Presentation on theme: "GOVERNMENT CHAPTER 17 RIGHTS TO LIFE LIBERTY PROPERTY."— Presentation transcript:
GOVERNMENT CHAPTER 17 RIGHTS TO LIFE LIBERTY PROPERTY
Exclusionary Rule he principle based on federal Constitutional Law that evidence illegally seized by law enforcement officers in violation of a suspect's right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be used against the suspect in a criminal prosecution. Constitutional Law
exclusionary rule The exclusionary rule is designed to exclude evidence obtained in violation of a criminal defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement personnel. If the search of a criminal suspect is unreasonable, the evidence obtained in the search will be excluded from trial.Fourth Amendment
CITIZENSHIP person who by place of birth, nationality of one or both parents, or by going through the naturalization process has sworn loyalty to a nation. The United States has traditionally taken the position that an American citizen is subject to losing his/her citizenship if he/she commits acts showing loyalty to another country, including serving in armed forces potentially unfriendly to the United States, or voting in a foreign county. However, if the foreign nation recognizes dual citizenship (Canada, Israel, and Ireland are common examples) the U. S. will overlook this duality of nationalities.
NATURALIZATION NATURALIZATION. The act by which an alien is made a citizen of the United States of America. 2. The Constitution of the United States, art. 1, s. 8, vests in congress the power "to establish an uniform rule of naturalization." In pursuance of this authority congress have passed several laws on this subject, which, as they are of general interest, are here transcribed as far as they are in force.
EXPATRIATION 1. To send into exile. See Synonyms at banish.banish 2. To remove (oneself) from residence in one's native land. v.intr.1. To give up residence in one's homeland. 2. To renounce allegiance to one's homeland. n. (- t, - t ) 1. One who has taken up residence in a foreign country. 2. One who has renounced one's native land. adj. (- t, - t )
ALIENS 1. An unnaturalized foreign resident of a country. Also called noncitizen. 2. A person from another and very different family, people, or place.
alien An alien who is legally permitted to remain in a country which is foreign to him or her. On specified terms, this kind of alien may be called a legal alien of that country. This is a very broad category which includes tourists, guest workers, legal permanent residents and student visa resident aliens. An alien who has temporary or permanent residence in a country (which is foreign to him/her) may be called a resident alien of that country. This is a subset of the aforementioned legal alien category.permanent residence
Immigration Immigration is the introduction of new people into a habitat or population. It is a biological concept and is important in population ecology, differentiated from emigration and migration. emigrationmigration
im·mi·grant ( m -gr nt) n. 1. A person who leaves one country to settle permanently in another. 2. A plant or animal that establishes itself in an area where it previously did not exist. adj.
VISA A visa (from the Latin charta visa, lit. "paper that has been seen") is an indication that a person is authorized to enter the country which "issued" the visa, subject to permission of an immigration official at the time of actual entry. The authorization may be a document, but more commonly it is a stamp endorsed in the applicant's passport.Latincountrypassport
VISA Some countries do not require a visa in some situations, such as a result of reciprocal treaty arrangements. The country issuing the visa typically attaches various conditions to the visa, such as the time that the visa is valid, the period that the person may stay in the country, whether the visa is valid for more than one visit
Grand Jury A jury of 12 to 23 persons convened in private session to evaluate accusations against persons charged with crime and to determine whether the evidence warrants a bill of indictment. In the common law, a grand jury is a type of jury that determines whether there is enough evidence for a trial. Grand juries carry out this duty by examining evidence and issuing indictments, or by investigating alleged crimes and issuing presentments.common law jury evidencetrial indictmentscrimespresentments
Gideon v Wainwright Gideon was charged in a Florida state court with a felony for breaking and entering. He lacked funds and was unable to hire a lawyer to prepare his defense. When he requested the court to appoint an attorney for him, the court refused, stating that it was only obligated to appoint counsel to indigent defendants in capital cases. Gideon defended himself in the trial; he was convicted by a jury and the court sentenced him to five years in a state prison.
Gideon v Wainwright In a unanimous opinion, the Court held that Gideon had a right to be represented by a court-appointed attorney and, in doing so, overruled its 1942 decision of Betts v. Brady. In this case the Court found that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel was a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial, which should be made applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause
Gideon v Wainwright of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Black called it an "obvious truth" that a fair trial for a poor defendant could not be guaranteed without the assistance of counsel. Those familiar with the American system of justice, commented Black, recognized that "lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries."
Mapp v Ohio Facts of the Case: Dolree Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials after an admittedly illegal police search of her home for a fugitive. She appealed her conviction on the basis of freedom of expression. Question: Were the confiscated materials protected by the First Amendment? (May evidence obtained through a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment be admitted in a state criminal proceeding?)
MAPP V OHIO Conclusion: The Court brushed aside the First Amendment issue and declared that "all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by [the Fourth Amendment], inadmissible in a state court." Mapp had been convicted on the basis of illegally obtained evidence. This was an historic -- and controversial -- decision. It placed the requirement of excluding illegally obtained evidence from court at all levels of the government. The decision launched the Court on a troubled course of determining how and when to apply the exclusionary rule.
FURMAN V GEORGIA Facts of the Case: Furman was burglarizing a private home when a family member discovered him. He attempted to flee, and in doing so tripped and fell. The gun that he was carrying went off and killed a resident of the home. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to death (Two other death penalty cases were decided along with Furman: Jackson v. Georgia and Branch v. Texas. These cases concern the constitutionality of the death sentence for rape and murder convictions, respectively). Question: Does the imposition and carrying out of the death penalty in these cases constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments? Conclusion:
FURMAN V GEORGIA Yes. The Court's one-page per curiam opinion held that the imposition of the death penalty in these cases constituted cruel and unusual punishment and violated the Constitution. In over two hundred pages of concurrence and dissents, the justices articulated their views on this controversial subject. Only Justices Brennan and Marshall believed the death penalty to be unconstitutional in all instances. Other concurrences focused on the arbitrary nature with which death sentences have been imposed, often indicating a racial bias against black defendants. The Court's decision forced states and the national legislature to rethink their statutes for capital offenses to assure that the death penalty would not be administered in a capricious or discriminatory manner.
EMINET DOMAIN eminent domainn(Law) Law the right of a state to confiscate private property for public use, payment usually being made to the owners in compensation
8 TH amendment The Eighth Amendment (Amendment VIII) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights which prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishments. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that this amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause applies to the states. The phrases employed originated in the English Bill of Rights of 1689United States Constitution United States Bill of Rights federal governmentexcessive bailcruel and unusual punishmentsU.S. Supreme Courtapplies to the statesEnglish Bill of Rights of 1689
19 th amendment ) to the United States Constitution prohibits each state and the federal government from denying any citizen the right to vote because of that citizen's sex. It was ratified on August 18, In response, the National Woman's Party urged citizens to vote against anti-suffrage Senators up for reelection in the 1918 midterm elections. Following those elections, most members of Congress were pro-suffrage. On May 21, 1919, the House of Representatives passed the amendment by a vote of 304 to 89 and the Senate followed suit on June 4,United States Constitution statefederal governmentright to voteNational Woman's Partymidterm elections Congress
26 amendment The Twenty-sixth Amendment (Amendment XXVI) to the United States Constitution standardized the voting age to 18. It was adopted in response to student activism against the Vietnam War and to partially overrule the Supreme Court's decision in Oregon v. Mitchell. It was adopted on July 1, 1971.United States Constitutionstudent activismVietnam WarSupreme Court'sOregon v. Mitchell
14 th amendment Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which held that blacks could not be citizens of the United StatesCitizenship ClauseDred Scott v. Sandford 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.
5 th amendment due process No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
15 th amendment Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
23 rd amendment Electors for President and Vice President. The amendment was proposed by Congress on June 17, 1960, and ratified by the states on March 29, The first Presidential election in which it was in effect was the presidential election of 1964.ElectorsPresidentVice Presidentpresidential election of 1964 Prior to the passage of the amendment, residents of Washington, D.C. were unable to vote for President or Vice President as the District is not a U.S. state. They are still unable to send voting Representatives or Senators to Congress.U.S. stateRepresentativesSenators
24 th amendment The Twenty-fourth Amendment (Amendment XXIV) prohibits both Congress and the states from conditioning the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other types of tax. The amendment was proposed by Congress to the states on August 27, 1962, and was ratified by the states on January 23, 196federalpoll taxratified
24 th amendment Poll taxes appeared in southern states after Reconstruction as a measure to prevent African Americans from voting, and had been held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States in the 1937 decision Breedlove v. Suttles. At the time of this amendment's passage, five states still retained a poll tax: Virginia, Alabama, Texas, Arkansas, and Mississippi. The amendment made the poll tax clearly unconstitutionalsouthern states ReconstructionSupreme Court of the United StatesBreedlove v. Suttles VirginiaAlabamaTexasArkansas Mississippi