Presentation on theme: "1. Speech, Press, Petition, Assembly, and Religion 2. Right to Bear Arms 3. Freedom from Quartering of Soldiers in Homes 4. Freedom from Unreasonable Search."— Presentation transcript:
1. Speech, Press, Petition, Assembly, and Religion 2. Right to Bear Arms 3. Freedom from Quartering of Soldiers in Homes 4. Freedom from Unreasonable Search & Seizure 5. No Double Jeopardy, No Self-incrimination, Due Process required
6. Right to a speedy trial by impartial jury, right to be informed of charges, and to an attorney 7. Right to Trial by jury in civil law suits 8. No excessive bail, no cruel and unusual punishment 9. Right not listed in constitution retained by the people 10. States can make laws about issues not in the constitution
Legal constitutional protections against government Formally set down in the Bill of Rights, the courts, police and legislatures define their meaning.
Case that determined that the Bill of Rights have only applied to the Federal Government
The Supreme Court began reading the BoR through the 14 th Amendment’s Due Process clause. The Due Process clause guarantees fair treatment under the law to all citizens regardless of what state they are in (14 th amendment was passed after the civil war to try to guarantee former slaves their rights in the South) Selective Incorporation is the application of the BoR to state governments through the Supreme Court’s judicial review powers, the right of the court to declare actions of the government unconstitutional.
The first amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The first part is called the establishment clause and states that the government can’t set up an official religion. This is characterized as freedom from religion. The second part is called the free exercise clause and states that the people can practice whatever religion they want. This is characterized as freedom of religion.
Separationists- believe the establishment clause of the 1 st amendment requires building a “wall of separation” between church and state. › Not used until 1802 by Jefferson Accommodationists- believe the establishment clause of the 1 st amendment would permit the government to provide financial support for certain religious institutions and programs or sponsor specific religious practices, such as prayer in public schools. “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. “
Which do you agree with more, separationists or accommodationists? (Write on your whiteboard)
Lemon Test- established after Lemon v. Kurtzman, a 3 part test for establishment clause violations 1. Does the law or practice have a secular (nonreligious) purpose? YES 2. Does the primary intent or effect of the law either advance or inhibit religion? NO 3. Does the law or practice create an excessive entanglement of government and religion? NO Pass! If the answer is different than these the measure fails the test. › Whiteboard-Do you think that if teachers were to lead prayers before every class period it would pass the Lemon test?
2 nd 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” Recently, the supreme court has made it clear that the “right of the people” is an individual right, not a right reserved for those in military service (DC v. Heller)
However Scalia also states in his opinion, “The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns.” The second Amendment was recently incorporated in 2010 by the case McDonald v. Chicago. Whiteboard-Do you believe that the second amendment is intended as an individual or collective right?
4 th amendment “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizure, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probably clause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
On May 23, 1957, police officers in a Cleveland, Ohio suburb received information that a suspect in a bombing case, as well as some illegal betting equipment, might be found in the home of Mapp. Three officers went to the home and asked for permission to enter, but Mapp refused to admit them without a search warrant. Two officers left, and one remained. Three hours later, the two returned with several other officers. Brandishing a piece of paper, they broke in the door. Mapp asked to see the “warrant” and took it from an officer, putting it in her dress. The officers struggled with Mapp and took the piece of paper away from her. They handcuffed her for being “belligerent.” They did not find the bombing suspect or the gambling equipment. They did, however, find pornographic material in a dresser in her room. She was arrested, prosecuted, and found guilty for possession of pornographic material.
Exclusionary rule- under this rule, evidence that is obtained improperly by the police cannot be used to prosecute someone accused of a crime
The word privacy does not appear in the constitution. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has used its interpretive powers to recognize a right to privacy that protects people from government interference in a number of contexts.
In 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick, the court said the constitution did not protect individuals of the same gender’s sexual conduct. › This was overturned in 2003 by Lawrence v. Texas by asserting a right to privacy. This “right to privacy” has been the basis of the courts decisions to strike down laws banning birth control in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) and abortion in Roe v. Wade (1973) (Whiteboard) Do you see a implied right to privacy in the constitution?
The fifth amendment gives people the right to not incriminate themselves. Incriminating statements must be made voluntarily, not under coercion (threats of violence or actual violence) Miranda v. Arizona- supreme court decision that requires police officers, before questioning a suspect in custody, to inform that suspect about the right to remain silent and to have an attorney present during questioning.
What do you think? Who has the responsibility?
6 th Amendment- › Speedy Trial and public trial with a jury of their peers › Right to confront witnesses and attorney 8 th Amendment- › No excessive bail or fines › No cruel and unusual punishment Whiteboard- Is beating a prisoner cruel and unusual punishment?
Only protects individuals against the actions taken by the government- ex: your boss can fire you for calling him bad names Clear and present danger test- ruling in Schneck v. US allows government regulation of some expressions only if the speech posed a tangible, immediate threat to American society. Justice Holmes “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater, and causing a panic”
Fighting words doctrine- the government is able to regulate certain expressions, such as personal insults, that are likely to provoke a fistfight or other immediate breach of the peace.
In 1965, Mary Beth Tinker, a 13 year old student at Harding Junior HS in Des Moines Iowa wore a black armband to school to express her opposition to the Vietnam War. She was suspended from school. Subsequently, her brother and several other students in Des Moines schools were also suspended for the same reason. Despite receiving numerous death threats she and other students continued the practice. With the help of the ACLU Tinker brought her case all the way to the Supreme Court. The Court ruled 7-2 that the school had violated her 1 st amendment rights. Whiteboard- Do you agree with the court’s decision?
Prior restraint- government prohibition of the publication of information or viewpoints. Since 1931 (Near v. Minnesota) the Supreme court has generally forbidden prior restraint as a violation of the 1 st amendment. However, this does not prevent authors or publishers from being sued for false or misleading information that harms people’s reputations.
Reporter’s privilege- asserted right of news reporters to promise confidentiality to their sources, including evidence of criminal activity, secret. (Supreme court has not upheld this) Whiteboard- Do you believe that reporters should be forced to disclose their sources if the information the sources provided was “classified”?
Civil Rights are the application of rights equally amongst all groups no matter their race, sex, age, sexual orientation, or disability. People of all groups have taken action over time to achieve equal political, conditional, and opportunity rights. These goals were first realized in the United States with the adoption of the 14 th amendment following the Civil War. › This amendment guaranteed “that no state shall” deprive the rights of citizenship, equal protection of the law, and the right to due process under the law.
Following the Civil War, southern states tried to maintain the dominance of whites by enacting Jim Crow laws that would segregate (separate) blacks and whites. 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson- SC ruled that as long as facilities were equally provided they could be separate. 1954 Brown v. Board of Education- SC ruled that facilities that were separate were inherently unequal.
Women were specifically left out of the 15 th amendment much to the dismay of some women’s right activists who were also ardent abolitionists. Several states allowed women to vote (Wyoming for instance) but most states did not allow it. Women around the country worked to get referendums placed on ballots to be voted on but with limited success Finally, in 1918, the US Congress finally had enough support to pass the 19 th Amendment and guarantee women the right to vote, ratified in Whiteboard- Do you believe there are still rights that men have but women do not? What rights?