2. Civil Liberties Limits of the Bill of Rights Extension to the states of most of the Bill of Rights 1st amendment freedoms

3. Limits on the Bill of Rights Applies only to govt restrictions Originally applied to federal govt only –Barron v Baltimore (1833) Problem: most law enforcement occurs at the state level

4. Extension of the Bill of Rights to the states Use of the 14th amendment “substantive due process” to overturn states’ social legislation at end of 19th century In 1920-30s, using it to guarantee 1st amend rights--Near v Minnesota (1931).

6. Extension of the Bill of Rights cont’d Palko v Connecticut (1937) and “selective incorporation” of 14th amend due process Gradual incorporation of almost entire Bill of Rights

7. Ist amendment--Religion-- Establishment Clause Jefferson’s “wall between Church and State” Schools--Lemon v Kurtzman (1973) -Secular purpose -Effect neither advancing nor inhibiting religion -No excessive entanglement with religion Since 80’s, Ct. lowering the wall: -2001 Virginia’s moment of silence, -2002 Cleveland’s vouchers, -also funding for “faith-based charities”

8. Ist amendment--Religion-- Free Exercise Clause Flag Salute cases (1940, 1943) state should not force patriotic acts on religiously dissenting minorities

9. Ist amendment--Free Speech-- political speech Alien and Sedition Acts (1798) Schenk v US (1919) clear and present danger test--largely dormant for 50 years, then refined as “direct incitement” Texas v Johnson (1989) flag burning is protected symbolic speech

10. johnson arrested

11. free speech--location Ct. says US constitution grants no free speech rights on private property, such as malls state constitutions may grant such rights (California and 6 others)

12. Ist amendment--Free Speech-- libel and slander NY Times Co. v Sullivan (1964) -“actual malice” Hustler Magazine v Falwell (1988) -public figures need thick skin

13. Ist Amend--Free Speech--obscenity Different standards for different media Under the Warren Ct.: -no protection for “obscenity” -national standards -“utterly without” redeeming value Miller v California (1973) -local community standards -an average person find the material “patently offensive” -“dominant theme of the material taken as a whole” but today: porn allowed for “consenting adults,” little to be done anyhow