Presentation on theme: "Civil liberties are freedom to… civil rights are freedom from…"— Presentation transcript:
Civil liberties are freedom to… civil rights are freedom from…
Implied right - 1 st, 3 rd, 4 th, (5 th ) 9 th, and 14 th Amendments Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) right to privacy applied to the legality of contraceptive use. Roe v. Wade (1973) right to privacy expanded to include abortions. Established law or vulnerable? Based on when life begins, in Roe v Wade the court determined that it was still in dispute over when life began? Restrictive state laws going unchallenged
…there is a conflict between an individual or a group of individuals seeking to exercise what they believe to be a liberty, and the government, be it local, state, or national, to control the exercise of that liberty in an attempt to keep order and preserve the rights (and safety) of others.
James Madison – Federalist favoring a strong federal government. Becomes an Anti-federalist to get elected in Anti-federalist Virginia. Once President (our 4 th ), goes back to Federalist roots. Wrote the Bill of Rights and many of the Federalist papers.
Barron v. Baltimore (1833) Supreme Court rules that the states are not limited by the Bill of Rights. Passage of 14 th Amendment in 1868. Court urged to use due process clause to restrain states from limiting the rights and liberties found in the Bill of Rights 1897-1937 Lochner era - the Supreme Court starts using the substantive due process clause primarily to strike down labor laws and minimum wages imposed by the states. The state has the burden of proof to show their laws were a valid exercise of their power to regulate the health, welfare, or public morals of their citizens.
Based on liberty to contract Lochner v. New York (1905), striking down state legislation limiting weekly working hours Adair v. United States (1908), striking down federal legislation prohibiting railroad companies from demanding that a worker not join a labor union as a condition for employment ("yellow-dog contract") Coppage v. Kansas (1915), striking down state legislation prohibiting yellow-dog contracts Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918), striking down federal regulation of child labor Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering (1921), construing federal legislation not to exempt labor unions from antitrust lawsuits Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. (1922), invalidating a federal tax on interstate commerce by employers hiring children Adkins v. Children's Hospital (1923), striking down federal legislation mandating a minimum wage level for women and children in the District of Columbia Carter v. Carter Coal Company (1936), striking down federal legislation regulating the coal industry Source: Wikipedia
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion (the establishment clause), or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (the free exercise clause) Lemon test – Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) Legitimate secular purpose Neither advanced nor inhibited religion Did not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion
Freedom of religion questions, what do you think? Muslim prisoners – a question of Jumu'ah, a prayer meeting on Friday just after noon. Problem comes from the logistics and resources necessary to get all Muslim inmates together at a specific time from multiple work crews.
White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (OFBCI) Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation (2007) Court held no standing as taxpayers in an executive order. In other words, Congress cant, the President can. Changes in Texas textbooks: In recent years, board members have been locked in an ideological battle between a bloc of conservatives who question Darwins theory of evolution and believe the Founding Fathers were guided by Christian principles, and a handful of Democrats and moderate Republicans who have fought to preserve the teaching of Darwinism and the separation of church and state. NYTimes, March 12, 2010 "Biblical influences on America's founding are exaggerated, if not invented. The complicated but undeniable history of separation between church and state is flatly dismissed," the group wrote. Houston Chronicle, February 15, 2011
Base policies on verifiable facts free from religious beliefs. If religion becomes the basis of a political policy we find the state enforcing religious doctrines and therefore religious beliefs, telling citizens how to think. Eventually, it becomes criminal to think differently from the state sponsored religion, we have a theocracy, and often an inquisition of sorts. This is neither good for public policy nor religion.
False statements regarding the government in the press, both positive and negative: Should this be legal? Sedition and propaganda. A Democracy relies on informed citizens to hold government officials accountable. Americans barely make time to read the news, much less to determine its veracity. If they are given inaccurate portrayals of the actions of politicians, wouldnt they hold the wrong officials accountable, thereby undermining Democracy?
The press plays a crucial role in the democratic process. Citizens must be accurately and adequately informed in order to hold elected officials accountable. This is a dual role of informing elected officials of the problems and desires of the public, and reporting the activities of the government to the people.
A form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position. Usually contains the following three characteristics: 1) Intended to produce an emotional response to the information presented, 2) Intended to change the attitude of the target audience toward the subject to achieve a political agenda, and 3) Presents facts selectively or facts that are false. Due to its use by Stalin, Mao, and Hitler, we tend to think of propaganda as being generated by governments. What about propaganda developed by corporations to advance their interests in the eyes of the public? Tobacco companies that deny the health effects of cigarettes? Oil companies that deny global warming? Health care providers that decry efforts to curb costs as socialism?
Punish the advocacy of illegal action only if such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. Years of criticism of George Tiller on Fox News. Bill O'Reilly's 'Tiller the Baby Killer' Gunned Down in Wichita Church Fox 'News' host had long charged KS physician with 'operating a death mill,' 'executing babies,' carrying out 'slaughter'
Nearly synonymous with the Pentagon Papers. The freedom of the press vs. the governments need for information security. Coverage of a court case vs. the right of an individual to a fair trial.
Government interest to insure domestic tranquility. Hate speech dehumanizes, which opens the door to violent acts against the dehumanized population. Political rancor between liberals and conservatives – does it dehumanize?
Libel against a public official could stand only if there was a showing of actual malice, or a knowing disregard for the truth. Proof that the statements were false or negligent was not sufficient to prove actual malice. Problem: how do we know what someone was thinking? Obama born in Kenya or Obama as Muslim 58 percent of GOP not sure/doubt Obama born in US
Government officials take notice. Potential for violence. Key to the successes of the civil rights movements. Brings media attention to a problem perceived by a group. Astroturfing is a form of advocacy in support of a political, organizational, or corporate agenda, designed to give the appearance of a "grassroots" movement.
Protests can be a system of either demand or support. The number of protesters or their demographics can alter the degree to which their demands influence policy decisions. Minority fringe or majority mainstream. AARP or students. Unemployed or middle class. Hong Kong protests in business suits.
Lobbying Congress is constitutionally guaranteed. 1 st amendment. Corporations lobby more effectively for three reasons – demands are more clearly defined, greater economic resources to spend on lobbying efforts, better organized. How would you reduce lobbying by corporations for special tax treatments without also restricting the ability of minorities to lobby for equal protection or workers for fair wages and working conditions?
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. From the textbook It also preserved an unstated right – the right to revolt against governmental tyranny. If we look to how this was and has been interpreted for 200 years, the aspect of the militia was largely the key. The states may have retained the right to revolt against an over-powerful federal government, but not necessarily individual citizens. More recent interpretations, backed by the NRA, see this as an unlimited right. The NRA even fights legislation that would keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and terrorists – the gun industrys best customers. Bear in mind that white supremacy and militia groups are often classified as terrorists. http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2011/september/militia_092 211 http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2011/september/militia_092 211
The Constitution is relatively silent in regards to what the state can do in relation to a criminal defendant. There are clear limitations of what a government cannot do. It should be clear that these amendments were not and are not for the protection of those guilty of committing crimes, but are for the sake of protecting the innocent from zealous prosecution. Each amendment is the result of practices by the British government on colonial citizens.
Coercion of confessions There is far too much evidence that people were arrested, charged, convicted, and even executed who have been innocent of the charges against them. If a police officer reads you your Miranda Rights, stop talking immediately until you have an opportunity to consult with an attorney. This is true regardless of your own desire to expedite the investigation. IE your child has gone missing. The reading of the Miranda Rights is the first step in making a case against you. Do not believe that your own innocence is sufficient to prevent their being able to convict you.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18682370/ns /us_news-crime_and_courts/t/dna-test-frees- man-convicted-child-slayings/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18682370/ns /us_news-crime_and_courts/t/dna-test-frees- man-convicted-child-slayings/ 22 years in prison for the slaying of his girlfriends children. Confessed after 30 hours of interrogation in a 40 hour period. Confession itself is unclear. DNA evidence now points to a neighbor who has been convicted for three other sex crimes. Neighbor testified against him in his trial.
Drawn and quartered, tarred and feathered, keelhauled. A quick death not considered cruel and unusual in colonial times. US is now the only modern nation with a death penalty. Is it an adequate deterrent, or does it merely ensure that this individual will be prevented from committing future crimes? New DNA tests are finding more innocents convicted of crimes they did not commit, including those who have already been executed. What percentage of innocents executed should be acceptable? http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/04/us/dna-tests- rejected-for-inmate-facing-tuesday-execution.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/04/us/dna-tests- rejected-for-inmate-facing-tuesday-execution.html?_r=0
Potential causes: 1. Fewer economic opportunities 2. Not as good lawyers 3. Racist juries 4. Stiffer penalties by the judge 5. Harsher sentences for specific crimes (crack vs cocaine) 6. Raised under more violent circumstances (survival) 7. Gang membership
Gone are the days in which legislatures at least attempted to ensure state regulations conformed to the broadest interpretation of the Roe constraints. The new game lies in expressly violating Roe... at the state level, in the hopes of either forcing the issue at the Supreme Court or making abortion unobtainable as a matter of fact. Either way, abortion opponents believe they will win and here pro-abortion rights groups may actually agree... The risk of challenging these clearly unconstitutional laws and then losing at the Supreme Court is evidently so high, according to Terry O'Neill, president of the National Organization for Women, that it's not worth taking. As she explained last week to Rachel Maddow, the fear that Justice Samuel Alito would vote to overturn Roe is so deep that reproductive rights groups may be opting to leave the state bans in place. And, as she conceded in that interview, wherever unconstitutional state abortion bans go unchallenged, they become law. http://theweek.com/article/index/214483/why-roe-v-wade-no-longer-matters
1960 all 50 states had sodomy laws which outlawed certain sexual acts including between heterosexual couples. By 1970, only one state had repealed these laws. By 2003, 14 states still had them on their books. US sodomy laws by the year when they were repealed or struck down. By 1970. By 1990. By 2002. Lawrence v Texas
Sodomy laws upheld. The Courts opinion appears to center on the issue of whether a homosexual has a right to violate the sodomy laws of a state. The opinion suggests that it interpreted the issue as Bowers seeking special rights. The dissents in this case saw the law as unconstitutional for all consenting adults, gay or straight, married or unmarried. The dissent recognizes that arbitrary enforcement of the law is used to make homosexuality illegal.
This was a sodomy law specific to homosexual conduct. A law that made an act illegal for one class of people while it remained legal for others. It was challenged and overturned on 14 th Amendment rights. Opinion Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled. Dissent State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by todays decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding.
Supreme Court Bolsters Gay Marriage With Two Major Rulings http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/27/us/polit ics/supreme-court-gay- marriage.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/27/us/polit ics/supreme-court-gay- marriage.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 Supreme Court asked to revive Virginias anti- sodomy law http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supre me-court-asked-to-revive-virginias-anti-sodomy- law/2013/08/18/c8cad8bc-05b5-11e3-88d6- d5795fab4637_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supre me-court-asked-to-revive-virginias-anti-sodomy- law/2013/08/18/c8cad8bc-05b5-11e3-88d6- d5795fab4637_story.html
1 st Amendment – speech, press, and religion. 4 th and 5 th Amendments regarding the collection of information from private citizens. Due process rights – primarily foreign detainees held offshore. 6 th Amendment – speedy trial 8 th Amendment – cruel and unusual punishment. If we accept these last three being perpetrated against foreign nationals, could they be used in the future against US citizens (IE we decide collectively that waterboarding is not torture and is not cruel and unusual punishment.)