes obscene material, which creates a problem

The internet has only made the problem worse because the boundaries have been brokenSlide14

Symbolic Speech

Actions that communicate a message, i.e. burning a draft card to protest a war

Court has ruled that if they give symbolic speech the same protections it would open the door to worse actions

Burning the American flag has been protected under the First Amendment (

Texas v Johnson

and

U.S. v

Eichman

) because in contrast to the first case the

gov

. does have a right to run a military draft whereas its only purpose in banning the burning of the American flag is to restrict speechSlide15

Who is a Person or Who is Protected Constitutionally?

Corporations have been considered “people” and have been protected

Government can place more limits on commercial rather than noncommercial speech

Government can regulate commercial speech if it serves the public interest (i.e. cigarettes and liquor)

Young people can have less freedom of expression if what they are doing impedes the educational mission of the school Slide16

Key Court CasesSchenk v United States (1919)- “clear and present danger”Chaplinsky v New Hampshire (1942)- established what words constitute “fighting words” to incite violence

New York Times v Sullivan (1964) – defined libel

Tinker v Des Moines (1969)- student’s rights in school

New York Times v United States (1971)-

gov

. can’t censor info on war (Pentagon Papers case)

Texas v Johnson (1988)- Flag burning a form of symbolic speech protected by the first amendment

McConnell v Federal Election Commission (2003)- provisions of McCain-Feingold

constutional

and restrictions on advertising did not violate free speechSlide17

Church and State: The Free Exercise Clause

Congress can make no law prohibiting free exercise of religion

Because of 14

th

Amendment, states may also not make these laws

Just because Congress can’t prohibit the free exercise of religion doesn’t mean you can do whatever you want in the name of religion

Polygamy not allowed

Children must be vaccinated to attend public school

Exceptions:

Draft law allows for conscientious objectors

Amish don’t have to send kids to school past 8

th

gradeSlide18

The Establishment Clause

Congress can make no law “respecting an establishment of religion”

This has come to mean the separation of church and state and has been very difficult for the Supreme Court to interpret

It was originally drafted by Jefferson, who was wary of the Church of England establishing a state religion in VirginiaSlide19

Establishment Clause Over Time

1947- New Jersey town – busing doesn’t breech wall of separation because it is religiously neutral

Unconstitutional to have prayer in school

1992-

(

Lee

v Weisman

)

unconstitutional

for speaker at graduation ceremony to call for prayer

Laws prohibiting evolution are unconstitutional

No school time to engage in religious activities

There are restrictions on public funding of parochial schools but not all aid (books, for example can be paid for)Slide20

The court has changed its mind on these issues

Now it uses a 3-part test to determine if involvement is

constitutional

(based

on

Lemon v

Kurtzman

-

1971)

:

It has a secular purpose

Its primary effect neither advances or prohibits religion

It does not foster excessive government entanglement with religionSlide21

Crime and Due Process

Parts of the Bill of Rights that affect people accused of crime

How do we protect people without hindering criminal investigations?

Police introduce whatever evidence necessary even if it is gotten improperly OR

All evidence gotten improperly is excluded

Most countries follow the first method; the U.S. follows the secondSlide22

The Exclusionary Rule

Any evidence gathered in violation of the constitution is inadmissable (usually the 4

th

and 5

th

amendments)

1961-

Mapp v Ohio

Police break into Mapp’s home and arrest her for having obscene pictures

Supreme Court ruled that without a search warrant the illegally gathered evidence could not be used in court

This case set a standard for the exclusionary rule to enforce constitutional guaranteesSlide23

When Can Police Search?

Search Warrant- when a judge has been shown probable cause

(or if they have permission)

2. If you are being lawfully arrested

Police can then search

- you

- things in plain view

- things under your immediate controlSlide24

Driving….

If arrested when driving ….. Check the most recent ruling because the Supreme Court keeps changing its mind

Police can do much more now

The court is trying to protect those places where a person has a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” (i.e. your body)Slide25

Other Searches

Private employers can search employees desks for example, because the Constitution only protects you from the government

Right of

privacy

- what you do in your home is your businessSlide26

Miranda Rights

Concept of protection against self-incrimination originally intended to protect against confessions extracted from torture but now it covers those people who don’t know their rights because of the Miranda case

Miranda v Arizona-

establishment rights of those accused, including having a lawyer