Presentation Plus! United States Government: Democracy in Action
Copyright © by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Send all inquiries to:
GLENCOE DIVISION
Glencoe/McGraw-Hill
8787 Orion Place
Columbus, Ohio 43240
Making It Relevant 14
National Citizenship (cont.)
• The Founders assumed that the states
would decide who was or was not a citizen,
and their citizens were also citizens of the
United States. 
• The exceptions were African Americans
and immigrants who became United States
citizens through naturalization, the legal
process by which a person is granted the
rights and privileges of a citizen.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the information.
Dred Scott v. Sandford
• The basis of state citizenship was at
stake in the controversial Dred Scott v.
Sandford case in 1857. 
• Dred Scott was an enslaved African
American in Missouri, a slaveholding
state. 
• Scott had also lived with his slaveholder
in Illinois–a free state–and the Wisconsin
territory, where the Northwest Ordinance
forbade slavery.
Click the blue hyperlink to explore the Supreme Court case.
Dred Scott v. Sandford (cont.)
• Scott sued his slaveholder’s widow for his
freedom, claiming that his earlier residence
in a free state and a free territory made him
free. 
• The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice
Roger Taney, ruled that Scott could not
bring a legal suit in a federal court because
African Americans, whether enslaved or
free, were not United States citizens at the
time the Constitution was adopted. 
• Therefore, they could not claim citizenship.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the information.
The Fourteenth Amendment
• The Dred Scott decision caused great
outrage and protest in the North and added
to the tensions that led to the Civil War. 
• In 1868, three years after the end of the
war, the Fourteenth Amendment to the
Constitution overruled the Dred Scott
decision. 
• The Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed
that people of all races born in the United
States and subject to its government are
citizens, making state citizenship an
automatic result of national citizenship.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the information.
Citizenship by Birth
• The Fourteenth Amendment set forth two
of the three basic sources of United States
citizenship–birth on American soil and
naturalization. 
• The third source of citizenship is being
born to a parent who is a United States
citizen.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the information.
Citizenship by the “Law of the Soil”
• Like most other nations, the United States
follows the principle of jus soli, a Latin
phrase that means “law of the soil.” 
• Jus soli, in effect, grants citizenship to
nearly all people born in the United States
or in American territories. 
• Not everyone born in the United States is
automatically a citizen.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the information.
Citizenship by the “Law of the Soil”
• Exceptions to jus soli include people (cont.)
born in the United States who are not
subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States government, such as the children
of foreign diplomats. 
• Children born in this country to immigrant
parents or to foreign parents merely
passing through the country, however, are
citizens of the United States.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the information.
Citizenship by Birth to an
American Parent
• Another method of automatic citizenship is
birth to an American parent or parents. 
• This principle is called jus sanguinis,
which means the “law of blood.” 
• If an individual is born in a foreign country
and both parents are United States
citizens, the child is a citizen, provided one
of the parents has been a legal resident of
the United States or its possessions at
some point in his or her life.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the information.
Citizenship by Naturalization
• All immigrants who wish to become
American citizens must go through
naturalization. 
• At the end of the naturalization process,
they will have almost all the rights and
privileges of a native-born citizen. 
• The major exception is that a naturalized
citizen is not eligible to serve as president
or vice president of the United States.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the information.
Qualifications for Citizenship
• Immigrants who want to become citizens
must meet five requirements: 
– Applicants must have entered the United
States legally. 
– They must be of good moral character. 
– They must declare their support of the
principles of American government. 
– They must prove they can read, write, and
speak English. 
– They must show some basic knowledge of
American history and government.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the information.
Qualifications for Citizenship (cont.)
• Draft evaders, military deserters,
polygamists, anarchists, Communists, or
followers of any other totalitarian system
will be denied citizenship.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the information.
Losing Citizenship
• Only the federal government can both
grant citizenship and take it away. 
• Americans can lose their citizenship in any
of three ways: through expatriation, by
being convicted of certain crimes, or
through denaturalization.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the information.
Expatriation
• The simplest way to lose citizenship is
through expatriation, or giving up one’s
citizenship by leaving one’s native country
to live in a foreign country. 
• Expatriation may be voluntary or
involuntary.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the information.
Punishment for a Crime
• A person may lose citizenship when
convicted of certain federal crimes that
involve extreme disloyalty. 
• These crimes include treason, participation
in a rebellion, and attempts to overthrow
the government through violent means.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the information.
Denaturalization
• The loss of citizenship through fraud or
deception during the naturalization
process, or by joining a Communist or
totalitarian organization less than five years
after becoming a citizen, is called
denaturalization.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the information.
What are the requirements for citizenship
in the United States?
To be a United States citizen, one must have been
born on American soil, naturalized, or born to a
parent who is a United States citizen.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the answer.
What are the main responsibilities of
American citizens?
Citizens are responsible for being informed about
basic legal rights and the laws of the country.
They are also responsible for participating in
government, especially through voting.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the answer.
End of Section 2
Click the mouse button to return to the Contents slide.
Introduction
• In a democracy the duty of a citizen is to
speak out against injustice–even by an
elected authority. 
• Balancing the rights of the individual and
the interests of society is not easy. 
• Justice in a democracy means protecting
the innocent from government police power
as well as punishing the guilty.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the information.
Introduction (cont.)
• To deal with these challenges, the
Founders built into the Constitution and the
Bill of Rights a system of justice designed
to guard the rights of the accused as well
as the rights of society. 
• Laws were to be strictly interpreted, trial
procedures fair and impartial, and
punishments reasonable.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the information.
Searches and Seizures
• The police need evidence to accuse people
of committing crimes, but getting evidence
often requires searching people or their
homes, cars, or offices. 
• To protect the innocent, the Fourth
Amendment guarantees “the right of
people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures.”
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the information.
Searches and Seizures (cont.)
• Today the police must state under oath
that they have probable cause to suspect
someone of committing a crime to justify
a search. 
• Before 1980, 23 states had search laws
that permitted police to enter a home
without a warrant if they had probable
cause to believe that the occupant had
committed a felony, or major crime.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the information.
The Exclusionary Rule
• In Weeks v. United States (1914) the
Court established the exclusionary rule–
any illegally obtained evidence cannot be
used in a federal court. 
• The important case of Mapp v. Ohio
(1961) extended the protection to state
courts.
Click a blue hyperlink to explore the Supreme Court case.
Fourth Amendment in High Schools
• Fourth Amendment protections may be
limited inside high schools. 
• In the case of New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985)
the Supreme Court ruled that school
officials do not need warrants or probable
cause to search students or their property.

• The New Jersey case arose when an
assistant principal searched the purse of a
student he suspected had been smoking
tobacco in a restroom.
Click the blue hyperlink to explore the Supreme Court case.
Fourth Amendment in High Schools
(cont.)
• The search turned up not only
cigarettes but marijuana, and the
student was suspended from school and
prosecuted by juvenile authorities. 
• In Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton
(1995) the Court upheld mandatory
suspicionless drug tests for all students
participating in interscholastic athletics.
Click the blue hyperlink to explore the Supreme Court case.
Guarantee of Counsel
• The Sixth Amendment guarantees a
defendant the right “to have the assistance
of counsel for his defense.” 
• Generally the federal courts provided
counsel, or an attorney, in federal cases. 
• For years, however, people could be tried
in state courts without having a lawyer. 
• As a result, defendants who could pay
hired the best lawyers to defend them and
stood a better chance of acquittal.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the information.
Early Rulings on the Right to Counsel
• Ten years later, in Betts v. Brady
(1942), the Court held that states did
not have to provide a lawyer in cases
not involving the death penalty. 
(cont.)
• The Betts ruling stood until 1963 when
Clarence Earl Gideon, a penniless drifter
from Florida, won his landmark case.
Click the blue hyperlink to explore the Supreme Court case.
Gideon v. Wainwright
• Gideon was charged with breaking into a
pool hall with the intent to commit a crime–
a felony. 
• Gideon’s request for a court-appointed
attorney was denied. Gideon was
convicted and sentenced to a five-year
jail term. 
• While in jail, Gideon studied law books and
appealed his own case to the Supreme
Court (Gideon v. Wainwright) with a
handwritten petition.
Click the blue hyperlink to explore the Supreme Court case.
Gideon v. Wainwright (cont.)
• In 1963, in a unanimous verdict, the Court
overruled the Betts decision.
Click the blue hyperlink to explore the Supreme Court case.
Results of the Gideon Decision
• Gideon was released, retried with a lawyer
assisting him, and acquitted, as were
thousands of other prisoners who had been
convicted without counsel. 
• The Court has since extended the Gideon
decision by ruling that whenever a jail
sentence of 6 months or more is a possible
punishment, the accused has a right to a
lawyer at public expense from the time of
arrest through the appeals process.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the information.
Self-incrimination
• The Fifth Amendment says that no one
“shall be compelled in any criminal case to
be a witness against himself.” 
• The courts have interpreted this
amendment’s protection against selfincrimination to cover witnesses before
congressional committees and grand juries
as well as defendants in criminal cases. 
• This protection rests on a basic legal
principle: the government bears the burden
of proof.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the information.
Self-incrimination (cont.)
• The Fifth Amendment also protects
defendants against confessions extorted by
force or violence. 
• In the mid-1960s the Supreme Court,
under Chief Justice Earl Warren, handed
down two decisions that expanded
protection against self-incrimination and
forced confessions.
Click a blue hyperlink to explore the Supreme Court case.
Escobedo v. Illinois
• In 1960 Danny Escobedo was suspected of
killing his brother-in-law and was
questioned at length by the police. 
• Escobedo repeatedly asked to see his
lawyer, but his requests were denied, and
no one advised him of his constitutional
rights. 
• After a long night at police headquarters,
Escobedo made some incriminating
statements to the police, and he was later
convicted of murder.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the information.
Escobedo v. Illinois (cont.)
• In Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) the Court
reversed Escobedo’s conviction, ruling that
Escobedo’s Fifth Amendment right to
remain silent and his Sixth Amendment
right to an attorney had been violated. 
• A confession or other incriminating
statements an accused person makes
when he or she is denied access to a
lawyer may not be used in a trial.
Click the blue hyperlink to explore the Supreme Court case.
Miranda v. Arizona
• Two years later, the Court established strict
rules for protecting suspects during police
interrogations. 
• In March 1963, Ernesto Miranda had been
arrested and convicted for the rape and
kidnapping of an 18-year-old woman. 
• During questioning, Miranda was not told
that he could remain silent or have a
lawyer. Miranda confessed, signed a
statement admitting and describing the
crime, was convicted, and then appealed.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the information.
Miranda v. Arizona (cont.)
• In Miranda v. Arizona (1966) the Supreme
Court reversed the conviction, ruling that
the Fifth Amendment’s protection against
self-incrimination requires that suspects be
clearly informed of their rights before police
question them. 
• The Court set strict guidelines for police
questioning of suspects. These guidelines
are now known as the Miranda rules.
Click the blue hyperlink to explore the Supreme Court case.
Miranda v. Arizona (cont.)
• Since 1966, the Court has qualified the
Miranda and Escobedo rules. 
• In Oregon v. Elstad (1985) the Court held
that if suspects confess before they are
informed of their rights, the prosecution
may later use those confessions as
evidence.
Click the blue hyperlink to explore the Supreme Court case.
Miranda v. Arizona (cont.)
• In Braswell v. United States (1988) the
Court narrowed the protection from selfincrimination in certain cases involving
business crime. 
• In Arizona v. Fulminante (1991) the Court
ruled that coerced confessions are
sometimes permitted. 
• Upon appeal the Supreme Court ruled that
a forced confession did not void a
conviction if other independently obtained
evidence sustained a guilty verdict.
Click the blue hyperlinks to explore the Supreme Court cases.
Double Jeopardy
• Double jeopardy means a person may not
be tried twice for the same crime, thus
protecting people from continual
harassment. 
• In United States v. Halper (1989) the
Supreme Court extended this protection by
ruling that a civil penalty for an act could
not be imposed on a person criminally
convicted for that act.
Click the blue hyperlink to explore the Supreme Court case.
Double Jeopardy (cont.)
• However, the Court ruled in Hudson v.
United States (1997) that people who
have paid civil fines for regulatory
wrongdoing may also face criminal
charges. 
• In addition, a single act may involve more
than one crime. Stealing a car and then
selling it involves theft and the sale of
stolen goods. 
• A person may be tried separately for each
offense.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the information.
Double Jeopardy (cont.)
• In addition, a single act may involve more
than one crime. Stealing a car and then
selling it involves theft and the sale of
stolen goods. 
• A person may be tried separately for each
offense.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the information.
Cruel and Unusual Punishment
• The Eighth Amendment forbids “cruel and
unusual punishments,” the only
constitutional provision specifically limiting
penalties in criminal cases. 
• In Rhodes v. Chapman (1981) the Court
ruled that putting two prisoners in a cell
built for one is not cruel and unusual
punishment. 
• There is a controversy over how this
protection relates to the death penalty.
Click the blue hyperlink to explore the Supreme Court case.
Cruel and Unusual Punishment
• In Furman v. Georgia (1972) the (cont.)
Court ruled that capital punishment as then
administered was not constitutional. 
• The Court found the death penalty was
being imposed in apparently arbitrary ways
for a wide variety of crimes and mainly on
African Americans and poor people. 
• The Furman decision, however, stopped
short of flatly outlawing the death penalty.
Click the blue hyperlink to explore the Supreme Court case.
Cruel and Unusual Punishment
(cont.)
• North Carolina and some other
states made the death penalty mandatory
for certain crimes. In this way, they hoped
to eliminate arbitrary decisions. 
• In Woodson v. North Carolina (1976),
however, the Court ruled mandatory death
penalties unconstitutional.
• The Court held that such laws failed to take
into consideration the specifics of a crime
and any possible mitigating circumstances.
Click the blue hyperlink to explore the Supreme Court case.
Cruel and Unusual Punishment
• Georgia and several other states (cont.)
established new procedures for trials and
appeals designed to reduce arbitrary
decisions and racial prejudice in imposing
the death penalty. 
• In Gregg v. Georgia (1976) the Court
upheld the Georgia law. 
• In the Gregg case, the Court ruled that
under adequate guidelines the death
penalty does not constitute cruel and
unusual punishment.
Click the blue hyperlink to explore the Supreme Court case.
What constitutes unreasonable searches
and seizures by the police?
“Unreasonableness” is determined case by case,
but the Court has determined that, except in a lifethreatening emergency, the Fourth Amendment
forbids searches without a warrant.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the answer.
In the 1960s, how did the Supreme Court
rule on the rights to counsel and selfincrimination cases?
The Court expanded protections of the accused.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the answer.
End of Section 3
Click the mouse button to return to the Contents slide.
Meaning of Equal Protection
• The Fourteenth Amendment forbids any
state to “deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the
law.” 
• The Supreme Court has ruled that the Fifth
Amendment’s due process clause also
provides equal protection. 
• Generally the equal protection clause
means that state and local governments
cannot draw unreasonable distinctions
among different groups of people.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the information.
Meaning of Equal Protection (cont.)
• When a citizen challenges a law because it
violates the equal protection clause, the
issue is not whether a classification can be
made, but whether the classification is
reasonable. 
• Over the years the Supreme Court has
developed guidelines for considering when
a state law or action might violate the equal
protection clause.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the information.
The Rational Basis Test
• The rational basis test provides that the
Court will uphold a state law when the state
can show a good reason to justify the
classification. 
• This test asks if the classification is
“reasonably related” to an acceptable goal
of government.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the information.
Suspect Classifications
• When a classification is made on the basis
of race or national origin, it is a suspect
classification and “subject to strict judicial
scrutiny.” 
• When a law involves a suspect
classification, the state must show the
Court that there is “some compelling public
interest” to justify the law and its
classifications.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the information.
Fundamental Rights
• The third test the Court uses is that of
fundamental rights, or rights that go to
the heart of the American system or are
indispensable in a just system. 
• The Court gives a state law dealing with
fundamental rights especially close
scrutiny.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the information.
Proving Intent to Discriminate
• Laws that classify people unreasonably are
said to discriminate. 
• Discrimination exists when individuals are
treated unfairly solely because of their
race, gender, ethnic group, age, physical
disability, or religion. 
• Such discrimination is illegal, but it may be
difficult to prove.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the information.
The Struggle for Equal Rights
• The Fourteenth Amendment, guaranteeing
equal protection, was ratified in 1868,
shortly after the Civil War. 
• Yet for almost a century the courts upheld
discrimination against and segregation of
African Americans. 
• Racial discrimination is treating members
of a race differently simply because of race.

• Segregation is separation of people from
the larger social group.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the information.
The Struggle for Equal Rights (cont.)
• By the late 1800s, about half the states had
adopted Jim Crow laws, which required
racial segregation in such places as
schools, public transportation, and hotels.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the information.
Plessy v. Ferguson
• The Supreme Court justified Jim Crow laws
in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), stating that
the Fourteenth Amendment allowed
separate facilities for different races as long
as those facilities were equal. 
• For the next 50 years the separate but
equal doctrine was used to justify
segregation in the United States. 
• In the late 1930s and the 1940s the
Supreme Court began to chip away at the
doctrine in a series of decisions that have
had far-reaching implications.
Click the blue hyperlink to explore the Supreme Court case.
Brown v. Board of Education
of Topeka
• Linda Carol Brown, an eight-year-old
African American student, was denied
admission to an all-white school near her
home and was required to attend a distant
all-black school. 
• With the help of the National Association
for the Advancement of Colored People
(NAACP), Linda’s family sued the Topeka
Board of Education.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the information.
Brown v. Board of Education
of Topeka (cont.)
• The NAACP successfully argued that
segregated schools could never be equal.
Therefore, such schools were
unconstitutional. 
• In a unanimous decision in Brown v.
Board of Education of Topeka (1954),
the Court overruled the separate but equal
doctrine.
Click the blue hyperlink to explore the Supreme Court case.
Brown v. Board of Education
of Topeka (cont.)
• By early 1970, public schools were no
longer segregated by law. 
• The Brown decision established a
precedent for Court decisions striking
down segregation in public parks,
beaches, playgrounds, libraries, golf
courses, state and local prisons, and
transportation systems.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the information.
The Civil Rights Movement
• After the Brown decision, many African
Americans and whites worked together to
end segregation through the civil rights
movement. 
• Throughout the United States, but mostly in
the South, African Americans deliberately
and peacefully broke laws supporting racial
segregation.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the information.
The Civil Rights Movement (cont.)
• When arrested for breaking segregation
laws, they were almost always found guilty.
They could then appeal, challenging the
constitutionality of the laws. 
• The most important leader of the civil rights
movement was Dr. Martin Luther King,
Jr., who understood the importance of
using the courts to win equal rights and
sought to stir the nation’s conscience.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the information.
New Civil Rights Laws
• Influenced by the civil rights movement,
Congress began to pass civil rights laws. 
• The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other
laws sought to ensure voting rights and
equal job opportunities.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the information.
What is the constitutional meaning of
“equal protection”?
The government cannot make unreasonable
distinctions among groups of people.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the answer.
How has the Court applied the Fourteenth
Amendment’s equal protection clause to
the issue of discrimination?
At first, the Court continued to uphold Jim Crow
laws and allow “separate but equal” facilities.
Starting in the 1930s, however, the Court began to
reverse its stand.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the answer.
End of Section 4
Click the mouse button to return to the Contents slide.
Affirmative Action
• Affirmative action refers to government
policies that directly or indirectly award
jobs, government contracts, promotions,
admission to schools and training
programs, and other benefits to minorities
and women in order to make up for past
discrimination caused by society as a
whole.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the information.
Affirmative Action (cont.)
• Today the national government requires all
state and local governments, as well as
any institution receiving aid from or
contracting with the federal government, to
adopt an affirmative action program.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the information.
Regents of the University of
California v. Bakke
• The Supreme Court first ruled on
affirmative action in 1978. 
• Allan Bakke claimed to have been refused
admission to the University of California
medical school because he was white. 
• The medical school had set up a quota
system that reserved 16 places out of 100
each year for minorities. 
• Minority students with lower test scores
than Bakke’s were admitted to fill the
quota.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the information.
Regents of the University of
California v. Bakke (cont.)
• The Court ruled 5 to 4 in Regents of the
University of California v. Bakke to
uphold the basic idea of affirmative action
by stating that the university could consider
race along with other characteristics when
admitting students. 
• The Court, however, went on to explain
that a strict quota system based on race
was unconstitutional and in violation of the
1964 Civil Rights Act and ordered the
university to admit Bakke to its medical
school.
Click the blue hyperlink to explore the Supreme Court case.
Unclear Constitutional Status
• Since the Bakke decision, the Supreme
Court has struck down as many affirmative
action plans as it has upheld. 
• In the case of Johnson v. Transportation
Agency, Santa Clara County, California
(1987) the Court upheld a plan by the
transportation department to move women
into high-ranking positions. 
• Although a man scored two points higher
than a woman during a job interview, the
woman got the job because of affirmative
action.
Click the blue hyperlink to explore the Supreme Court case.
An Ongoing Debate
• Supporters of affirmative action argue that
African Americans, Hispanics, Native
Americans, and women have been so
handicapped by past discrimination that
they suffer from disadvantages not shared
by white males. 
• Supporters claim that simply stopping
discrimination is not enough; government
has the responsibility to actively promote
more equality for minorities.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the information.
An Ongoing Debate (cont.)
• Opponents of affirmative action claim that
any discrimination based on race or gender
is wrong even when the purpose is to
correct past injustices. 
• They argue that merit is the only basis for
making decisions on jobs, promotions, and
school admissions. 
• Some opponents have used the term
reverse discrimination to describe
situations where qualified individuals lose
out to individuals chosen because of their
race, ethnicity, or gender.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the information.
Discrimination Against Women
• Women finally won the right to vote with the
Nineteenth Amendment in 1920. 
• In recent decades new challenges to
discrimination against women have been
raised in such areas as employment,
housing, and credit policies.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the information.
The Supreme Court’s Position
• Because the Court treats classifications
based on race and national origin as
“suspect,” it has examined them closely. 
• Historically, however, the Supreme Court
had ruled that laws discriminating against
women did not violate the equal protection
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the information.
Reed v. Reed
• In Reed v. Reed (1971) the Court said a
state law that automatically preferred a
father over a mother as executor of a son’s
estate violated the equal protection clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Click the blue hyperlink to explore the Supreme Court case.
Reasonableness Standard
• The Supreme Court said any law that
classifies people on the basis of gender
“must be reasonable, not arbitrary, and
must rest on some ground of difference.” 
• Since 1971 the Supreme Court has held
that gender classifications are subject to
“intermediate” scrutiny.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the information.
Reasonableness Standard (cont.)
• In addition, in 1977 the Court said that
treating women differently from men (or
vice versa) is unconstitutional when based
on no more than “old notions” about
women and “the role-typing society has
long imposed on women.”
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the information.
Decisions Under Substantial
Interest Standard
• Since the Reed decision, courts have
allowed some distinctions based on gender,
while they have invalidated others. 
• All of the following standards result from
Court decisions that bar distinctions based
on gender: 
– States cannot set different ages at which men
and women become legal adults. 
– States cannot set different ages at which men
and women are allowed to purchase beer. 
– States cannot exclude women from juries.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the information.
Decisions Under Substantial
Interest Standard (cont.)
– Employers cannot require women to take a
pregnancy leave from work. 
– Girls cannot be kept off Little League baseball
teams. 
– Private clubs and community service groups
cannot exclude women from membership. 
– Employers must pay women monthly
retirement benefits equal to those paid to
men. 
– States cannot bar women from statesupported military colleges.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the information.
Decisions Under Substantial
Interest Standard (cont.)
• The following standards are based on
Court decisions that allow differences
based on gender: 
– All-boy and all-girl public schools are allowed
as long as enrollment is voluntary and quality
is equal. 
– A state can give widows a property tax
exemption not given to widowers. 
– A state may prohibit women from working in
all-male prisons. 
– Hospitals may bar fathers from the delivery
room.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the information.
Congressional Action
• Congress has passed many laws
protecting women from discrimination,
including the following: 
– Civil Rights Act of 1964 
– Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 
– Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974 
– Civil Rights and Women’s Equity in
Employment Act of 1991 
– Omnibus Education Act of 1972
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the information.
The Freedom of Information Act
• In 1966 Congress passed the Freedom of
Information Act requiring federal agencies
to provide citizens access to public records
on request. 
• Exemptions are permitted for national
defense materials, confidential personnel
and financial data, and law enforcement
files. 
• People can sue the government for
disclosure if they are denied access to
materials.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the information.
The Sunshine Act
• In the Sunshine Act of 1976, Congress
required that many government meetings
and hearings be opened to the public. 
• The law applies to about 50 federal
agencies, boards, and commissions.
Meetings these agencies hold must be
open to the public, and at least one week’s
advance notice must be given.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the information.
The Sunshine Act (cont.)
• Some closed meetings are allowed, but
then a transcript, or summary record, of
the meeting must be made. 
• People may sue to force public disclosure
of the proceedings of a meeting, if
necessary.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the information.
Citizens’ Right to Privacy
• The Internal Revenue Service, the
Census Bureau, state bureaus, and
private credit bureaus all collect data
about people. 
• Computers make storing and sharing such
information easy and routine.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the information.
What are the issues involved when the
Supreme Court deals with affirmative
action cases?
The issues are remedying past discrimination and
ensuring that jobs go to minorities.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the answer.
How does the reasonableness standard
apply in cases of sex discrimination?
Laws that classify by gender must be reasonable
and based on “important governmental objectives.”
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the answer.
End of Section 5
Click the mouse button to return to the Contents slide.
How did the Constitution address the
issue of citizenship?
The Constitution spoke of citizenship only as
a qualification for holding office in the federal
government.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the answer.
What is the significance of the Dred
Scott case?
The Dred Scott case forced the federal
government to address state citizenship, the
issue of slavery, and legal jurisdiction between
states. The Court ruled that African Americans
could not claim citizenship because they were
not citizens at the time the Constitution was
adopted. The Court also stated that Congress
could not forbid slavery in the United States.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the answer.
What is the difference between an
immigrant and an alien?
An immigrant enters the country intending to
live there permanently and become a citizen,
whereas an alien is a temporary resident and
may not intend to become a citizen of the
country.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the answer.
What are the three basic sources of
United States citizenship?
1. jus soli
2. jus sanguinis
3. naturalization
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the answer.
What items must be included in a legal
search warrant?
The warrant must describe the place to be
searched and the person or things to be seized.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the answer.
What is the key protection described
in the Fifth Amendment?
The Fifth Amendment states that no one
“shall be compelled in any criminal case to
be a witness against himself.” This protects
against self-incrimination.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the answer.
What are the three Miranda rules?
Prior to any questioning, the person must be
warned that he or she has the right to remain
silent, that any statement he or she makes may
be used as evidence against him or her in court,
and that he or she has the right to the presence
of an attorney.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the answer.
How did the Escobedo and Miranda
cases extend protection against selfincrimination and forced confessions?
These cases overturned convictions in which
confessions were made by the accused before
that person had access to an attorney and
before the accused was told that he or she had
the right to remain silent.
Click the mouse button or press the Space Bar to display the answer.
End of Chapter Assessment
Click the mouse button to return to the Contents slide.
Section Focus Transparency 14-1 (1 of 2)
1. for 1964, Great
Britain, Germany,
Italy; for 1994,
Poland, the former
Soviet Union
2. for 1964, none; for
1994, China,
Philippines, Vietnam,
India
3. In 1964 Canada
supplied more
immigrants than any
other country. In 1994
fewer than 3 percent
of immigrants came
from Canada.
Section Focus Transparency 14-1 (2 of 2)
Section Focus Transparency 14-2 (1 of 2)
1. by the “law of the
soil”
2. Answers will vary but
may include the idea
that this knowledge
will enable them to
become responsible
citizens.
3. Answers will vary but
should demonstrate
logic and reason.
Section Focus Transparency 14-2 (2 of 2)
Section Focus Transparency 14-3 (1 of 2)
1. the right to remain
silent, the right to
talk to a lawyer and
have a lawyer present
during questioning
2. yes, at any time
3. A lawyer will be
appointed by the
court to represent the
suspect.
Section Focus Transparency 14-3 (2 of 2)
Section Focus Transparency 14-4 (1 of 2)
1. admission to schools
attended by white
children
2. The Court ruled that
separate educational
facilities are
inherently unequal.
3. Answer will vary but
should demonstrate
an understanding of
the development of
the fight for civil
rights in the 1950s.
Section Focus Transparency 14-4 (2 of 2)
Section Focus Transparency 14-5 (1 of 2)
1. white women;
Hispanic women
2. African American
men
3. Hispanic women;
Hispanic women
Section Focus Transparency 14-5 (2 of 2)
Weeks v. United States (1914)
This case created the exclusionary rule as the remedy
for an unconstitutional search or seizure. Under the
exclusionary rule, evidence seized as a result of an
unconstitutional search or seizure cannot be used as
evidence of guilt at a later criminal trial. When the
Supreme Court decided this case in 1914, it applied the
rule only against federal officers because, at that time,
the Bill of Rights–including the Fourth Amendment–was
thought to apply only to the federal government.
Click the Section Start button to return to the lecture notes.
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
This case extended the exclusionary rule announced in
Weeks v. United States to state and local lawenforcement officers. After this case, evidence seized in
violation of the Fourth Amendment could not be used by
the prosecution as evidence of a defendant’s guilt in any
court–federal, state, or local.
Click the Section Start button to return to the lecture notes.
New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985)
This case held that public school officials can search a
student’s property (a purse) for evidence of wrongdoing
(violating the school’s no-smoking policy) without having
probable cause to believe that the student did anything
wrong. It is enough, said the Supreme Court, if school
officials have reason to believe that the student violated a
rule and that the search will confirm or dispel that
suspicion. The Court agreed, however, that the Fourth
Amendment protects public school students from
unreasonable searches and seizures but not to the
degree that adults are protected.
Click the Section Start button to return to the lecture notes.
Betts v. Brady (1942)
This case refused to extend the holding of Powell v.
Alabama to noncapital, i.e., nondeath penalty, cases. In
this case, the Supreme Court held that poor defendants
in noncapital cases are not entitled to an attorney at
government expense.
Click the Section Start button to return to the lecture notes.
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
This case overruled Betts v. Brady and held for the first
time that poor defendants in criminal cases have the right
to a state-paid attorney under the Sixth Amendment. The
rule announced in this case has been refined to apply
whenever the defendant, if convicted, can be sentenced
to more than six months in jail or prison.
Click the Section Start button to return to the lecture notes.
Betts v. Brady (1942)
This case refused to extend the holding of Powell v.
Alabama to noncapital, i.e., non-death penalty, cases. In
this case, the Supreme Court held that poor defendants
in noncapital cases are not entitled to an attorney at
government expense.
Click the Section Start button to return to the lecture notes.
Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)
This case reversed the murder conviction of Danny
Escobedo, who gave damaging statements to police
during questioning. Throughout the questioning,
Escobedo repeatedly but unsuccessfully asked to see his
attorney. In holding that Escobedo’s Sixth Amendment
right to counsel had been violated, the Court explained
that an attorney could have assisted Escobedo in
invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege against selfincrimination. In other words, an attorney could have told
Escobedo when to keep quiet.
Click the Section Start button to return to the lecture notes.
Furman v. Georgia (1972)
This case invalidated imposition of the death penalty
under state laws then in place. The Supreme Court
explained that existing death penalty statutes did not give
juries enough guidance in deciding whether or not to
impose the death penalty; the result was that the death
penalty in many cases was imposed arbitrarily, i.e.,
without a reasonable basis in the facts and
circumstances of the offender or the crime.
Click the Section Start button to return to the lecture notes.
Gregg v. Georgia (1976)
This case specifically held that the death penalty is not
necessarily unconstitutional. The Supreme Court went
on to uphold a newly enacted Georgia death penalty
statute explaining that the law provided sufficient
safeguards to ensure that the penalty was imposed only
as a rational response to the facts of the crime and the
circumstances of the offender.
Click the Section Start button to return to the lecture notes.
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
This case upheld the separate-but-equal doctrine used
by Southern states to perpetuate segregation after the
Civil War officially ended de jure, or law-mandated,
segregation. At issue in the case was a Louisiana law
requiring passenger trains to have “equal but separated
accommodations for the white and colored races.” The
Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment’s
equal protection clause required only equal public
facilities for the two races, not equal access to the same
facilities. This case was overruled by Brown v. Board of
Education (1954).
Click the Section Start button to return to the lecture notes.
Brown v. Board of Education
of Topeka (1954)
This case overruled Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) and
abandoned the separate-but-equal doctrine in the context
of public schools. In deciding this case, the Supreme
Court rejected the idea that truly equivalent but separate
schools for African American and white students would be
constitutional. The Court explained that the Fourteenth
Amendment’s command that all persons be accorded the
equal protection of the law is not satisfied simply by
ensuring that African American and white schools “have
been equalized, or are being equalized, with respect to
buildings, curricula, qualifications and salaries, and other
tangible factors.”
(Continued)
Click the Section Start button to return to the lecture notes.
Brown v. Board of Education
of Topeka (cont.)
The Court then held that racial segregation in public
schools violates the equal protection clause because
it is inherently unequal. In other words, nothing can
make racially segregated public schools equal under
the Constitution because the very fact of separation
marks the separated race as inferior. In practical
terms, the Court’s holding in this case has been
extended beyond public education to virtually all
public accommodations and activities.
Click the Section Start button to return to the lecture notes.
Brown v. Board of Education
of Topeka (1954)
This case overruled Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) and
abandoned the separate-but-equal doctrine in the context
of public schools. In deciding this case, the Supreme
Court rejected the idea that truly equivalent but separate
schools for African American and white students would be
constitutional. The Court explained that the Fourteenth
Amendment’s command that all persons be accorded the
equal protection of the law is not satisfied simply by
ensuring that African American and white schools “have
been equalized, or are being equalized, with respect to
buildings, curricula, qualifications and salaries, and other
tangible factors.”
(Continued)
Click the Section Start button to return to the lecture notes.
Brown v. Board of Education
of Topeka (cont.)
The Court then held that racial segregation in public
schools violates the equal protection clause because
it is inherently unequal. In other words, nothing can
make racially segregated public schools equal under
the Constitution because the very fact of separation
marks the separated race as inferior. In practical
terms, the Court’s holding in this case has been
extended beyond public education to virtually all
public accommodations and activities.
Click the Section Start button to return to the lecture notes.
Regents of the University of
California v. Bakke (1978)
This case was the first Supreme Court decision to suggest
that an affirmative action program could be justified on the
basis of diversity. The Supreme Court explained that
racial quotas were not permissible under the equal
protection clause, but that the diversity rationale was a
legitimate interest that would allow a state medical school
to consider an applicant’s race in evaluating his or her
application for admission. (Several more recent Supreme
Court cases suggest that the diversity rationale is no
longer enough to defend an affirmative action program.)
Click the Section Start button to return to the lecture notes.
Reed v. Reed (1971)
This case was the first Supreme Court case to hold that
discrimination on the basis of sex violates the equal
protection clause. At issue in the case was a state law
that preferred males to females as the administrators of
estates, even though both might be equally qualified to
serve as administrators. The Court held that such a
mandatory preference serves no purpose but to
discriminate–a basic violation of the equal protection
clause.
Click the Section Start button to return to the lecture notes.
Roe v. Wade (1973)
This case held that females have a constitutional right
under various provisions of the Constitution–most
notably, the due process clause–to decide whether or not
to terminate a pregnancy. The Supreme Court’s decision
in this case was the most significant in a long line of
decisions over a period of 50 years that recognized a
constitutional right of privacy, even though the word
privacy is not found in the Constitution.
Click the Section Start button to return to the lecture notes.
End of Custom Shows
WARNING! Do Not Remove
This slide is intentionally blank and is set to auto-advance to end custom
shows and return to the main presentation.
End of the Slide Show
Click the mouse button to return to the Contents slide.