Civil Liberties
Sticking it to the Man
Civil Liberties
► PERSONAL
rights and
freedoms that can not
be abridged either by
law, constitution, or
judicial interpretation.
 “Unalienable Rights”
Birth of the Bill of Rights
► It
was apparent that
without an article
directly speaking to
the Bill of Rights the
Constitution would not
be ratified.
 Federalists vs. AntiFederalists
► Federalist
84- Bill of
Rights “Unnecessary and
Dangerous”
► Anti-Federalists win and
Bill of Rights 1791
Dual Citizenship
►Bill
of Rights was designed to limit the
powers of the National Government.
 Barron vs. Baltimore 1833(Supreme Court
Supported the Idea)
►Courts
ruled that the Bill of Rights only
applied to the national government and not
the state.
 “Each state established a constitution for itself”
Incorporation
► 14th
Amendment not
only defined
citizenship but placed
Restrictions on the
State Government
 “NO STATE SHALL…”
INCORPORATION
► USING
THE 14th AMENDMENT TO
APPLY THE BILL OF RIGHTS TO THE
STATES ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS
 Tool used in incorporation is the 14th
AMENDMENT
Incorporation
► The
Supreme Court waited until 1925 to
interpret the 14th Amendment to protect
individuals from State Action
 Gitlow vs. New York
►Gitlow
was Advocating a Forcible overthrow of the
New York Government
►Gitlow was arrested for his inflammatory remarks
►The Court Case went to the Supreme Court and the
Court ruled States no longer had the power to
Abridge free speech due to the 14th Amendment
Near v. Minnesota
► Near
wrote and
published an AntiSemitic and AntiCatholic newspaper
► The State of Minnesota
refused to let it be sold
► INCOROPORATED
FREEDOM OF PRESS
First Amendment Guarantees
► Freedom
of Religion
 The Establishment
Clause
►Prohibits
the
government from
establishing a
national religion
►Thomas Jefferson
Called it “Wall of
Separation”
Establishment Clause
► School
Prayer
 Engel vs. Vitale
►Struck
down Non-Denominational Prayer
 Abbington School District vs. Schempp
►Struck
down Public School Prayer
Establishment Clause
► How
can the Courts tell what is religious in
schools or what is secular?
 Lemon vs. Kurtzman
 Lemon Test
►Have
a Secular Purpose
►Have a primary effect that neither advances or
prohibits religion
►Not foster excessive government entanglement with
Religion
Free Exercise Clause
► “Congress
shall make no law… prohibiting
the free exercise”
 However this clause is also open to interpretation. Several
Religious Practices have been ruled as unconstitutional including
 Reynolds vs. United States
►Polygamy
is illegal and thus not covered under the
Free Exercise Clause
 Oregon vs. Smith
►Banned
illegal Drug use in Religious ceremonies.
Free exercise clause does not cover illegal acts
Freedom of Speech
► World
War 1
 Schenck vs. U.S.
► “Clear
and Present Danger”
► Chaplinsky
vs. New Hampshire
 Fighting Words Doctrine
► personally
abusive epithets which, when addressed to the
ordinary citizen, are, as a matter of common knowledge,
inherently likely to provoke violent reactions."
Freedom of Press
► Prior
Restraint- Censorship
 NYT vs. United States
►“Pentagon
Papers”
►Prior Restraint is unconstitutional unless it presents a
clear and present danger to our nation
 Miller vs. California
►Obscenity
►Community
Standards Test
 Patently offensive sexual conduct lacking serious literary
artistic, political, or Scientific value
 Miller said they were local and Not national
► “I
KNOW IT WHEN I SEE IT”
Freedom of Assembly
► Dejonge
vs. Oregon- Incorporated freedom of
Assembly
► National
Socialist Party of America vs. Skokie
 Skokie Case- It is constitutional for the Nazis to march
in a Jewish Neighborhood
st
1
►
Amendment at School
“Students do not shed their constitutional rights when they
enter the schoolhouse door."
 Tinker vs. Des Moines
 Alright to wear a black armband to protest the Vietnam war
 MORSE et al. v. FREDERICK
 Upheld the suspension of the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” culprit
 Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier
►Administration
Prior Restraint
has
nd
2
►
and
rd
3
Amendments
Have not been
incorporated
 Selective incorporation
allows for fundamental
rights to be granted to
all citizens. The right to
bear arms or quarter
soldiers are not
fundamental rights
Rights of the Accused
th
4
► Unreasonable
Amendment
Search and Seizure
 Mapp v. Ohio
►Overturned
Wolf v. Colorado
►Incorporated the Exclusionary Rule
 Anything obtained in an illegal search and seizure may not
be used at a trial
 Katz v. United States
►Wiretapping
amendment
without a warrant violates the 4th
th
5
Amendment
► Indictment
by a grand jury, self
incrimination, double jeopardy, and eminent
domain
 Miranda vs. Arizona
►Miranda
Rights
 Kelo vs. City of New London
►The
government can take public property to give to
private companies
th
6
Amendment
► Right
to a Speedy and public trial, Right to a
lawyer
 Gideon vs. Wainwright
►Right
to an attorney during the trial
 Escobedo vs. Illinois
►Right
to have a lawyer present during police
interrogation
th
8
► Cruel
Amendment
and Unusual Punishment
 Gregg v. Georgia
►Death
Penalty is NOT cruel and unusual punishment
Other Freedoms and Limitations
► First
Amendment
 Freedom of Expression
►Texas
Flag
► First
v. Johnson…Its constitutional to burn a U.S.
Amendment
 Prohibitions on Speech/Press
►Libel-
Knowingly defaming a person’s character with
malicious intent. (PRESS)
 NY Times v. Sullivan
►Slander-
Knowingly defaming a person’s character
with malicious intent. (Speech)
Right to Privacy?
► No
where in the Constitution does it state
you or I have the right to privacy.
 However, the courts have used several
amendments to “interpret” a right to privacy
 Griswold vs. Connecticut
►Law
was passed in Connecticut banning the
dissemination of information about the sale of
Contraceptives
 Courts ruled the law was Unconstitutional based on
Amendments 1,3,4,9,and 14
 Establishes the RIGHT TO PRIVACY
Roe v. Wade
► Argued
that the decision to carry a
pregnancy to term was a Women’s
fundamental right
 In Roe v. Wade, the court found it was a
fundamental right of a woman to have an
abortion.
►Used
right to privacy and primarily the 9th
amendment to reach their conclusion
►Ever
since Conservative justices have been trying to
overturn Roe vs. Wade
The Right to Die
► Cruzan
v. Missouri Dept of Health (1990)
 Living will is legitimate
 Only if the patients family is able to provide
“ Clear and convincing evidence” like a living
will
 9th Amendment